The orthodox answer to the question posed in the title of this article is that the legitimacy of institutions has something to do with acquiescence to unwelcome public policy decisions. We investigate that conventional wisdom using an experiment embedded within a representative national sample in the United States. We test hypotheses concerning not only the effect of institutional legitimacy on acquiescence, but also the influence of partisanship, the rule of law, and simple instrumentalism on willingness to accept an objectionable policy decision. Our analyses reveal that legitimacy does matter for acquiescence, and that the Supreme Court is more effective at converting its legitimacy into acceptance than is Congress. Yet, many important puzzles emerge from the data (e.g., partisanship is not influential), so we conclude that Legitimacy Theory still requires much additional empirical inquiry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2000. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Ann Arbor, MI.
2.
Aronson, Elliot, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, J. Merrill Carlsmith, and Marti Hope Gonzales. 1990. Methods of Research in Social Psychology, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
4.
Cook, Thomas D., and Donald T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
5.
Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
6.
Easton, David. 1975. “A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support.”British Journal of Political Science5 (4) October: 435-457.
7.
Gibson, James L.1989. “Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance.”Law and Society Review23: 469-496.
8.
Gibson, James L.2003. “Russian Attitudes towards the Rule of Law: An Analysis of Survey Data.” In Denis J. Galligan and Marina Kurkchiyan, eds., Law and Informal Practices: The Post-Communist Experience, pp. 77-91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
Gibson, James L.2004. “Truth, Reconciliation, and the Creation of a Human Rights Culture in South Africa.”Law and Society Review38 (1) March: 5-40.
10.
Gibson, James L., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1996. “The Legal Cultures of Europe.”Law and Society Review30 (1): 55-85.
11.
Gibson, James L., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1998. “Changes in the Legitimacy of the European Court of Justice: A Post-Maastricht Analysis.”British Journal of Political Science28 (1) January: 63-91.
12.
Gibson, James L., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 2003. “Defenders of Democracy? Legitimacy, Popular Acceptance, and the South African Constitutional Court.”Journal of Politics65 (1) February: 1-30.
13.
Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Vanessa Baird. 1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.”American Political Science Review92 (2) June: 343-358.
14.
Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Lester Kenyatta Spence. 2002. “The Role of Theory in Experimental Design: Experiments Without Randomization.”Political Analysis10 (4) Autumn: 362-375. (Special Issue on Experimental Methods in Political Science).
15.
Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Lester Kenyatta Spence. 2003. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?”British Journal of Political Science33 (4) October: 535-556.
16.
Gibson, James L., and Amanda Gouws. 1997. “Support for the Rule of Law in the Emerging South African Democracy.”International Social Science Journal152 (June): 173-191.
17.
Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2001. “Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be.”American Political Science Review95 (1) March: 145-153.
19.
Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Lavrakas, Paul J.1993. Telephone Survey Research Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision, vol. 7. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Levin, Martin A.1977. Urban Politics and Criminal Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Rose, Richard, William Mishler, and Christian Haerpfer. 1998. Democracy and Its Alternatives: Understanding Post-Communist Societies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
23.
Scheb, John M., II, and William Lyons. 2001. “Judicial Behavior and Public Opinion: Popular Expectations Regarding Factors That Influence Supreme Court Decisions.”Political Behavior23 (2) June: 181-194.
24.
Sunshine, Jason, and Tom Tyler. 2003. “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing.”Law and Society Review37 (3) September: 513-548.
25.
Survey Research Center, Sampling Section Division of Surveys and Technologies. n. d. “Post-Stratified Cross-Sectional Analysis Weights for the 1992, 1994 and 1996 NES Data.”Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Press.
