Do citizens evaluate international cooperation based on information about procedural and outcome quality?
- 139 Downloads
Conventional wisdom holds that public support for international cooperation is crucial to its viability and effectiveness. Elite debates focus heavily on procedural and outcome characteristics of international cooperation when assessing the latter. However, we know very little about whether and how citizens’ evaluation of international cooperation efforts are also based on such process and outcome considerations, as informed via cues they receive from various sources. Procedural characteristics pertain to how international cooperation and resulting agreements are established and implemented. Output characteristics pertain to how effective, costly, and advantageous international cooperation is. Based on three survey experiments in Germany and the United Kingdom (N = 3000 each), and with an empirical focus on transboundary air pollution in Europe, we examine (1) to what extent information on process and outcomes of international cooperation matters for public support, (2) whether information on the prospect of effective and advantageous outcomes reduces public demand for process improvement in international cooperation, and vice versa, and (3) whether high process quality could make citizens more tolerant of lower quality outcomes, and vice versa? The results show that, from the viewpoint of citizens, both process and outcome characteristics matter. While process-related evaluations of citizens are hardly affected by information on the prospect of high or low outcome quality, citizens are less tolerant of low outcome quality when process quality is low. These results suggest that enhancing process quality is worthwhile, particularly for policy challenges requiring long-term and incremental efforts.
KeywordsInternational cooperation Public support Environment Air pollution Experiment Survey
We thank Jonas Tallberg, Marco Steenbergen, Liliana Andonova, Thomas Risse, Michael Zürn, as well as colleagues from the NCCR Democracy for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. We are also grateful to Irina Shaymerdenova, Eleanor Willi, and Lukas P. Fesenfeld for research assistance. This article was written in the context of and the survey was funded by the National Center for Competence in Research (NCCR), ‘Democracy in the 21st Century’.
- Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009). The governance triangle: Regulatory standards institutions and the shadow of the state. In W. Mattli & N. Woods (Eds.), The politics of global regulation (pp. 44–88). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Archibugi, D., Koenig-Archibugi, M., & Raffaele Marchetti, R. (2012). Global democracy: Normative and empirical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Banchoff, T. F., & Smith, M. P. (1999). Legitimacy and the European Union: The contested polity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bodansky, D. (2013). Legitimacy in international law and international relations. In J. L. Dunoff & M. A. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: The state of the art (pp. 321–344). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Brams, S. J. (2008). Mathematics and democracy: Designing better voting and fair-division procedures. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Burstein, P. (2014). American public opinion, advocacy, and policy in congress: What the public wants and what it gets (p. 2014). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Dellmuth, L. M., & Tallberg, J. (2016). Elite communication and popular legitimacy in global governance. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2757650. Accessed 9 February 2017, Elite Communication and Popular Legitimacy in Global Governance.
- Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
- Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014b). Conjoint: Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multi-dimensional choices via stated preference experiments (R package version 2.0.4). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cjoint. Accessed March 2019
- Held, D., & Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2005). Global governance and public accountability. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2001). Process preferences and American politics: What the people want government to be. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 145–153.Google Scholar
- Johnson, T. (2011). Guilt by association: The link between states’ influence and the legitimacy of Intergovernmental Organizations. Review of International Organizations 6 (1): 57–84.Google Scholar
- Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2003). Redefining accountability for global governance. In M. Kahler & D. A. Lake (Eds.), Governance in a global economy: Political Authority in Transition (pp. 386–411). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Lenz, T., Bezuijen, J., Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2015). Patterns of international organization task specific vs. general purpose. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Special Issue 49, 131–156.Google Scholar
- Lidskog, R., & Elander, I. (2010). Addressing climate change democratically: Multi-level governance, transnational networks and governmental structures. Sustainable Development, 18(1), 32–41.Google Scholar
- Nye, J. (1997). Introduction: The decline of confidence in government. In J. S. Nye, P. D. Zelikow, & D. C. King (Eds.), Why people Don’t trust government? (pp. 1–19). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Risse, T. (2006). Transnational governance and legitimacy. In A. Benz & I. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences (pp. 179–199). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Stevenson, H., & Dryzek, J. S. (2014). Democratizing Global Climate Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Tallberg, J. & Zürn, M. (2017). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework (February 9, 2017). SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3060204. Accessed 24 December 2018.
- Tyler, T. R. (1990). Justice, self-interest, and the legitimacy of legal and political authority. In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 171–182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar