Recent instances of political backlash against global governance efforts as well as conventional wisdom suggest that there is a link between shifting decision-making authority from the domestic to the global level, on the one hand, and the legitimacy of global governance institutions as perceived by citizens and other stakeholders on the other. We use a population-based survey experiment in Germany and the United States (N = 1600 each) to investigate whether increasing the authority of a global governance institution negatively affects citizens’ legitimacy perceptions. The empirical focus is on climate change, a costly and paradigmatic global governance effort. The results show that shifts of political authority, notably changes towards majority decision making at the international level and automatic implementation of international decisions domestically, do not, on average, significantly affect citizens’ legitimacy perceptions of global governance institutions. Interestingly, the absence of the presumed negative effect is not due to citizens’ incapacity to understand the implications of increasing international authority in the sense that increasing international authority results in a loss of control over climate policy in Germany and the United States. Rather, legitimacy perceptions appear to be shaped by citizens’ perceptions of procedural and performance quality of such efforts in more general terms, and not by authority levels per se. Overall, these findings suggest that there could be more room for increasing the authority of global governance institutions, provided this can be done in ways that ascertain high procedural and output performance quality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
We randomized the order of the five legitimacy items and response scales between participants, and then followed up with the manipulation check.
Other studies measure related concepts such as confidence or trust as proxies for legitimacy. We argue that these are necessary conditions of legitimacy but not sufficient. For example, it is possible to be confident in an institution to perform its duties, e.g., Stalin’s Communist Regime, but not to view its authority as being appropriately exercised, i.e., legitimate.
We opted for an ordinal scale for these two questions instead of a binary (Agree/Disagree) based on participant feedback from a pilot survey at the end of 2014. In the 2014 pilot survey, we randomized binary and ordinal response categories between participants. Several participants who received the binary response option commented that they were unable to express nuanced opinions, while we received no comments from those who received the ordinal scale. This is why we decided to use the ordinal response category in the present survey.
Bootstrapping is a way of estimating statistical parameters from the sample by resampling with replacement. Like other non-parametric approaches, bootstrapping does not make any assumptions about the distribution of the sample. The main assumption behind bootstrapping is that the sample distribution is a reasonably good approximation of the population distribution. This is a reasonable assumption in our case because YouGov provided weighted samples of German and American populations. It is for this reason that we chose bootstrapping over other simulation methods that generate new data as a means of estimating these standard errors. In addition, other simulation techniques would have required assumptions about the distribution of the data, which we prefer to avoid.
There is some debate over how much iteration is necessary. We started with 10,000 and shifted to 1000 after initial results were similar.
Anderson, K., & Slaughter, A.-M. (2005). Squaring the circle? Reconciling sovereignty and global governance through global government networks. Harvard Law Review, 118(4), 1255–1312.
Bernauer, T. (2013). Climate change politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 421–448.
Bernauer, T., & Gampfer, R. (2013). Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 439–449.
Bernauer, T., & McGrath, L. (2016). Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 680–683.
Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 17–51.
Blake, D. J., & Payton, A. L. (2015). Balancing design objectives: Analyzing new data on voting rules in intergovernmental organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 10(3), 377–402.
Blondel, J., Sinnott, R., & Svensson, P. (1998). People and Parliament in the European Union: participation, democracy, and legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bodansky, D. (1999). The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law? American Journal of International Law, 93(3), 596–624.
Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & international affairs, 20(4), 405–437.
Bulkeley, H., & Newell, P. (2015). Governing climate change. New York: Routledge.
Caplan, B. (2001). Rational irrationality and the microfoundations of political failure. Public Choice, 107(3-4), 311–331.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
Council of Foreign Relations (2015). Two cheers for the paris agreement on climate change (December 12). Available at http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2015/12/12/two-cheers-for-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-change/. Accessed 2 August 2016.
Della Porta, D., Andretta, M., Mosca, L., & Reiter, H. (2006). Globalization from below: Transnational activists and protest networks. London: University of Minnesota Press.
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.
Dingwerth, K. (2017). Field recognition and the state prerogative: Why democratic legitimation recedes in private transnational sustainability regulation. Politics and Governance, 5(1), 75–84.
Downs, A. (1984). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. In T. Ferguson & J. Rogers (Eds.), The Political Economy: Readings in the politics and economics of American public policy (pp. 12–26). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe Publishers.
Eichenberg, R. C., & Dalton, R. J. (2007). Post-Maastricht blues: The transformation of citizen support for European integration, 1973–2004. Acta Politica, 42(2), 128–152.
