The Legitimacy Audience Shapes the Coalition: Lessons from Afghanistan, 2001

Effective and legitimate governance supposedly form a mutually reinforcing relationship, a virtuous circle of governance. We critically explore this argument in the context of limited statehood and underline why such areas challenge key assumptions underpinning the virtuous circle argument. In this special issue we ask: Does the effectiveness of governance affect the legitimacy of governance actors and institutions in areas of limited statehood, and vice versa? We develop a theoretical model of the virtuous circle and show that making such circles work is more complex, demanding and unlikely than often assumed. Empirical studies need to take these complexities into account, and policy makers are well-advised to adjust their policies accordingly.

Section: Diverse Legitimacy Audiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtuous or Vicious Circle? Governance Effectiveness and Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood

Schmelzle

Stollenwerk

2018

“…Considering the long-term impact of these conflicts on the Afghan population, as well as on external governance actors active in Afghanistan, is particularly important to understanding external actors' ability to acquire legitimacy in the country. The history of external interventions in Afghanistan extends to conflicts with Britain beginning in 1839, continuing to the Soviet invasion (1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989), the invasion of the United States and its allies in 2001, and the subsequent ISAF presence from 2001 to 2014 (Barfield 2012a;Coleman 2017). While space does not allow for a rigorous historical and political review of Afghanistan, it is important to consider some of the key circumstances facing ISAF, when generating insight into the relationship between Afghans' security perceptions and ISAF's legitimacy.…”

Section: Afghanistan As a Context For External Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Taking into account the different legitimacy audiences ISAF faced in Afghanistan is important to understanding ISAF's legitimacy (see Coleman 2017;Schmelzle and Stollenwerk 2018). Therefore, a Pashtun dummy variable has been included.…”

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Securing Legitimacy? Perceptions of Security and ISAF’s Legitimacy in Northeast Afghanistan

Stollenwerk

2018

Using ISAF's security involvement in Afghanistan as an example, this article asks: Does the perceived provision of goods and services affect the empirical legitimacy attributed to external governance actors in areas of limited statehood? The study applies multilevel analysis to survey data for 2009-2013 from Northeast Afghanistan. The results support arguments of performance-based legitimacy. Perceptions of goods and service provision as effective have a positive impact on the legitimacy of external governance actors. However, the analysis underlines that this relationship is no automatism and that it depends on the attribution of governance effectiveness to a specific governance actor. In other words, no attribution, no legitimacy. Successfully linking more effective governance with more legitimacy is a possible impetus for a virtuous circle of governance.

“…The consequence of isomorphic pressure is convergence of formal structures, normative frameworks and standard operating procedures among organizations that work in the same field and are exposed to similar pressures. 1 External actors in areas of limited statehood are particularly susceptible to isomorphic pressures because they must address different legitimacy audiences whose conceptions of effective and legitimate governance do not necessarily align (Ciorciari and Krasner 2018;Coleman 2017). 2 The condition of multiple legitimacy audiences is often overlooked, but critically undermines the shared social goals-assumption that is implicit in the virtuous circle (Schmelzle and Stollenwerk 2018).…”

Section: The Isomorphic Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Escaping the Isomorphic Bias: Towards a Legitimacy-Centered Approach to State-Building

Walter-Drop

Remmert

2018

Despite its pivotal role for virtuous circles of governance, legitimacy is rarely operationalized in state-building programmes. We question the nexus between legitimacy and statehood that is prevalent in most donor approaches. We argue that different legitimacy audiences as well as institutional isomorphic bias are keeping external actors from adopting legitimacy-centered approaches. However, tracing the evolution of the German approach to stabilization in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014, we find that external actors may gradually adopt such an approach when subjected to domestic political pressure and given a threshold level of goal alignment between different audiences.