Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Political Legitimacy Matter for Policy Capacity?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Policy Capacity and Governance

Part of the book series: Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy ((PEPP))

Abstract

This chapter considers whether and how political legitimacy is relevant for policy capacity. A growing body of literature shows that across societies, legitimacy increases compliance with court rulings, laws, and policies, and raises satisfaction with distribution of outcomes. Hence, political legitimacy seems to be an important component of policy capacity. As a result, research about how to gain legitimacy and what means can be used to increase legitimacy (normative approval) of particular decisions, laws, or authorities should attract interest from both political scientists and policy scholars. Although more research is needed to provide increasingly fine-tuned answers, one factor that seems to consistently contribute to legitimacy (and as a consequence, to compliance) is the fairness of political authorities. Countering the assumption that successful policy has to entail an increased distribution of goods and services to people, evidence suggests that people are not only concerned about their personal gains; on the contrary, they care about a fair process of decision-making, including transparency, stakeholder voice, and opportunity for engagement in policy development. Procedural considerations might outweigh the importance of personally favourable outcomes or, in the realm of public policy, even effective and efficient policy. This chapter discusses evidence from social psychology, political science, and policy studies to suggest that increasing legitimacy through procedural fairness might be key to successful policymaking.

All men think justice to be a sort of equality…. But there still remains a question: equality of what? The question is an aporia and calls for political thought.

(Aristotle in Rosanvallon 2006, p. 61)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abels, G. (2007). Citizen involvement in public policy-making: Does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 13(1), 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, B., & Fishkin, J. S. (2004). Deliberation day. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alagappa, M. (1995). Political legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The quest for moral authority. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. Houndmills: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, D. (2006). Political legitimacy. In K. Nash & A. Scott (Eds.), The blackwell companion to political sociology. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bøggild, T., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). The evolved functions of procedural fairness: An adaptation for politics. In The evolution of morality (pp. 247–276). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_12.

  • Bohman, J. (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, J. A., & Seligson, M. A. (2005). Political legitimacy and participation in Costa Rica: Evidence of arena shopping. Political Research Quarterly, 58(4), 537–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, J. A., & Seligson, M. A. (2009). The legitimacy puzzle in Latin America: Political support and democracy in eight nations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeScioli, P., Massenkoff, M., Shaw, A., Petersen, M. B., & Kurzban, R. (2014). Equity or equality? Moral judgments follow the money. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281(1797), 2014–2112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dogan, M. (1992). Conceptions of legitimacy. In M. Hawkesworth & M. Kogan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of government and politics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A., & Wailoo, A. (2007). It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 64(1), 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2009). Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comparative Political Studies, 42(11), 1379–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1957). An approach to the analysis of political systems. World Politics, 9(3), 383–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, J. (1974). Validating a measure of national political legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science‚ 18(1), 117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, C. J. (1963). Man and his government: An empirical theory of politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2005). Why do people accept public policies they oppose? Testing legitimacy theory with a survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 58(2), 187–201. doi:10.2307/3595622.

  • Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2009). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (Vol. 76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2008). Voice, validation, and legitimacy. In Sullivan, B., Snyder, M. & J. L. Sullivan (Eds.)  Cooperation: The political psychology of effective human interaction (pp. 123–142). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2015). Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in government. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 173–182. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.002.

  • King, L. A. (2003). Deliberation, legitimacy, and multilateral democracy. Governance, 16(1), 23–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R., Tuler, S., & Webler, T. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435–450. doi:10.1007/s002670010160.

  • Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2.

  • Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 354–375. doi:10.1177/0002764209338797.

  • Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.952.

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J. J. (1988). Legitimacy of democracy and the socioeconomic system. In M. Dogan (Ed.) Comparing pluralist democracies (pp. 65–113). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M. (1959). Political man, the social basis of politics. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(03), 455–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manin, B., Stein, E., & Mansbridge, J. (1987). On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338–368. doi:10.2307/191208.

  • Merelman, R. M. (1966). Learning and legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, 60(3), 548–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1992a). Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies, 40, 54–67. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1992.tb01812.x.

  • Miller, D. (1992b). Distributive justice: What the people think. Ethics, 102(3), 555–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (2005). Unpacking policy capacity: Issues and themes. In M. Painter & J. Pierre (Eds.), Challenges to state policy capacity (pp. 1–18). Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230524194_1.

  • Pasek, J., Sood, G., & Krosnick, J. A. (2015). Misinformed about the affordable care act? Leveraging certainty to assess the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 660–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, F. (2009). Democratic legitimacy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (1996). The policy capacity of government. Canadian Centre for Management Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. B. (2012). Social welfare as small-scale help: Evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosanvallon, P. (2006). Democracy past and future. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1997). Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1998). Interdependence and democratic legitimation. (MPIfG Working Paper, 98(2)). Retrieved from http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/41664.

  • Scharpf, F. (2003). Problem-solving effectiveness and democratic accountability in the EU. (MPIfG working paper). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/41689.

  • Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x.

  • Schueler, B. E., & West, M. R. (2015). Sticker shock how information affects citizen support for public school funding. Public Opinion Quarterly, nfv047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, A. J. (1999). Justification and legitimacy. Ethics, 109(4), 739–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillman, P. G. (1974). The concept of legitimacy. Polity, 7(1), 32–56. doi:10.2307/3234268.

  • Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice-criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22, 103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 117–125. doi:10.1080/002075900399411.

  • Tyler, T. R. (2001). The legitimacy of institutions and authorities. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 416–436). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038.

  • Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1(4), 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Rasinski, K. (1991). Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of unpopular US Supreme Court decisions: A reply to Gibson. Law and Society Review, 25(3), 621–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 72–81. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.72.

  • Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8–9), 891–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallner, J. (2008). Legitimacy and public policy: Seeing beyond effectiveness, efficiency, and performance. Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 421–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

    Honorata Mazepus

Authors
  1. Honorata Mazepus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Honorata Mazepus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Public Policy, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China

    Xun Wu

  2. Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

    Michael Howlett

  3. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    M Ramesh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mazepus, H. (2018). Does Political Legitimacy Matter for Policy Capacity?. In: Wu, X., Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. (eds) Policy Capacity and Governance. Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54675-9_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation