Legitimacy, trust and procedural fairness: Remarks on Marcia Grimes’ study

Abstract

Abstract. This article is a reply to Marcia Grimes's 2006 contribution to the European Journal of Political Research entitled ‘Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance’. The remarks focus on two main points. First, the author discusses the conceptual basis of the study, to argue that trust and legitimacy are quite different concepts that should not be used synonymously. In particular, the author challenges the conceptualization of (subjective) legitimacy in that institutional legitimacy is partly defined as institutional trust. Additionally, the author justifies why (institutional) trust should not be treated as a ‘component’ of (institutional) legitimacy. Second, the author deals with a methodological problem in Grimes’ article. This problem refers to the operationalization of norms of fairness in order to examine the influence of perceived fairness in decision processes on citizens’ beliefs of legitimacy. Summing up the author's conceptual and methodological objections, this article offers a somewhat different interpretation of Grimes’ main findings.

Does procedural justice matter to youth? Comparing adults' and youths' willingness to collaborate with police

“…In the procedural justice literature, legitimacy has traditionally been defined as comprising two components: (1) a judgment people make about the status of an organisation as an authority that has the right to command others and be obeyed and (2) the level of confidence and trust people have in the authority (Tyler 1990, Sunshine and Tyler 2003, Reisig et al 2007. The vast majority of empirical studies linking procedural justice to judgments of legitimacy have utilised this definition of legitimacy (although this definition has recently been questioned; see Kaina 2008, Bottoms and Tankebe 2012, Tankebe 2013. Where authorities are judged to be legitimate, people feel that they ought to defer to their decisions and rules, cooperate with them and follow them voluntarily out of obligation rather than out of fear of punishment or anticipation of reward.…”

“…Recent advances have occurred in the procedural justice literature, whereby theorising of the police legitimacy concept has called into question a definition of legitimacy based purely on confidence and obligation (see Kaina 2008, Bottoms and Tankebe 2012, Jackson et al 2012a, Tankebe 2013). These scholars have proposed alternative concepts to measure legitimacy.…”

Assessing the Direct and Indirect Effects of Legitimacy on Public Empowerment of Police: A Study of Public Support for Police Militarization in America

“…Legitimacy is necessary, as institutions of governance function with the consent of the governed (Sabine 1937; see also Locke 1988). Police legitimacy is specifically an individual normative orientation toward the police, reflecting a combination of trust in law enforcement as well as feelings of obligation to obey the police (Parry et al 2017;Reisig et al 2007;Tyler 2006;Wolfe et al 2016; but see Barbalet 2009;Bottoms and Tankebe 2012;Johnson et al 2014;Kaina 2008).…”

Trust, engagement, information and social licence—insights from New Zealand

“…Where companies are seen to be credible, there is a higher likelihood of building trust. Similarly, while not addressed in this study, legitimacy provides a further foundation for both trust and SLO (see Kaina 2008). While we did not explicitly examine credibility and legitimacy, our results indicate that as foundations for trust, these elements do exist in the New Zealand natural resources sector.…”