Going Beyond the “Normative vs. Social” Standard: A Preliminary Framework for Evaluating the Legitimacy of International Institutions

Abstract

International institutions are facing a new paradox: there is an urgent need for them, but they are increasingly being resisted, and one of the main grounds for supporting and resisting international institutions is their legitimacy. Every organization claims legitimacy for itself and denies the legitimacy of others. However, a framework for evaluating legitimacy is lacking. This paper defines the concept of legitimacy for international institutions and suggests that it derives from four sources (normative values, comparative benefits, national recognition, and confirmation by other international institutions). Based on their relevancy and their capacity for operationalization in this evaluation, indicators for input, operation, and output legitimacy have been selected to methodically evaluate the legitimacy of international institutions.

Capturing sources of health system legitimacy in fragmented conflict zones under different governance models. A case study of northwest Syria

“…We followed the methodology developed by Bollen and Lennox (1991) to derive speci c 'substitutive and constitutive indicators' for each of the four sources [39]. Constitutive indicators are direct indicators that constitute the essence of what is being measured [39], [40], [41], and are used to measure people's perception of procedure or input legitimacy sources. While substitutive indicators are used as substitutes for direct measurement when constitutive indicators are hard to quantify or observe.…”

“…While substitutive indicators are used as substitutes for direct measurement when constitutive indicators are hard to quantify or observe. They do not directly measure the concept but are close enough to provide a useful proxy to measure people's perception of performance or output legitimacy sources [39], [40], [41].…”