Esty, D. C. (2002). The World Trade Organization's legitimacy crisis. World Trade Review, 1(1), 7–22.
Gabel, M., & Scheve, K. (2007). Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1013–1028.
Gallup International Association. (2005). Voice of the People. ICPSR04636-v1. Zürich: Gallup International Association.
Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (1995). The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the European Union: Models of Institutional Support. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 356–376.
Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29–43.
Hessami, Z. (2011). What determines trust in international organizations? An empirical analysis for the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. Working Paper 44. Konstanz, Germany: Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hickmann, T. (2016). Rethinking Authority in Global Climate Governance: How Transnational Climate Initiatives Relate to the International Climate Regime. New York: Routledge.
Hobolt, S. B. (2012). Public opinion and integration. In E. Jones, A. Menon, & S. Weatherill (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holcombe, R. G. (2006). Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Global Climate Change? The Independent Review, 11(2), 283.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2005). Calculation, community and cues public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics, 6(4), 419–443.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2009). A post functionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1–23.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2015). Delegation and pooling in international organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 10(3), 305–328.
Johnson, T. (2011). Guilt by association: The link between states’ influence and the legitimacy of intergovernmental organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 6(1), 57–84.
Kachi, A., Bernauer, T., & Gampfer, R. (2015). Climate policy in hard times: Are the pessimists right? Ecological Economics, 114, 227–241.
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). New Haven: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23.
Koppell, J. G. S. (2008). Global governance organizations: Legitimacy and authority in conflict. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 177–203.
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). Western European politics in the age of globalization. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790720
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947.n308
Levi, M., & Murphy, G. H. (2006). Coalitions of contention: The case of the WTO protests in Seattle. Political Studies, 54(4), 651–670.
Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 354–375.
Li, K.-W. (2003). Capitalist Development and Economism in East Asia: The Rise of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. New York: Routledge.
Lupia, A. (2015). Uninformed: Why People Seem to Know So Little about Politics and What We Can Do about It. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Nielson, D., Hyde, S., & Kelley, J. (2019). The sources of perceived legitimacy for election observation organizations: Three experiments on non- governmental organizations. The Review of International Organizations.
Norris, P. (2000). Global governance and cosmopolitan citizens. In J. S. Nye Jr. & J. D. Donahue (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world (pp. 155–177). Harrisburg: Brookings Institution Press.
Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., & Knutti, R. (2012). Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity range estimates. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 248–253.
Schmidtke, H. (2019). Speaking democracy: Why international organizations adopt a democratic rhetoric. The Review of International Organizations.
Schlipphak, B. (2015). Measuring attitudes toward regional organizations outside Europe. The Review of International Organizations, 10(3), 351–375.
Scott, R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. London: Sage Publications.
Semenza, J. C., Wilson, D. J., Parra, J., Bontempo, B. D., Hart, M., Sailor, D. J., & George, L. A. (2008). Public perception and behavior change in relationship to hot weather and air pollution. Environmental Research, 107(3), 401–411.
Slaughter, A.-M. (2005). Winning Back the World’s Trust. Global Agenda, 1–5.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Tallberg, J., & Zürn, M. (2019). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework. The Review of International Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9330-7
Vihma, A. (2011). A climate of consensus: The UNFCCC faces challenges of legitimacy and effectiveness (Briefing Paper 75). Helsinki: Finnish Institute for International Affairs.
Voeten, E. (2013). Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of International Courts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 14(2), 411–436.
Wilkinson, R., & Hughes, S. (Eds.). (2002). Global governance: Critical perspectives. Abindgon: Psychology Press.
Wolf, K. D. (2007). 11 Private actors and the legitimacy of governance beyond the state. In A. Benz & Y. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Governance and Democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences (pp. 200–227). Oxford: Taylor and Francis Group.
Zürn, M. (2015). Beyond Anarchy: Authority and Rule in Global Governance. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 56(2), 319–333.
Zürn, M., Binder, M., & Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). International Authority and Its Politicization. International Theory, 4(1), 69–106.
The research for this paper was funded by the ERC Advanced Grant ‘Sources of Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance’ (Grant: 295456) and supported by ETH Zürich. We are grateful for comments by Michael Zürn, Jonas Tallberg, Zorzeta Bakaki, Mike Hudecheck, Vally Koubi, Liam McGrath, Quynh Nguyen, Irina Shaymerdenova, and Mike Tomz on earlier versions of this paper.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, B., Bernauer, T. & Kachi, A. Does international pooling of authority affect the perceived legitimacy of global governance?. Rev Int Organ 14, 661–683 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9341-4
- International organizations
- Public opinion
- Climate governance