Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018

Abstract

The liberal international economic order has been facing high-profile legitimacy challenges in recent years. This article puts these challenges in historical context through a systematic analysis of rhetorical challenges towards both the order per se and specific global economic institutions. Drawing on Albert Hirschman’s classic typology of exit, voice and loyalty, we coded leaders’ speeches in the General Debate at the UN General Assembly between 1970 and 2018 as articulating intentions to abandon elements of the order, challenges or calls for reform, unequivocal support, or factual mentions of cooperation. Surprisingly, we find that explicit criticisms towards the liberal order are at an all-time low and that exit threats remain rare. An analysis of the historical evolution of criticisms to global economic institutions reveals a move away from the Cold War insider-outsider conflict towards insider contestation. For example, we find that as countries’ economies become more open, their leaders expressed more support for global economic institutions during the Cold War but less support since. Finally, we demonstrate consistency between the public policy positions leaders announce in UNGA General Debate speeches and their government positions on consequential reform debates on debt relief.

Contesting Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions: The Case of the World Health Organization During the Coronavirus Pandemic

“…Global governance institutions (GGIs) have increasingly been challenged on legitimacy grounds ( Lenz and Viola 2017 ; Zürn 2018 ; Kentikelenis and Voeten 2020 ). Due to the increasing demands for legitimacy ( Zürn 2004 ) and the imperative to mobilize support and attendant resources, GGIs face sustained pressure of acquiring, maintaining, losing, and regaining legitimacy.…”

Clubs of autocrats: Regional organizations and authoritarian survival

“…Against the backdrop of increasing democratic backsliding and legitimacy challenges towards multilateral cooperation (Hooghe & Marks, 2009;Pepinsky & Walter, 2019), it will be particularly important to study consequences of changing membership compositions of ROs and their international and domestic effects in future research. While previous waves of democratization have led to the adoption of good governance standards (Börzel & van Hüllen, 2015), the current wave of autocratization (Lührmann & Lindberg, 2019) might have significant consequences for the future protection of liberal norms and add to the deepening of the crisis of the liberal international order (Copelovitch & Pevehouse, 2019;Hooghe et al, 2019a;Kentikelenis & Voeten, 2020;Morse & Keohane, 2014).…”

Citizens, Elites, and the Legitimacy of Global Governance

“…These findings point to a notable divide between IOs based on issue area: IOs engaged in human security governance (ICC, UN, WHO) tend to obtain higher legitimacy than IOs engaged in economic governance (IMF, World Bank, WTO). This divide may partly reflect the pointed critique directed at these three economic IOs over the past half century from governments, civil society organizations, and academics (Kentikelenis and Voeten 2021). Conversely, the three human security IOs perhaps benefit from their focus on issues that find more approval-prosecuting war criminals, ensuring peace and security, and building global health.…”