The performance of individual international organizations (IOs) has received considerable scholarly attention, not in the least because their importance for global governance. This paper adds to this body of work by adopting genuine comparative lenses. Based on a novel survey, it assesses the attributed performance of 49 IOs over two important dimensions: problem-solving effectiveness and legitimacy of outputs. This reveals variation between IOs with respect to both components. We derive hypotheses from international cooperation and IO design. The quantitative analysis reveals that except deliberative diplomatic practices many factors increasing attributed legitimacy differ from the ones increasing the attributed problem-solving effectiveness. Most notably, autonomous secretariats increase the problem-solving effectiveness attributed to IOs. Legitimacy attributions increase when IOs are regional instead of global in nature and when non-state actors have access to IO decision-making.
AlterKJRaustialaK (2018) The rise of international regime complexity. Annual Review of Law and Social Science14: 329–349.
2.
BarnettMFinnemoreM (2004) Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
3.
BernauerT (1995) The effect of international environmental institutions: How we might learn more. International Organization49: 351–377.
4.
BexellMTallbergJUhlinA (2010) Democracy in global governance: The promises and pitfalls of transnational actors. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations16: 81–101.
5.
CarterNDayPKleinR, et al. (2002) How Organisations Measure Success: The Use of Performance Indicators in Government. London: Routledge.
6.
CohenJ (2003) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: MatraversDPikeJ (eds) Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy. London: Routledge, pp. 342–361.
7.
DellmuthLMTallbergJ (2015) The social legitimacy of international organisations: Interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations. Review of International Studies41: 451–475.
8.
DingwerthKWittALehmannI, et al. (2019) International Organizations under Pressure: Legitimating Global Governance in Challenging Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
EastonD (1965) A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10.
ElgströmOJönssonC (2000) Negotiating in the European Union: Bargaining or problem-solving?Journal of European Public Policy7: 684–704.
11.
FawcettLHurrellA (eds) (1995) Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
GrayJ (2018) ) Life, Death, or Zombie? The Vitality of International Organizations. International Studies Quarterly62: 1–13.
13.
GrigorescuA (2015) Democratic Intergovernmental Organizations? Normative Pressures and Decision-making Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
GrinolsELPerrelliR (2006) The WTO impact on international trade disputes: An event history analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics88: 613–624.
15.
GutnerTThompsonA (2010) The politics of IO performance: A framework. The Review of International Organizations5: 227–248.
16.
HaftelYZThompsonA (2006) The independence of international organizations: Concept and applications. Journal of Conflict Resolution50(2): 253–275.
17.
Hafner-BurtonEM (2009) The power politics of regime complexity: Human rights trade conditionality in Europe. Perspectives on Politics7: 33–37.
18.
HermwilleLObergasselWOttHE, et al. (2015) UNFCC before and after Paris: What’s necessary for an effective climate regime?Climate Policy17(2): 150–170.
19.
HoogheLMarksG (2014) Delegation and pooling in international organizations. Review of International Organizations10: 305–328.
20.
HoogheLLenzTMarksG (2019) A Theory of International Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
HoogheLMarksGLenzT, et al. (2017) Measuring International Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
HurdI (1999) Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization53: 379–408.
23.
HurdI (2011) International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
JonahJOC (2008) Secretariat: Independence and reform. In: WeissTGDawsS (eds) The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 160–174.
25.
KoremenosBLipsonCSnidalD (2001) The rational design of international institutions. International Organization55: 761–799.
26.
KoreyW (1998) NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Curious Grapevine. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
27.
LallR (2017) Beyond institutional design: Explaining the performance of international organizations. International Organization71: 245–280.
28.
LenzTMarksG (2016) Regional institutional design. In: BörzelTARisseT (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 513–537.
29.
LevyMAKeohaneROHaasPM (1993) Improving the effectiveness of international environmental institutions. In: HaasPMKeohaneROLevyMA (eds) Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 397–426.
30.
LipsonM (2010) Performance under ambiguity: International organization performance in un peacekeeping. The Review of International Organizations5: 249–284.
31.
MagnetteP (2004) Deliberation or bargaining: Coping with constitutional conflicts in the convention on the future of Europe. In: EriksenJEFossumJMenendezA (eds) Developing a Constitution for Europe. London: Routledge, pp. 207–225.
32.
ManinB (1987) On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory15: 338–368.
33.
MüllerH (2004) Arguing, bargaining and all that: Reflections on the relationship of communicative action and rationalist theory in analysing international negotiations. European Journal of International Relations10: 395–435.
34.
NiemetzMD (2013) Empowering civil society: How to increase the input of NGOs into security council deliberation. Journal of Human Rights Practice6: 69–88.
35.
NorthDC (1990) A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics2: 355–367.
36.
PankeD (2006) More arguing than bargaining? The institutional designs of the European convention and intergovernmental conferences compared. Journal of European Integration28: 357–379.
37.
PankeD (2018) Research design and method selection: Making good choices in the social sciences. London: SAGE.
38.
PankeDHohlsteinFPolatG (2019) The constitutions of international organisations. How institutional design seeks to foster diplomatic deliberation. Global Constitutionalism8(3): 571–604.
39.
PankeDPolatGHohlsteinF (2021a) Satisfied or not? Exploring the interplay of individual, Country and international organization characteristics for negotiation success. Review of International Organizations16(2): 403–429.
40.
PankeDHohlsteinFPolatG (2021b) Designing international organizations for debate? A factor analysis. International Politics58: 835–863.
41.
PankeDStapelSStarkmannA (2020) Comparing Regional Organizations. Global Dynamics and Regional Particularities. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
42.
PlanteyA (2007) International Negotiation in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge.
43.
PosnerESykesAO (2014) Voting rules in international organizations. Working paper no. 673. Chicago, IL: Law School – Public Law and Legal Theory, University of Chicago.
44.
PrincenTFingerM (1994) Environmental NGOs in World Politics: Linking the Local and the Global. London: Routledge.
45.
RaustialaK (1997) States, NGOs, and international environmental institutions. International Studies Quarterly41: 719–740.
46.
RisseT (2004) Global governance and communicative action. Government and Opposition39: 288–313.
47.
RittbergerVZanglBKruckA, et al. (2019) International Organization. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
48.
RocabertJSchimmelfennigFCrasnicL, et al. (2018) The rise of international parliamentary institutions: Purpose and legitimation. The Review of International Organizations14: 607–631.
49.
SteffekJ (2003) The legitimation of international governance: A discourse approach. European Journal of International Relations9: 249–275.
50.
TallbergJZürnM (2019) The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework. The Review of International Organizations14: 581–606.
51.
TallbergJSommererTSquatritoT, et al. (2013) The Opening Up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
TallbergJSommererTSquatritoT, et al. (2016) The performance of international organizations: A policy output approach. Journal of European Public Policy23: 1077–1096.
53.
UnderdalAYoungO (eds ) (2004) Regime Consequences: Methodological Challenges in the Study of Regime Effectiveness. New York: Springer.
54.
VinokurovELibmanA (2017) Re-evaluating Regional Organizations: Behind the Smokescreen of Official Mandates. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
55.
WilliamsonOE (1999) Public and private bureacracies: A transaction cost economics perspective. Journal of Law, Economis & Organization15: 307–342.
56.
YoungOR (2003) Determining regime effectiveness: A commentary on the Oslo-Potsdam solution. Global Environmental Politics3: 97–104.
