Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance

Abstract

This chapter develops a comprehensive typology for empirical analysis of legitimation and delegitimation practices in global governance. The framework is novel in three respects. First, while earlier literature has primarily studied legitimation, this classification encompasses both legitimation and delegitimation practices. Second, while most previous research has examined top-down legitimation practices by global governance institutions and their member states, this typology includes also bottom-up legitimation and delegitimation practices from various societal actors. Third, the framework captures a full variety of legitimation and delegitimation practices, classified in the chapter as being discursive, institutional, and behavioral in character. The chapter further identifies factors that may prompt variation in the kinds of (de)legitimation practices that different actors might adopt.

Challenges to Democracy in the Anthropocene

“…Questions about increasing the visibility and say of the underrepresented and amplifying the voices of the subaltern and the marginalized are also critical. Some of these questions are raised in the debates on democratic legitimacy in global governance institutions (Bäckstrand and Söderbaum 2018;Macdonald and Macdonald 2017;Uhlin 2019).…”

UNAMID and the Legitimation of Global-Regional Peacekeeping Cooperation: Partnership and Friction in UN-AU Relations

“…While scholars have identified different modes of legitimation and delegitimation, including behavioural and institutional strategies (Bäckstrand and Söderbaum 2018), this article focuses on discursive (de)legitimation because other types of practice usually obtain their specific 'legitimatory' meaning through discursive communication (Steffek 2009, 314-315). Agents do not simply evaluate governance arrangements against fixed criteria like performance, equality and autonomy, although each of these issues can play a role.…”

Legitimacy Struggles in Global Governance: Legitimation and Delegitimation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

“…A central claim of this article is that legitimation and delegitimation practices often occur simultaneously. As stated by Bäckstrand and Söderbaum (2018), "legitimation and delegitimation often shape each other and therefore need to be integrated within a single framework" (p. 102). Certain actors try to delegitimize an institution, whereas others attempt to legitimize it.…”

“…Third, (de)legitimation practices can be institutional (reforms of the institutional design of a GGI intended to affect audiences' legitimacy beliefs), discursive (statements supporting or challenging the rightfulness of a GGI's rule), or behavioral (nonverbal acts that can affect audiences legitimacy beliefs; Bäckstrand & Söderbaum, 2018). Institutional, discursive, and behavioral (de)legitimation practices are ideal types.…”

“…They make statements, initiate institutional reforms, and engage in other practices intended to affect various audiences' legitimacy beliefs concerning the GGI in a positive way. Meanwhile, other GGIs, states, and nonstate actors engage in practices that might affect legitimacy beliefs concerning the GGI in a negative way (Bäckstrand & Söderbaum, 2018). There is often a struggle between (self-)legitimizers and delegitimizers.…”