Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:08:03.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The output legitimacy of international organizations and the global public interest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2015

Jens Steffek
Jens Steffek*
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Darmstadt, Germany
*
E-mail: steffek@pg.tu-darmstadt.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I seek to expand our understanding of the output legitimacy of international organizations (IOs). At the conceptual level, I refute the widespread view that output legitimacy is just a synonym for organizational effectiveness or efficiency. I argue instead that output legitimacy has an important democratic dimension. The touchstone of ‘democratic output legitimacy’ is the extent to which systems of governance produce results that cater to the public interest. Accordingly, the democratic output legitimacy of IOs can be understood in terms of their ability to safeguard the global public interest. This ability hinges upon their capacity to keep powerful factions in check, protect human rights, and safeguard a high epistemic quality of decisions. Attaining these qualities may require shielding IOs to some extent from the input dimension of the international political process. I do not, however, unconditionally praise de-politicization of IOs. I engage with the problem of technocratic paternalism, which is imminent when decision-making based on assumed citizen interests escapes confrontation with articulated citizen interests. The challenge is to devise global governance arrangements that enable an encompassing debate over the substance of the global public interest when needed, while keeping pressure from powerful factions at bay.

Keywords

International Organizationslegitimacydemocracy
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 263 - 293
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 1998. “Why States Act through Formal International Organizations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(1):3–32.Google Scholar
Archibugi, Daniele. 2004. “Cosmopolitan Democracy and Its Critics: A Review.” European Journal of International Relations 10(3):437–473.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed.New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Scott. 2012. “Electoral Accountability: Recent Theoretical and Empirical Work.” Annual Review of Political Science 15:183–201.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, Karin. 2006. “Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Effectiveness.” Environmental Policy and Governance 16(5):290–306.Google Scholar
Baker, Andrew. 2012. “The ‘Public Interest’ Agency of International Organizations? The Case of the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance.” Review of International Political Economy 19(3):389–414.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano. 2005. Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Structuring between the Nation State and the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 2012. “The Future of Democractic Sovereignty and Transnational Law”. Paper presented at the Max Weber Lecture Series, MWP – LS 2012/04, European University Institute, Florence.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal. 2013. “Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity. On the Accountability of States to Foreign Stakeholders.” American Journal of International Law 107(2):295–333.Google Scholar
Bexell, Magdalena, Tallberg, Jonas, and Uhlin, Anders. 2010. “Democracy in Global Governance: The Promises and Pitfalls of Transnational Actors.” Global Governance 16(1):81–101.Google Scholar
Bolleyer, Nicole, and Reh, Christine. 2012. “EU Legitimacy Revisited: The Normative Foundations of a Multilevel Polity.” Journal of European Public Policy 19(4):472–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, Richard C. ed. 2006. Democracy and Public Administration. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen, and Keohane, Robert O.. 2006. “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions.” Ethics and International Affairs 20(4):405–437.Google Scholar
Claude, Inis. 1966. “Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations.” International Organization 20(3):267–279.Google Scholar
Crick, Bernard. 1959. The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Curtin, Deirdre, and Meijer, Albert J.. 2006. “Does Transparency Strengthen Legitimacy? A Critical Analysis of European Union Documents.” Information Polity 11(2):109–122.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1999. “Can International Organizations be Democratic? A Skeptic’s View.” In Democracy`s Edges, edited by Ian Shapiro and Casiano Hacker-Cordón, 19–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Goldsworthy L. 1916. The European Anarchy. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1962. “The Public Interest: Its Meaning in a Democracy.” Social Research 29(1):1–36.Google Scholar
Drezner, Daniel W. 2007. All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John. 2006. Deliberative Global Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Easton, David 1975. “A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support.” British Journal of Political Science 5(4):435–457.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1986. “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory.” In Foundations of Social Choice Theory, edited by Jon Elster and Aanund Hylland, 103–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eriksen, Stein Sundstøl, and Sending, Ole Jacob. 2013. “There Is No Global Public: the Idea of the Public and the Legitimation of Governance.” International Theory 5(2):213–237.Google Scholar
Falk, Richard, and Strauss, Andrew. 2001. “Toward Global Parliament.” Foreign Affairs 80(1):212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Føllesdal, Andreas, and Hix, Simon. 2006. “Why There Is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik.” Journal of Common Market Studies 44(3):533–562.Google Scholar
Gaus, Daniel. 2010. “Two Kinds of Democratic Legitimacy for the EU? Input- and Output-Oriented Legitimacy as a Case of Conceptual Misformation”. Manuscript, ARENA/University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Grant, Ruth W., and Keohane, Robert O.. 2005. “Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics.” American Political Science Review 99(1):29–43.Google Scholar
