Legitimacy in Global Governance
The legitimacy of global governance institutions (GGIs) among state and societal actors has become a crucial issue in world politics. Legitimacy is required for global governance to handle major policy problems; however, since the 1990s GGIs have been substantially contested. This program investigates how legitimacy operates in global governance: why, how, and with what consequences do GGIs gain, sustain and lose legitimacy? This question is explored through three themes: sources of legitimacy; legitimation and delegitimation strategies; and consequences of legitimacy. The program promises three significant contributions. First, while most existing research on GGI legitimacy takes a normative approach, this program develops a sociological approach, examining the concrete social conditions of GGI legitimacy. Second, this program moves beyond the traditional focus on states as the principal legitimating audience of GGIs to consider a full spectrum of social actors. Third, while existing empirical research primarily has relied on single-case studies, this program has an ambitious comparative mixed-method design, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. The program links three internationally prominent Swedish research groups with a track record of productive cooperation and excellent international networks.
Final report
Legitimacy appears crucial if global governance is to help solve the many transboundary problems that contemporary societies confront, among them, climate change, pandemics, and conflicts. However, political developments in recent years suggest that the legitimacy of global governance institutions is contested. The decision of the UK to leave the EU, disappointment over the lack of progress in UN’s climate change cooperation, resistance against the WHO’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the rise of anti-globalist populism around the world are all signs of discontent with global governance institutions. These developments underline the importance of better understanding which forces shape people’s perceptions of global governance institutions and with what consequences for the ability of these institutions to deal with urgent societal challenges.
This topic that has been at the core of the research program LegGov during the period 2016-2021. The overarching research question of the program has been to what extent, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions are perceived as legitimate. LegGov has brought together sixteen researchers at Lund University, Stockholm University, and the University of Gothenburg to address three main themes: (1) sources of legitimacy for global governance institutions, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation in relation to global governance institutions, and (3) consequences of legitimacy for the functioning of global governance institutions.
LegGov has developed these research themes in four joint volumes, all published with open access by Oxford University Press. The first volume, Legitimacy in Global Governance: Sources, Processes, and Consequences, was published in 2018 and laid out the theoretical, empirical, and methodological starting points of the program. The next three books, which are published in 2022, present the main conclusions of the program within its three respective themes. Citizens, Elites, and the Legitimacy of Global Governance is co-authored by Lisa Dellmuth, Jan Aart Scholte, Jonas Tallberg and Soetkin Verhaegen. Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: Practices, Justifications, and Audiences is edited by Magdalena Bexell, Kristina Jönsson and Anders Uhlin, with chapter contributions also from Karin Bäckstrand, Farsan Ghassim, Catia Gregoratti, Nora Stappert, Fredrik Söderbaum, and Soetkin Verhaegen. Global Legitimacy Crises: Decline and Revival in Multilateral Governance is co-authored by Thomas Sommerer, Hans Agné, Fariborz Zelli, and Bart Bes. In addition, the program has published other books on more specific themes, as well as a large number of articles in scientific journals and edited volumes (see list of publications). The key conclusions from the program are also summarized in a final report in Swedish available at rj.se.
The over-arching contributions of LegGov are three-fold. First, the program has further developed the sociological (or empirical) approach to legitimacy in global governance. Existing research has been primarily normative, examining how far global governance institutions conform to normative standards like fairness and democracy. In contrast, LegGov has investigated the perceptions of citizens, elites, and other actors regarding the legitimacy of global governance institutions. The focus has not been whether global governance institutions ought to be considered legitimate in principle, but whether, why, how, and with what consequences they enjoy legitimacy in practice. This approach, which emphasizes empirical research, in contrast to the normative perspective, has won growing international recognition and impact as a result of the activities and publications of the program.
Second, the program has studied the legitimacy of global governance institutions through a broad comparative approach. Existing research has explored these issues primarily with a focus on single institutions, such as the EU or the IMF, or on institutions within a certain issue area, such as economic governance or environmental governance. In contrast, LegGov has used a comparative research design, based on the idea that comparative analysis can help both to highlight the specificities of individual cases and to identify general features that are common across multiple cases. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods, LegGov has compared the legitimacy of global governance institutions in different issue areas, during different time periods, in different countries, and among a variety of actors, including citizens as well as elites. The broad comparative approach of the program has made it unique in research about legitimacy at the global level.
Third, the program has offered the most comprehensive treatment so far of the legitimacy of global governance institutions. Existing work in this area has tended to focus on specific aspects of legitimacy in global governance, for instance, a specific source of legitimacy or a particular type of legitimation process. In contrast, LegGov, as described above, has engaged with three broad and complementary analytical themes: sources of legitimacy, processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and consequences of legitimacy. The combination of these themes within a single coherent research program has made LegGov the most ambitious and systematic investigation so far of the legitimacy of global governance institutions.
This topic that has been at the core of the research program LegGov during the period 2016-2021. The overarching research question of the program has been to what extent, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions are perceived as legitimate. LegGov has brought together sixteen researchers at Lund University, Stockholm University, and the University of Gothenburg to address three main themes: (1) sources of legitimacy for global governance institutions, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation in relation to global governance institutions, and (3) consequences of legitimacy for the functioning of global governance institutions.
LegGov has developed these research themes in four joint volumes, all published with open access by Oxford University Press. The first volume, Legitimacy in Global Governance: Sources, Processes, and Consequences, was published in 2018 and laid out the theoretical, empirical, and methodological starting points of the program. The next three books, which are published in 2022, present the main conclusions of the program within its three respective themes. Citizens, Elites, and the Legitimacy of Global Governance is co-authored by Lisa Dellmuth, Jan Aart Scholte, Jonas Tallberg and Soetkin Verhaegen. Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: Practices, Justifications, and Audiences is edited by Magdalena Bexell, Kristina Jönsson and Anders Uhlin, with chapter contributions also from Karin Bäckstrand, Farsan Ghassim, Catia Gregoratti, Nora Stappert, Fredrik Söderbaum, and Soetkin Verhaegen. Global Legitimacy Crises: Decline and Revival in Multilateral Governance is co-authored by Thomas Sommerer, Hans Agné, Fariborz Zelli, and Bart Bes. In addition, the program has published other books on more specific themes, as well as a large number of articles in scientific journals and edited volumes (see list of publications). The key conclusions from the program are also summarized in a final report in Swedish available at rj.se.
The over-arching contributions of LegGov are three-fold. First, the program has further developed the sociological (or empirical) approach to legitimacy in global governance. Existing research has been primarily normative, examining how far global governance institutions conform to normative standards like fairness and democracy. In contrast, LegGov has investigated the perceptions of citizens, elites, and other actors regarding the legitimacy of global governance institutions. The focus has not been whether global governance institutions ought to be considered legitimate in principle, but whether, why, how, and with what consequences they enjoy legitimacy in practice. This approach, which emphasizes empirical research, in contrast to the normative perspective, has won growing international recognition and impact as a result of the activities and publications of the program.
Second, the program has studied the legitimacy of global governance institutions through a broad comparative approach. Existing research has explored these issues primarily with a focus on single institutions, such as the EU or the IMF, or on institutions within a certain issue area, such as economic governance or environmental governance. In contrast, LegGov has used a comparative research design, based on the idea that comparative analysis can help both to highlight the specificities of individual cases and to identify general features that are common across multiple cases. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods, LegGov has compared the legitimacy of global governance institutions in different issue areas, during different time periods, in different countries, and among a variety of actors, including citizens as well as elites. The broad comparative approach of the program has made it unique in research about legitimacy at the global level.
Third, the program has offered the most comprehensive treatment so far of the legitimacy of global governance institutions. Existing work in this area has tended to focus on specific aspects of legitimacy in global governance, for instance, a specific source of legitimacy or a particular type of legitimation process. In contrast, LegGov, as described above, has engaged with three broad and complementary analytical themes: sources of legitimacy, processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and consequences of legitimacy. The combination of these themes within a single coherent research program has made LegGov the most ambitious and systematic investigation so far of the legitimacy of global governance institutions.