How to Produce and Measure Throughput Legitimacy? Lessons from a Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

After two decades of research on throughput legitimacy, making sense of the stock of accumulated knowledge remains a challenge. How can relevant publications on throughput legitimacy be collected and analysed? How can the level of throughput legitimacy be measured? Which policy activities contribute to the production of throughput legitimacy? To answer these questions, we designed and implemented an original systematic literature review. We find that the measurement of the level of throughput legitimacy introduces a number of problems that call for the systematic and rigorous use of a more complete set of precise, specific indicators to advance the theory of throughput legitimacy. A number of participatory decision-making activities contribute to the production of throughput legitimacy. Engaging in these activities is not without risk, as variations in throughput legitimacy affect input and output legitimacy. To prevent vicious circles, lessons can be drawn from the literature on collaborative governance and decision-makers’ strategies to support effective collaboration between stakeholders.

Resolving Conceptual Conflicts through Voting

“…In some cases, it might be important to involve not just these internal stakeholders, but also, for example, nonscientific users of concepts. Caby and Frehen (2021) argue in their review of research on throughput legitimacy that the inclusion of a broader group of stakeholders can increase throughput legitimacy.…”

Legitimate Multilevel Crisis Management from the Perspective of Human Rights, Minorities, and Non-Discrimination

“…legitimacy (e.g., Beetham 2012;Buchanan 2002;Caby & Frehen 2021;De Fine Licht et al 2014;Esaiasson et al 2012;Jackson et al 2012), the approaches to and concepts, strategies, policies, and measures of crisis management in general and specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Ansel et al 2010;Christensen et al 2016;Christensen & Ma 2021;Rodríguez et al 2018), the roles of all branches of government, and particularly of legislation in crisis management processes (e.g., Bolleyer & Salát 2021; Chaplin 2020; Petrov 2020), democracy, the inclusion, integration and participation of citizens, citizens' perspectives on pandemic-related crisis management, and particularly on crisis management policies, measures, and their impacts and consequences (e.g., Alsan et al 2020, Bohle et al 2022Cronert 2022;Edgell et al 2021;Engler et al 2021;Gidengil et al 2022;Guasti & Bustikova 2022;Heinzel & Liese 2021;Lowande & Rogowski 2021;Lozano et al 2021;Maerz et al 2020;Mouter et al 2021;Rump & Zwiener-Collins 2021;Stasavage 2020).…”

Advocacy Through Practices of Input and Throughput Legitimacy: Safe Spaces, Proximity, and Collectivizing Individual Needs

“…They argue that in order to attain legitimacy in the eyes of internal stakeholders, one should pay attention to both input and throughput processes (Papadopoulos & Warin, 2008;Thew, Middlemiss & Paavola, 2021). This distinction between output and throughput is derived from literature on democratic decisionmaking (Papadopoulos & Warin, 2008;Caby & Frehen, 2021). Input legitimacy refers to the degree of openness and access that participants experience.…”