Gutner, Tamar, and Thompson, Alexander. 2010. “The Politics of IO Performance: a Framework.” Review of International Organizations 5(3):227–248.Google Scholar
Haas, Ernst B. 1978. Scientists and World Order: The Uses of Technical Knowledge in International Organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Tsutsui, Kyiotero. 2005. “Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises.” American Journal of Sociology 110(5):1373–1511.Google Scholar
Harmon, Michael Mont. 1969. “Administrative Policy Formulation and the Public Interest.” Public Administration Review 29(5):483–491.Google Scholar
Haus, Michael, Heinelt, Hubert, and Murray, Stewart. 2005. Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and Community Involvement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Held, David. 1991. “Democracy, the Nation-state and the Global System.” Economy and Society 20(2):138–172.Google Scholar
Ho, Lok Sang. 2012. Public Policy and the Public Interest. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Höreth, Marcus. 1999. “No Way Out for the Beast? The Unsolved Legitimacy Problem of European Governance.” Journal of European Public Policy 6(2):249–268.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2007. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hurrelmann, Achim, Schneider, Steffen, and Steffek, Jens. 2007. “Conclusion: Legitimacy – Making Sense of an Essentially Contested Concept.” In Legitimacy in an Age of Global Politics, edited by Achim Hurrelmann, Steffen Schneider, and Jens Steffek, 229–237. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, John. 2011. Liberal Leviathan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Karl. 1971. “Transnational Relations as a Threat to the Democratic Process.” International Organization 25(3):706–720.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1991. “On the Common Saying: ‘This May Be True in Theory But It Does Not Apply in Practice’.” In Kant: Political Writings, edited by Hans S. Reiss, 61–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kassim, Hussein, and Menon, Anand. 2003. “The Principal–agent Approach and the Study of the European Union: Promise Unfulfilled?” Journal of European Public Policy 10(1):121–139.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 2006. “The Contingent Legitimacy of Multilateralism.” In Multilateralism under Challenge? Power, International Structure, and World Order, edited by Edward Newman, Ramesh Thakur, and John Tirman, 56–76. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., Macedo, Stephen, and Moravcsik, Andrew. 2009. “Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism.” International Organization 63(1):1–31.Google Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias. 2011. “Is Global Democracy Possible?” European Journal of International Relations 17(3):519–542.Google Scholar
Kohler-Koch, Beate. 2010. “Civil Society and EU Democracy: ‘Astroturf’ Representation?” Journal of European Public Policy 17(1):100–116.Google Scholar
Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2013. “Democratic Legitimacy: Is There a Legitimacy Crisis in Contemporary Politics?” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 54(4):609–663.Google Scholar
Levine, Michael E., and Forrence, Jennifer L.. 1990. “Regulatory Capture, Public Interest and the Public Agenda: Towards a Synthesis.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6(1):167–198.Google Scholar
Lindgren, Karl-Oskar, and Persson, Thomas. 2010. “Input and Output Legitimacy: Synergy or Trade-off? Empirical Evidence from an EU Survey.” Journal of European Public Policy 17(4):449–467.Google Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1955. Essays in the Public Philosophy. Boston: Little.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Terry. 2008. Global Stakeholder Democracy: Power and Representation beyond Liberal States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, Joseph T., McGahan, Anita M., and Pitelis, Christos N.. 2009. “The Interdependence of Private and Public Interests.” Organization Science 20(6):1034–1052.Google Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico. 1998. “Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’: The Question of Standards.” European Law Journal 4(1):5–28.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard, Przeworski, Adam, and Stokes, Susan. 1999. “Elections and Representation.” In Democracy, Accountability and Representation, edited by Adam Przeworski, Bernard Manin, and Susan Stokes, 29–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martens, Kerstin, and Jakobi, Anja P.. eds. 2010. Mechanisms of OECD Governance: International Incentives for National Policy-Making?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry. 1997. Greed, Chaos, and Governance: Using Public Choice to Improve Public Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mattli, Walter, and Woods, Ngaire. 2009. “In Whose Benefit? Explaining Regulatory Change in Global Politics.” In The Politics of Global Regulation, edited by Walter Mattli and Ngaire Woods, 1–43. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mayntz, Renate. 2010. Legitimacy and Compliance in Transnational Governance. Cologne: MPIfG Working Paper 10/5.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, J. John. 1995. “A Realist Reply.” International Security 20(1):82–93.Google Scholar
Mitrany, David. 1933. The Progress of International Government. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Mitrany, David 1955. “Parliamentary Democracy and Poll Democracy.” Parliamentary Affairs 9(1):13–24.Google Scholar
Mitzen, Jennifer. 2013. Power in Concert: The Nineteenth Century Origins of Global Governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew, and Sangiovanni, Andrea. 2003. “On Democracy and ‘Public Interest’ in the European Integration.” In Die Reformierbarkeit der Demokratie. Innovationen und Blockaden, edited by Renate Mayntz and Wolfgang Streeck, 122–150. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Morgan, Glyn. 2003. “Democratic Equality, Transnational Institutions, and the Constraints of Modernity.” In Transnational Democracy in Critical and Comparative Perspective: Democracy's Range Reconsidered, edited by Bruce Morrison, 173–190. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2003. “What Globalization Overshadows.” Political Theory 31(6):808–834.Google Scholar
