Why, and to what extent, do citizens and elites around the world regard global governance to be legitimate? How much do citizens and elites differ in how they believe in the legitimacy of global governance, and what explains any such elite-citizen gaps? These are the main research questions of Citizens, Elites, and the Legitimacy of Global Governance, co-authored by Lisa Dellmuth, Jan Aart Scholte, Jonas Tallberg, and Soetkin Verhaegen. It is the first in a series of three monographs that present the main findings of the six-year-long research program Legitimacy in Global Governance (LegGov), which recently came to a close at universities of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Lund, Sweden (Sommerer et al., 2022;Bexell et al., 2022).The book provides a major contribution to the growing scholarship studying attitudes toward global governance in general and legitimacy beliefs in international organizations (IOs) more specifically. It focuses on patterns and sources of legitimacy beliefs in six global international organizations: the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).The text systematically explores a wealth of new data generated by a set of coordinated surveys in Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, and the United States (US). For each country, two parallel surveys were conducted, one aiming at a representative picture of the general population and one focused on a sample of positional elites -that is, those people holding major positions in key organizations that strive to be politically influential in the respective society.In line with most research in this field, the authors chose a Weberian perspective on legitimacy focused on how citizens hold "a belief that a governing institution has the right to rule and exercises this right appropriately" (p.