Evaluating Governance: Effectiveness and Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood

Abstract

While it is widely acknowledged that effectiveness and legitimacy both play an important role in the evaluation of governance, the causal relationship between these two concepts is far from clear. While some theorists hold that there is an inevitable trade-off between the demands of effectiveness and legitimacy, others argue that both qualities are mutually reinforcing. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the relationship between these two standards under conditions of limited statehood. The paper is organized into three sections: In the first section I will define the central concepts of effectiveness and legitimacy. While the main features of the concept of effectiveness are straightforward, the concept of legitimacy is notoriously opaque. In the second section, I will argue that the causal relationship between effectiveness and legitimacy is far more complex than usually assumed. Most scholars describe the connection as a virtuous circle: The more effective a political order or institution is, the more legitimate it is, and the more legitimate it is, the more effective it becomes. While the causal pathway from legitimacy to effectiveness is well understood, this does not hold true for the reverse connection from effectiveness to legitimacy. I will therefore identify four necessary conditions which have to be met in order to make the virtuous circle argument compelling.These are the conditions of (1.) "instrumental legitimacy belief," (2.) "shared social goals," (3.) "transparency," and (4.) "generalization". Finally, I will argue that these conditions are serious challenges to effective and legitimate governance in areas of limited statehood. ZusammenfassungIn der Governance-Literatur ist es nahezu unumstritten, dass der Erfolg oder Misserfolg eines Governance-Regimes an seiner Effektivität und Legitimität gemessen werden kann.

Rebuilding institutional legitimacy in post-conflict societies: a case study of Nepal

“…Instrumental sources of legitimacy are utilised largely in the political science and statebuilding literature (e.g. see Cook, Hardin, & Levi, 2005;Gilley, 2009;Levi, 1988;Rothstein, 2005;Sarsfield & Echegaray, 2006;Schmelzle, 2012;Scharpf, 1999;Van De Walle & Scott, 2009), whereas procedural sources of legitimacy are emphasised in both statebuilding and social psychology (e.g. see Factor et al, 2013;Rothstein, 2009;Sacks, 2011;Seligson, 2002;Sunshine & Tyler, 2003a, 2003bTyler & Blader, 2000;Tyler, 2006aTyler, , 2006bTyler & Huo, 2002).…”

“…This chapter now turns to the sources of post-conflict legitimacy, beginning with instrumental theories and moving on to procedural theories. Instrumental theories of legitimacy hold that the capacity to govern effectively is sufficient for citizens to bestow legitimacy on a state (Schmelzle, 2012). Procedural theories of legitimacy regard the fairness of procedural mechanisms as one of the main ways in which institutional legitimacy is attained and sustained (e.g., Beetham, 1991;Rothstein, 2009).…”

“…The building of institutional legitimacy via instrumental means is a common approach to generating post-conflict legitimacy (e.g., Cook, Hardin, & Levi, 2005;Gilley 2009;Levi, 1988;Rothstein, 2005;Sarsfield & Echegaray, 2006;Scharpf, 1999;Schmelzle, 2012;Van De Walle & Scott, 2009). Broadly, the instrumental approach takes the conceptual position that the possession and distribution of resources is a key task of those who hold power (Whalan, 2013), and legitimacy will be granted to those who exercise this power effectively.…”

“…Government effectiveness relates to how well the government achieves the goals it was designed to accomplish (Schmelzle, 2012). For example, the provision of basic services is seen as an essential element of post-conflict effectiveness: "it is clear that people in post-conflict spaces need water, food and shelter, for example, long before they need and benefit from the rule of law, political rights and associated frameworks" (Roberts, 2011, p.14).…”

“…1 The OECD (2011) proposes that the mechanism linking government performance and legitimacy is the "material expression of reciprocal state-society relations" (p.57). This refers to the idea of the social contract, in that when individuals perceive the competent delivery of public services, they judge the producer of those goods as legitimate (Baird, 2010;Barkey, 1994;Hechter, 2000;Levi & Sacks, 2009;Schmelzle, 2012). In other words government services "make the state tangible" (Van De Walle & Scott, 2009, p.10) with local service provision providing an opportunity for 'sightings' of the state (Corbridge, 2005), which enhances people's expectations of their rights and obligations with regards to authorities (Paddison, 1983).…”