To justify their authority, international organizations (IOs) have long relied on a functional narrative that highlights effective problem-solving based on rational-legal expertise and neutrality. Today, IOs increasingly legitimize their authority in the language of democracy. Yet not all of them do so to the same extent, in the same manner, or consistently over time. In this article, we offer a comprehensive theoretical and empirical account of democratic legitimation in global governance. Our analysis builds on a new dataset, measuring the extent to which global IOs use democratic narratives in legitimizing their authority throughout the period from 1980 to 2011. The central findings are threefold. First, our data reveal a far-reaching rise of democratic legitimation in global governance. For many organizations, this increase remains relatively modest; for others, the democratic legitimation narrative becomes central. Second, this variation is mainly explained by a combination of two factors: (a) public visibility and protest constitute the driving forces of democratic legitimation and (b) IOs’ reaction to these legitimacy pressures unfolds in a path-dependent manner. Once organizations begin to take up democratic narratives, it seems to become costly to leave this path and shift to yet another set of norms. By contrast, the conventional wisdom that democratic legitimation follows in the footsteps of internationalized authority is not supported by our analysis.
AbbottKWGenschelPSnidalD, et al. (eds) (2015) International Organizations as Orchestrators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BarkerR (2007) Democratic legitimation. What is it, who wants it, and why? In: HurrelmannASchneiderSSteffekJ (eds) Legitimacy in an Age of Global Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 19–34.
3.
BarnettMFinnemoreM (1999) The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization53(4): 699–732. DOI: 10.1162/002081899551048.
4.
BennettA (2010) Process tracing and causal inference. In: BradyHECollierD (eds) Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. 2nd edn.Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 207–219.
5.
BexellMJönssonK (2018) Audiences of (de)legitimation in global governance. In: TallbergJBäckstrandKScholteJA (eds) Legitimacy in Global Governance. Sources, Processes, and Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 119–133.
6.
BiegońD (2016) Hegemonies of Legitimation. Discourse Dynamics in the European Commission. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
BIS (1997) 67th Annual report. 1st April 1996-31st March 1997. Basel, Switzerland: BIS.
8.
BlakeDJPaytonAL (2015) Balancing design objectives: analyzing new data on voting rules in intergovernmental organizations. The Review of International Organizations10(3): 377–402. DOI: 10.1007/s11558-014-9201-9.
9.
BoltanskiL (2011) On Critique. A Sociology of Emancipation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
10.
BörzelTARisseT (2016) Three cheers for comparative regionalism. In: BörzelTARisseT (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 621–648.
11.
BuchananAKeohaneRO (2006) The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics and International Affairs20(4): 405–437. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00043.x.
12.
Bueno de MesquitaBMorrowJDSiversonRM, et al. (1999) An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. The American Political Science Review93(4): 791–807. DOI: 10.2307/2586113.
13.
CameronACTrivediPK (2013) Regression Analysis of Count Data. 2nd edn. Econometric society monographs no. 30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
CheckelJT (2005) International institutions and socialization in Europe: introduction and framework. International Organization59(4): 801–826. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818305050289.
15.
CheibubJAGandhiJVreelandJR (2010) Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice143(1–2): 67–101. DOI: 10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2.
16.
ClarkI (2007) International Legitimacy and World Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
ClaudeIL (1966) Collective legitimization as a political function of the United Nations. International Organization20(3): 367–379. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300012832.
18.
CoicaudJ-M (2010) Deconstructing international legitimacy. In: CharlesworthHCoicaudJ-M (eds) Fault Lines of International Legitimacy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 29–86.
19.
CopelovitchMPevehouseJCW (2019) International organizations in a new era of populist nationalism. Review of International Organizations14(2): 169–186.
20.
DellmuthLM (2016) The knowledge gap in world politics: assessing the sources of citizen awareness of the United Nations security council. Review of International Studies42(4): 673–700. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210515000467.
21.
De WildePLeupoldASchmidtkeH (2016) Introduction: the differentiated politicisation of European governance. West European Politics39(1): 3–22. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2015.1081505.
22.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160. DOI: 10.2307/2095101.
23.
DingwerthK (2007) The New Transnationalism. Transnational Governance and Democratic Legitimacy. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
DingwerthK (2014) Global democracy and the democratic minimum: why a procedural account alone is insufficient. European Journal of International Relations20(4): 1124–1147. DOI: 10.1177/1354066113509116.
25.
