Why do some citizens across the globe prioritize the democracy of international organizations (IOs), while others place more emphasis on their effectiveness? We suggest that this difference in attitude may reflect two distinct perspectives on the subjects of IO democracy: (1) a citizen-centered perspective focusing on substantive citizen representation and IO accountability to citizens and (2) a state-centered perspective centering on fair state representation and IO accountability to member states. We examine these two perspectives among citizens worldwide and determine how these perspectives shape preferences for IO democracy and effectiveness. Our empirical analysis uses the latest wave of the World Values Survey, which covers more than 50,000 individuals across 44 countries for the period 2017−2020. We find that citizens’ democratic activism and the perceived democratic deficit in domestic governance, which we believe to be associated with a citizen-centered perspective in international governance, do not lead to the prioritization of IO democracy. Instead, the underrepresentation of their country in major IOs and confidence in the national government have a significant and positive association with the prioritization of IO democracy. These results suggest that the prioritization of IO democracy expressed by the public primarily reflects a state-centered perspective of international governance rather than a citizen-centered one.
AndersenTBHarrTTarpF (2006) On US politics and IMF lending. European Economic Review50(7): 1843–1862.
2.
BangHJensenMDNedergaardP (2015) ‘We the people’ versus ‘we the heads of states’: the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union. Policy Studies36(2): 196–216.
3.
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, pp. 19–34.
4.
BexellMTallbergJUhlinA (2010) Democracy in global governance: the promises and pitfalls of transnational actors. Global Governance16: 81–101.
5.
BinderMHeupelM (2020) Rising powers, UN Security Council reform, and the failure of rhetorical coercion. Global Policy11: 93–103.
6.
BjörkdahlA (2002) Norms in international relations: some conceptual and methodological reflections. Cambridge Review of International Affairs15(1): 9–23.
7.
BlumYZ (2005) Proposals for UN Security Council reform. The American Journal of International Law99(3): 632–649.
8.
BouëtABureauJCDecreuxY, et al. (2005) Multilateral agricultural trade liberalisation: the contrasting fortunes of developing countries in the Doha round. World Economy28(9): 1329–1354.
9.
BrattonM (2010) The meanings of democracy: anchoring the “D-Word” in Africa. Journal of Democracy21(4): 106–113.
10.
CafaroS (2017) Democracy in international organizations: arguments in support of a supranational approach. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global Studies12: 7–19.
11.
CanacheD (2012) Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance. Comparative Political Studies45(9): 1132–1158.
12.
DahlRA (2002) Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic’s view. In: HeldDMcGrewA (eds) The Global Transformations Reader. Oxford: Polity Press, pp. 530–541.
13.
DaltonRJSinTJouW (2007) Understanding democracy: data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy18(4): 142–156.
14.
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.
15.
DellmuthLMTallbergJ (2020) Elite communication and the popular legitimacy of international organizations. British Journal of Political Science51: 1–22.
16.
DingwerthKSchmidtkeHWeiseT (2020) The rise of democratic legitimation: why international organizations speak the language of democracy. European Journal of International Relations26(3): 714–741.
17.
DoyleMW (2005) Three pillars of the liberal peace. American Political Science Review93(3): 463–466.
18.
EisentrautS (2020) Talking Democracy at the United Nations: Power, Regime Type, and the Democratization of International Rule, vol. 17. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.
19.
GregorattiCUhlinA (2018) Civil society protest and the (de)legitimation of global governance institutions. In: TallbergJBäckstrandKScholteJA (eds) Legitimacy in Global Governance: Sources, Processes, and Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 134–149.
20.
GrigorescuA (2015) Democratic Intergovernmental Organizations?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HurdI (2008) Myths of membership: the politics of legitimation in UN Security Council reform. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations14(2): 199–217.
22.
HurrelmannADeBardelebenJ (2009) Democratic dilemmas in EU multilevel governance: untangling the Gordian knot. European Political Science Review1(2): 229–247.
23.
JonesK (2004) Who’s Afraid of the WTO?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
KoschutS (2014) Transatlantic conflict management inside-out: the impact of domestic norms on regional security practices. Cambridge Review of International Affairs27(2): 339–361.
25.
LauRRRedlawskDP (2001) Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science45(4): 951–971.
26.
LaxJRPhillipsJH (2012) The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science56(1): 148–166.
27.
LeeHWLimS (2020) Public feelings toward ASEAN: one vision, one identity, one community?Asian Survey60(5): 803–829.
28.
LesageDDebaerePDierckxS, et al. (2013) IMF reform after the crisis. International Politics50(4): 553–578.
LührmannATannenbergMLindbergSI (2018b) Regimes of the world (RoW): opening new avenues for the comparative study of political regimes. Politics and Governance6(1): 60–77.
31.
MaozZRussettB (1993) Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946-1986. American Political Science Review87(3): 624–638.
32.
MayedaG (2005) Appreciate the difference: the role of different domestic norms in law and development reform; lessons from China and Japan. McGill Law Journal51: 547.
33.
NanzPSteffekJ (2004) Global governance, participation and the public sphere. Government and Opposition39(2): 314–335.
34.
OdellJS (2009) Breaking deadlocks in international institutional negotiations: the WTO, Seattle, and Doha. International Studies Quarterly53(2): 273–299.
35.
Risse-KappenT (1995) Democratic peace—warlike democracies? A social constructivist interpretation of the liberal argument. European Journal of International Relations1(4): 491–517.
36.
RocabertJSchimmelfennigFCrasnicL, et al. (2019) The rise of international parliamentary institutions: purpose and legitimation. The Review of International Organizations14(4): 607–631.
37.
SchedlerASarsfieldR (2007) Democrats with adjectives: linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. European Journal of Political Research46(5): 637–659.
38.
SchlipphakB (2015) Measuring attitudes toward regional organizations outside Europe. The Review of International Organizations10(3): 351–375.
39.
SchmitterPCKarlTL (1991) What democracy is. . . and is not. Journal of Democracy2(3): 75–88.
40.
ShiTLuJ (2010) The meanings of democracy: the shadow of confucianism. Journal of Democracy21(4): 123–130.
41.
SteffekJKisslingCNanzP (eds) (2007) Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit?Berlin: Springer.
42.
TallbergJVerhaegenS (2020) The legitimacy of international institutions among rising and established powers. Global Policy11: 115–126.
43.
TallbergJZürnM (2019) The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework. The Review of International Organizations14: 581–606.
44.
TallbergJSommererTSquatritoT, et al. (2014) Explaining the transnational design of international organizations. International Organization68: 741–774.
45.
TalvingLVasilopoulouS (2021) Linking two levels of governance: citizens’ trust in domestic and European institutions over time. Electoral Studies70: 102289.
46.
TharoorS (2011) Security council reform: past, present, and future. Ethics & International Affairs25(4): 397–406.
47.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science185(4157): 1124–1131.
48.
UrbinatiNWarrenME (2008) The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science11: 387–412.
49.
WadeRHVestergaardJ (2015) Why is the IMF at an impasse, and what can be done about it?Global Policy6(3): 290–296.
50.
WeissL (2005) Global governance, national strategies: how industrialized states make room to move under the WTO. Review of International Political Economy12(5): 723–749.
51.
WeissTG (2003) The illusion of UN Security Council reform. Washington Quarterly26(4): 147–161.