Näsström, Sofia 2007. “The Legitimacy of the People.” Political Theory 35(5):624–658.Google Scholar
Nielson, Daniel L., and Tierney, Michael J.. 2003. “Delegation to International Organizations: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform.” International Organization 57(2):241–276.Google Scholar
Noël, Alain, and Thérien, Jean-Philippe. 2008. Left and Right in Global Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Omelicheva, Mariya Y. 2009. “Global Civil Society and Democratization of World Politics: A Bona Fide Relationship or Illusory Liaison?” International Studies Review 11(1):109–132.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, Yannis. 2010. “Accountability and Multi-level Governance: More Accountability, Less Democracy?” West European Politics 33(5):1030–1049.Google Scholar
Peters, Bernhard. 1993. Die Integration Moderner Gesellschaften. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2004. “Depoliticizing Democracy.” Ratio Iuris 17(1):52–65.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip 2014. Just Freedom: A Moral Compass for a Complex World. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Pierre, Jon. ed. 2000. Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Piewitt, Martina. 2010. “Participatory Governance in the WTO: How Inclusive Is Global Civil Society?” Journal of World Trade 44(2):467–488.Google Scholar
Raustiala, Kal, and Slaughter, Ann-Marie. 2002. “International Law, International Relations and Compliance.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A Simmons, 538–558. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reinalda, Bob. 2009. Routledge History of International Organizations: From 1815 to the Present Day. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reinsch, Paul S. 1911. Public International Unions: Their Work and Organization. Boston: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. “‘Let’s Argue!’ Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 54(1):1–39.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas 2006. “Transnational Governance and Legitimacy.” In Governance and Democracy – Comparing National, European and Transnational Experiences, edited by Arthur Benz and Ioannis Papadopoulos, 179–199. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas, and Kleine, Mareike. 2007. “Assessing the Legitimacy of European Treaty Revisions.” Journal of Common Market Studies 45(1):69–80.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1992. “Multilateralism: the Anatomy of an Institution.” International Organization 46(3):561–598.Google Scholar
Salter, James A. 1921. Allied Shipping Control: An Experiment in International Administration. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1970. Demokratietheorie zwischen Utopie und Anpassung. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz. 2000. “Interdependence and Democratic Legitimation.” In Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries?, edited by Susan J. Pharr and Robert D. Putnam, 101–120. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz 2003. “Problem-Solving Effectiveness and Democratic Accountability in the EU”. MPIfG Working Paper 03/1. Accessed November 9, 2014. http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp03-1/wp03-1.html.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivian A. 2013. “Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’.” Political Studies 61(1):2–22.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 2005. “‘Deliberative’, ‘Independent’ Technocracy v. Democratic Politics: Will the Globe Echo the E.U.?” Law and Contemporary Problems 68(3/4):341–356.Google Scholar
Soederberg, Susanne. 2003. “The Promotion of ‘Anglo-American’ Corporate Governance in the Global South: Who Benefits from the New International Standard?” Third World Quarterly 24(1):7–27.Google Scholar
Sorauf, Frank J. 1962. “The Conceptual Muddle.” In The Public Interest. Nomos No. 5, edited by Carl J. Friedrich, 183–190. New York: Atherton.Google Scholar
Steffek, Jens. 2010. “Public Accountability and the Public Sphere of International Governance.” Ethics & International Affairs 24(1):45–68.Google Scholar
Steffek, Jens, Claudia, Kissling, and Nanz, Patrizia. eds. 2008. Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance. A Cure for the Democratic Deficit?. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Take, Ingo. 2012. “Regulating the Internet Infrastructure: A Comparative Appraisal of the Legitimacy of ICANN, ITU, and the WSIS.” Regulation & Governance 6(4):499–523.Google Scholar
Thomassen, Jacques, and Schmitt, Hermann. 2004. “Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union.” Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning 45(1):377–410.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1985. “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.” In Bringing the State Back in, edited by Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, 169–191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Kersbergen, Kees, and Van Waarden, Frans. 2004. “‘Governance’ as a Bridge between Disciplines: Cross-disciplinary Inspiration Regarding Shifts in Governance and Problems of Governability, Accountability and Legitimacy.” European Journal of Political Research 43(2):143–171.Google Scholar
Vigoda, Eran. 2002. “From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 62(5):527–540.Google Scholar
Ward, Michael. 2004. Quantifying the World: UN Ideas and Statistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Klaus Dieter. 2006. “Private Actors and the Legitimacy of Governance beyond the State: Conceptional Outlines and Empirical Explorations.” In Governance and Democracy: Comparing National, European and International Experiences, edited by Arthur Benz and Yannis Papadopoulus, 200–227. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Woolf, Leonard. 1916. International Government. London: Fabian Society and George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Wouters, Jan, et al. 2010. Accountability for Human Rights Violations by International Organisations. Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Zimmern, Alfred. 1930. “Democracy and the Expert.” The Political Quarterly 1(1):7–25.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael. 2000. “Democratic Governance beyond the Nation State: The European Union.” European Journal of International Relations 6(2):183–222.Google Scholar