DingwerthKWittALehmannI, et al. (2019) International Organizations Under Pressure. Legitimating Global Governance in Challenging Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
Ecker-EhrhardtM (2018) Self-legitimation in the face of politicization: why international organizations centralized public communication. The Review of International Organizations13(4): 519–546. DOI: 10.1007/s11558-017-9287-y.
27.
FeenstraRCInklaarRTimmerMP (2015) The next generation of the penn world table. American Economic Review105(10): 3150–3182. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20130954.
28.
FinnemoreMSikkinkK (1998) Norm dynamics and political change. International Organization52(4): 887–917. DOI: 10.1162/002081898550789.
29.
ForstR (2015) Normativität und Macht: Zur Analyse sozialer Rechtfertigungsordnungen. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.
GrigorescuA (2007) Transparency of intergovernmental organizations: the roles of member states, international bureaucracies and nongovernmental organizations. International Studies Quarterly51(3): 625–648. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00467.x.
32.
GrigorescuA (2015) Democratic Intergovernmental Organizations? Normative Pressures and Decision-Making Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
GronauJSchmidtkeH (2016) The quest for legitimacy in world politics – international institutions’ legitimation strategies. Review of International Studies42(3): 535–557. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210515000492.
34.
HaftelYZ (2013) Commerce and institutions: trade, scope, and the design of regional economic organizations. The Review of International Organizations8(3): 389–414. DOI: 10.1007/s11558-012-9162-9.
35.
HallidayTCBlock-LiebSCarruthersBG (2010) Rhetorical legitimation: global scripts as strategic devices of international organizations. Socio-Economic Review8(1): 77–112. DOI: 10.1093/ser/mwp024.
36.
HeldD (1995) Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
37.
HoogheLMarksG (2009) A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science39(1): 1–23. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123408000409.
38.
HoogheLMarksGLenzT, et al. (2017) Measuring International Authority. A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance, Volume III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
HurdI (2018) The empire of international legalism. Ethics & International Affairs32(3): 265–278. DOI: 10.1017/S0892679418000394.
40.
IMF (2000) Annual report 2000. Making the global economy work for all. IMF, Washington, DC.
41.
JohnsonTUrpelainenJ (2014) International bureaucrats and the formation of intergovernmental organizations: institutional design discretion sweetens the pot. International Organization68(1): 177–209. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818313000349.
42.
KeohaneROMacedoSMoravcsikA (2009) Democracy-enhancing multilateralism. International Organization63(1): 1–31.
43.
KeohaneROMoravcsikASlaughterA-M (2000) Legalized dispute resolution: interstate and transnational. International Organization54(3): 457–488. DOI: 10.1162/002081800551299.
44.
Koenig-ArchibugiM (2011) Is global democracy possible?European Journal of International Relations17(3): 519–542. DOI: 10.1177/1354066110366056.
45.
KoopmansRStathamP (1999) Political claims analysis: integrating protest event and political discourse approaches. Mobilization: An International Quarterly4(2): 203–221.
46.
KrippendorffK (2004) Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
47.
LenzTBezuijenJHoogheL, et al. (2014) Patterns of international organization: task-specific vs. general-purpose. Politische Vierteljahresschrift49(Special Issue): 131–156. DOI: 10.5771/9783845248516-136.
48.
MansfieldEDMilnerHVRosendorffBP (2000) Free to trade: democracies, autocracies, and international trade. The American Political Science Review94(2): 305–321. DOI: 10.2307/2586014.
49.
MansfieldEDMilnerHVRosendorffBP (2002) Why democracies cooperate more: electoral control and international trade agreements. International Organization56(03): 477–513. DOI: 10.1162/002081802760199863.
50.
MarshallMGJaggersKGurrTR (2016) Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2015. Vienna: Center for Systemic Peace.
51.
MooreM (2002) Democracy, Development and the WTO. Speech held at the Qatar Conference on Democracy and Free Trade, March 26–27, 2002, Doha, Qatar. Available at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spmm_e/spmm82_e.htm (accessed 17 October 2019).
52.
NelsonSC (2014) Playing favorites: how shared beliefs shape the IMF’s lending decisions. International Organization68(2): 297–328. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818313000477.
53.
NelsonSCWeaverCC (2016) Organizational culture. In: Katz CoganJHurdIJohnstoneI (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 920–938.
54.
OatesJ (2017) The fourth face of legitimacy: constituent power and the constitutional legitimacy of international institutions. Review of International Studies43(2): 199–220.
55.
O’BrienRGoetzAMScholteJA, et al. (eds) (2000) Contesting Global Governance. Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
OECD (2000) OECD annual report 2000. OECD, Paris.
57.
OECD (2001) OECD annual report 2001. OECD, Paris.
58.
OECD (2002) OECD annual report 2002. OECD, Paris.
59.
OECD (2011) Secretary-general’s report to ministers. 2011. OECD, Paris.
60.
OSCE (2007) Annual report 2007. OSCE: Vienna.
61.
ParkS (2017) Accountability as justice for the multilateral development banks? borrower opposition and bank avoidance to US power and influence. Review of International Political Economy24(5): 776–801. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2017.1363798.
62.
ParkSVetterleinA (2010) Owning Development: Creating Policy Norms in the IMF and the World Bank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
PevehouseJC (2005) Democracy From Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
PevehouseJCNordstromTWarnkeK (2004) The correlates of war 2 international governmental organizations data version 2.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science21(2): 101–119. DOI: 10.1080/07388940490463933.
65.
RocabertJSchimmelfennigFCrasnicL, et al. (2018) The rise of international parliamentary institutions: purpose and legitimation. The Review of International Organizations. Epub ahead of print 5 January 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s11558-018-9326-3.
66.
SchmidtkeH (2018) Elite legitimation and delegitimation of international organizations in the media: patterns and explanations. The Review of International Organizations. Epub ahead of print 8 August 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s11558-018-9320-9.
67.
SchmidtkeH (2019) Politics of Global Tax Governance. Oxon: Routledge.
68.
SchmitterPCKarlTL (1991) What democracy is . . . and is not. Journal of Democracy2(3): 75–88. DOI: 10.1353/jod.1991.0033.
69.
ScholteJA (ed.) (2011) Building Global Democracy: Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70.
SteffekJ (2015) The output legitimacy of international organizations and the global public interest. International Theory7(2): 263–293. DOI: 10.1017/S1752971915000044.
71.
StephenMD (2015) ‘Can you pass the salt?’ The legitimacy of international institutions and indirect speech. European Journal of International Relations21(4): 768–792. DOI: 10.1177/1354066114563417.
72.
SternbergCS (2015) Political legitimacy between democracy and effectiveness: trade-offs, interdependencies, and discursive constructions by the EU institutions. European Political Science Review7(4): 615–638. DOI: 10.1017/S1755773914000356.
73.
StoneRW (2008) The scope of IMF conditionality. International Organization62(4): 589–620. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818308080211.
74.
TallbergJSommererTSquatritoT, et al. (2014) Explaining the transnational design of international organizations. International Organization68(4): 741–774. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818314000149.
75.
TallbergJSommererTSquatritoT (2016) Democratic membership in international organizations: sources of institutional design. The Review of International Organizations11(1): 59–87. DOI: 10.1007/s11558-015-9227-7.
76.
TallbergJZürnM (2019) Legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework. The Review of International Organizations. Epub ahead of print 5 January 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s11558-018-9330-7
77.
TarrowS (2011) Power in Movement. Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Revised and Updated Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78.
UN (2003) Report of the secretary-general on the work of the organization. UN, New York.
VenablesWNRipleyBD (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th edn.New York: Springer.
81.
VolgyTJFausettEGrantKA, et al. (2008) Identifying formal intergovernmental organizations. Journal of Peace Research45(6): 837–850. DOI: 10.1177/0022343308096159.
82.
WeberM (1978) Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
83.
WeiseT (2015) Between functionality and legitimacy: German diplomatic talk about the opening of intergovernmental organizations. Global Governance21(1): 99–117. DOI: 10.5555/1075-2846-21.1.99.
84.
WolfKD (1999) The new Raison d’État as a problem for democracy in world society. European Journal of International Relations5(3): 333–363. DOI: 10.1177/1354066199005003003.
85.
WoodsN (1999) Good governance in international organizations. Global Governance5(1): 39–61.
86.
World Bank (1995) The world bank annual report 1995. The World Bank, Washington.
87.
World Bank (2011) The world bank annual report 2011. The World Bank, Washington.
88.
WTO (2003) Annual report. 2003. WTO, Geneva.
89.
WTO (2004) Annual report. 2004. WTO, Geneva.
90.
ZürnM (2018) A Theory of Global Governance. Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
91.
ZürnMLeibfriedL (2005) Reconfiguring the national constellation. In: LeibfriedLZürnM (eds) Transformations of the State?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–36.
92.
ZürnMBinderMEhrhardtM (2012) International authority and its politicization. International Theory4(01): 69–106. DOI: 10.1017/S1752971912000012.
93.
ZweifelT (2005) International Organizations and Democracy. Accountability, Politics, and Power. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
