The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions

Buchanan, Allen; Keohane, Robert O.

doi:10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00043.x

Cited by 784 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Environmental discourses frame how we conceive environmental problems (e.g., deforestation) and related policies (e.g., REDD+) [66]. Given that by constructing and reproducing REDD+ discourses, actors legitimise or delegitimise REDD+ governance [65][66][67][68][69][70][71], we used discourse analysis to assess the output legitimacy of REDD+ governance in Mexico's readiness phase as well as the actors' perceptions on the legitimacy of REDD+ readiness discussions. The analytical framework we developed to identify and examine REDD+ discourses in Mexico combines three elements suggested by Dryzek [65]: key storylines, main discursive agents, and key metaphors.…”

Section: Stakeholder Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dominant Voice amidst Not Enough People: Analysing the Legitimacy of Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Process

Špirić

Corbera

Reyes‐García

et al. 2016

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In the development of national governance systems for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+), countries struggle with ensuring that decision-making processes include a variety of actors (i.e., input legitimacy) and represent their diverse views in REDD+ policy documents (i.e., output legitimacy). We examine these two dimensions of legitimacy using Mexico's REDD+ readiness process during a four-year period (2011-2014) as a case study. To identify REDD+ actors and how they participate in decision-making we used a stakeholder analysis; to assess actors' views and the extent to which these views are included in the country's official REDD+ documents we conducted a discourse analysis. We found low level of input legitimacy in so far as that the federal government environment agencies concentrate most decision-making power and key land-use sectors and local people's representatives are absent in decision-making forums. We also observed that the REDD+ discourse held by government agencies and both multilateral and international conservation organisations is dominant in policy documents, while the other two identified discourses, predominantly supported by national and civil society organisations and the academia, are partly, or not at all, reflected in such documents. We argue that Mexico's REDD+ readiness process should become more inclusive, decentralised, and better coordinated to allow for the deliberation and institutionalisation of different actors' ideas in REDD+ design. Our analysis and recommendations are relevant to other countries in the global South embarking on REDD+ design and implementation.

show abstract

Section: Stakeholder Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dominant Voice amidst Not Enough People: Analysing the Legitimacy of Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Process

Špirić

Corbera

Reyes‐García

et al. 2016

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vast majority of scholars agree that legitimacy can be dubbed as the moral "right to rule" (e.g. Buchanan/Keohane 2006;Estlund 2007;Applbaum 2010). Exactly which rights, obligations and liabilities the status of legitimacy confers on the rulers and the ruled, is a heavily disputed topic that I cannot discuss at length here (cf.…”

Section: Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Governance: Effectiveness and Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood

Schmelzle

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it is widely acknowledged that effectiveness and legitimacy both play an important role in the evaluation of governance, the causal relationship between these two concepts is far from clear. While some theorists hold that there is an inevitable trade-off between the demands of effectiveness and legitimacy, others argue that both qualities are mutually reinforcing. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the relationship between these two standards under conditions of limited statehood. The paper is organized into three sections: In the first section I will define the central concepts of effectiveness and legitimacy. While the main features of the concept of effectiveness are straightforward, the concept of legitimacy is notoriously opaque. In the second section, I will argue that the causal relationship between effectiveness and legitimacy is far more complex than usually assumed. Most scholars describe the connection as a virtuous circle: The more effective a political order or institution is, the more legitimate it is, and the more legitimate it is, the more effective it becomes. While the causal pathway from legitimacy to effectiveness is well understood, this does not hold true for the reverse connection from effectiveness to legitimacy. I will therefore identify four necessary conditions which have to be met in order to make the virtuous circle argument compelling.These are the conditions of (1.) "instrumental legitimacy belief," (2.) "shared social goals," (3.) "transparency," and (4.) "generalization". Finally, I will argue that these conditions are serious challenges to effective and legitimate governance in areas of limited statehood. ZusammenfassungIn der Governance-Literatur ist es nahezu unumstritten, dass der Erfolg oder Misserfolg eines Governance-Regimes an seiner Effektivität und Legitimität gemessen werden kann.

show abstract

“…At the same time, however, they are composed of states that frequently have colliding interests and worldviews, and carry these contrasting points of view to the negotiation table. That means that we should not only point to the number of cases where international institutions failed to raise up to the expectations of the people, but comprehend their function in the current world and, most significantly, contemplate how the world would be in their absence (Buchanan and Keohane, 2006). When considering that we do not apply such high standards to more cohesive and wellorganized entities, such as democratic nation-states that are often involved in conflicts, why do so for international institutions?…”

Section: (C) Global Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Governance and Cosmopolitan Democracy: Bridging the gap between proponents and opponents

Frangonikolopoulos

Proedrou

2013

BCGPPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to seize the middle ground between the advocates and the critics of cosmopolitan democracy. Although a number of critiques raised with regard both to the feasibility and the suitability of the project are rightly raised, a trajectory towards cosmopolitanism is necessary at a time when globalization not only connects different parts of the world in an unprecedented way, but also more than ever creates the need for more extensive cooperation, collective and effective global governance. Bearing that in mind, and with the aim to surpass the pessimism of the critics, the paper examines how global governance can become more inclusive and symmetrical by pursuing a gradualist approach in comparison to the more holistic cosmopolitan project.

show abstract

The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions

Cited by 784 publications

References 27 publications

A Dominant Voice amidst Not Enough People: Analysing the Legitimacy of Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Process

A Dominant Voice amidst Not Enough People: Analysing the Legitimacy of Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Process

Evaluating Governance: Effectiveness and Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood

Global Governance and Cosmopolitan Democracy: Bridging the gap between proponents and opponents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About