Advertisement

Do citizens evaluate international cooperation based on information about procedural and outcome quality?

  • Thomas Bernauer
  • Steffen Mohrenberg
  • Vally KoubiEmail author
Article
  • 139 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

International cooperation Public support Environment Air pollution Experiment Survey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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’.

Supplementary material

11558_2019_9354_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (136 kb)
ESM1 (PDF 135 kb)
11558_2019_9354_MOESM2_ESM.zip (1.8 mb)
ESM2 (ZIP 1792 kb)
11558_2019_9354_MOESM3_ESM.zip (2.4 mb)
ESM3 (ZIP 2464 kb)

References

  1. 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
  2. Anderson, C. J., & Reichert, M. S. (1995). Economic benefits and support for membership in the E.U.: A cross-National Analysis. Journal of Public Policy, 15(3), 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, B., Böhmelt, T., & Ward, H. (2017). Public opinion and environmental policy output: A cross-national analysis of energy policies in Europe. Environmental Research Letters, 12, 114011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archibugi, D., Koenig-Archibugi, M., & Raffaele Marchetti, R. (2012). Global democracy: Normative and empirical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Banchoff, T. F., & Smith, M. P. (1999). Legitimacy and the European Union: The contested polity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bernauer, T., & Gampfer, R. (2013). Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernauer, T., & McGrath, L. F. (2016). Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 680–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernauer, T., Gampfer, R., Meng, T., & Su, Y.-S. (2016). Could more civil society involvement increase public support for climate policy-making? Evidence from a survey experiment in China. Global Environmental Change, 40, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 17–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black, J. (2008). Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes. Regulation and Governance, 2(2), 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blondel, J., Sinnott, R., & Svensson, P. (1998). People and parliament in the European Union: Participation, democracy, and legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bodansky, D. (1999). The legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law? The American Journal of International Law, 93(3), 596–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Bohman, J. (2007). Democracy across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boomgaarden, H. G., Schuck, A. R. T., Elenbaas, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Mapping EU attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of Euroscepticism and EU support. European Union Politics, 12(2), 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brams, S. J. (2008). Mathematics and democracy: Designing better voting and fair-division procedures. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buntaine, M. T. (2015). Accountability in global governance: Civil society claims for environmental performance at the World Bank. International Studies Quarterly, 59(1), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Caldeira, G. A., & Gibson, J. L. (1995). The legitimacy of the court of justice in the European Union: Models of institutional support. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 356–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chapman, T. L. (2009). Audience beliefs and international organization legitimacy. International Organization, 63(4), 733–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cheneval, F. (2011). The government of the peoples: On the idea and principles of multilateral democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cheneval, F., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2013). The case for Demoicracy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(2), 334–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Dahl, R. A. (1999). Can international organizations be democratic? A Skeptic’s view. In I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordón (Eds.), Democracy’s edges (pp. 19–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Fine Licht, J., Naurin, D., Esaiasson, P., & Gilljam, M. (2014). When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context-bound relationship. Governance, 27(1), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dellmuth, L. M., & Tallberg, J. (2015). The social legitimacy of international Organisations: Interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations. Review of International Studies, 41(3), 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. Dickson, E. S., Gordon, S. C., & Huber, G. A. (2015). Institutional sources of legitimate authority: An experimental investigation. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Doherty, D., & Wolak, J. (2012). When do the ends justify the means? Evaluating procedural fairness. Political Behavior, 34(2), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Falk, R., & Strauss, A. (2001). Toward global parliament. Foreign Affairs, 80(1), 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  35. Greenwood, J. (2007). Organized civil society and democratic legitimacy in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grieco, J., Powell, R., & Snidal, D. (1993). The relative-gains problem for international cooperation. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 729–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grigorescu, A. (2007). Transparency of international organizations: The roles of member states, international bureaucracies and nongovernmental organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 51(3), 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grigorescu, A. (2015). Democratic intergovernmental organizations? Normative pressures and decision-making rules. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gronau, J., & Schmidtke, H. (2016). The quest for legitimacy in world politics – International institutions’ legitimation strategies. Review of International Studies, 42(3), 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Held, D. (1999). The transformation of political community: Rethinking democracy in the context of globalization. In I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordón (Eds.), Democracy’s edges (pp. 84–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Held, D., & Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2005). Global governance and public accountability. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ believes about how government should work. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hobolt, S. (2012). Citizen satisfaction with democracy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(S1), 88–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2005). Calculation, community and cues: Public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics, 6(4), 419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2015). Delegation and pooling in international organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 10(3), 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Höreth, M. (1999). No way out for the beast? The unsolved legitimacy problem of European governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Keohane, R. O., Macedo, S., & Moravcsik, A. (2009). Democracy-enhancing multilateralism. International Organization, 63(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004). Explaining government preferences for institutional change in EU foreign and security policy. International Organization, 58(1), 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kriesi, H., Bochsler, D., Matthes, J., Lavenex, S., Bühlmann, M., & Esser, F. (2013). Democracy in the age of globalization and Mediatization. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lavenex, S. (2013). Globalization and the vertical challenge to democracy. In H. Kriesi, D. Bochsler, J. Matthes, S. Lavenex, M. Bühlmann, & F. Esser (Eds.), Democracy in the age of globalization and Mediatization (pp. 105–134). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. Lindgren, K.-O., & Persson, T. (2010). Input and output legitimacy: Synergy or trade-off? Empirical evidence from an EU survey. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(4), 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Margalit, Y. (2012). Lost in globalization: International economic integration and the sources of popular discontent. International Studies Quarterly, 56(3), 484–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McLaren, L. M. (2002). Public support for the European Union: Cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat? The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Torres, M. (2018). How conditioning on post-treatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morse, J. C., & Keohane, R. O. (2014). Contested multilateralism. The Review of International Organizations, 9(4), 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit. Critical citizens revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. O’Brien, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J. A., & Williams, M. (2000). Contesting global governance: Multilateral institutions and global social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Powell, R. (1991). Absolute and relative gains in international relations theory. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1303–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Rohrschneider, R. (2002). The democracy deficit and mass support for an EU-wide government. American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Scholte, J. A. (2011). Building global democracy? Civil society and accountable global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shapiro, R. Y. (2011). Public opinion and American democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 982–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Steffek, J. (2015). The output legitimacy of international organizations and the global public interest. International Theory, 7(2), 263–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sternberg, C. S. (2015). Political legitimacy between democracy and effectiveness: Trade-offs, interdependencies, and discursive constructions by the EU institutions. European Political Science Review, 7(4), 615–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stevenson, H., & Dryzek, J. S. (2014). Democratizing Global Climate Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. 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.
  78. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., & Squatrito, T. (2013). The opening up of international organizations: Transnational access in global governance. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., & Jönsson, C. (2014). Explaining the transnational Design of International Organizations. International Organization, 68(4), 741–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.Google Scholar
  82. Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  83. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (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), 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Verweij, M., & Josling, T. E. (2003). Deliberately democratizing multilateral organization. Governance, 16(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vliegenthart, R., Schuck, A. R. T., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Vreese, C. H. D. (2008). News coverage and support for European integration, 1990-2006. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(4), 415–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wlezien, C. (1995). The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wlezien, C., & Soroka, S. (2016). Public opinion and public policy. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zürn, M. (2000). Democratic governance beyond the nation-state: The EU and other international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 183–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zürn, M. (2004). Global governance and legitimacy problems. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 260–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Bernauer
    • 1
  • Steffen Mohrenberg
    • 1
  • Vally Koubi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS)ETH Zurich and University of BernZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations