Search results

AbstractThe research tests a model of reconciliation between authorities and communities. It expands past models of legitimacy to an intergroup dynamic model by identifying two community‐level actions that legal authorities can undertake to build their popular legitimacy and promote cooperation. One type of action is a community‐level reconciliatory gesture: an initiative that authorities make to communities to build trust by recognizing and trying to move beyond prior negative experiences. A second involves community‐level opportunities for participating in decisions about how to manage social order. The results of this study with residents from a large metropolitan city suggest that both types of community‐level gestures can make distinct contributions to building trust in and cooperation with the police.

Examining the legitimacy of the World Anti-Doping Agency, this book offers a critical analysis of the anti-doping system and the social and behavioural processes that shape policy, asking why the current system is failing. Featuring in-depth, contemporary case studies from around the world, including the whereabouts system; Lance Armstrong; therapeutic use exemptions; the Essendon Bombers; recreational drugs policy; and the Russian Olympic doping programme, this is the first text to analyse empirically how the legitimacy of WADA is constructed, contested and managed in the field of anti-doping, and the consequent impact this has on anti-doping. Based on the analysis of these case studies, the book discusses how legitimacy processes have shaped the current regulatory environment and offers structural and governance reforms to improve anti-doping policy design and implementation. Adopting a unique theoretical perspective, rooted in a socio-cognitive perspective on organisational behaviour, this book is essential reading for any researcher or student working on drugs and doping in sport, sport management, the sociology of sport, governance, transnational organisations or strategic management. It also offers important insights for policymakers and administrators working in sport or in government.

Contemporary society has witnessed major growth in global governance, yet the legitimacy of global governance remains deeply in question. This book offers the first full comparative investigation of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. Empirically, it provides a comprehensive analysis of public and elite opinion toward global governance, building on two uniquely coordinated surveys covering multiple countries and international organizations. Theoretically, it develops an individual-level approach, exploring how a person's characteristics in respect of socioeconomic status, political values, geographical identification, and domestic institutional trust shape legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. The book's central findings are threefold. First, there is a notable and general elite-citizen gap in legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. While elites on average hold moderately high levels of legitimacy toward international organizations, the general public is decidedly more skeptical. Second, individual-level differences in interests, values, identities, and trust dispositions provide significant drivers of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs toward global governance, as well as the gap between the two groups. Most important on the whole are differences in the extent to which citizens and elites trust domestic political institutions, which shape how these groups assess the legitimacy of international organizations. Third, both patterns and sources of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs vary across organizations and countries. These variations suggest that institutional and societal contexts condition attitudes toward global governance. The book's findings shed light on future opportunities and constraints in international cooperation, suggesting that current levels of legitimacy point neither to a general crisis of global governance nor to a general readiness for its expansion.

Legitimacy is regarded as one critical aspect of biodiversity management and nature conservation arrangements. Multi-level governance is claimed to pose several challenges to legitimacy. The aim of this paper is to review some legitimacy challenges in multilevel governance contexts, and to analyse empirically biodiversity governance in different EU countries in the light of these challenges. Four legitimacy criteria - legal compatibility, accountability, representation and inclusion, and transparency - serve as a framework for theoretical and empirical analysis. The analysis is based on twelve cases of multilevel biodiversity governance from different EU countries. The results show that several of the legitimacy challenges in multilevel governance can be observed in the cases, for example the poor inclusion of certain concerns at some time points of the decision process, difficulties in being accountable towards multiple levels simultaneously, or the weak visibility of the decision process either for the general public or for the immediate participants.

Contemporary society has witnessed major growth in global governance, yet the legitimacy of global governance remains deeply in question. This book offers the first full comparative investigation of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. Empirically, it provides a comprehensive analysis of public and elite opinion toward global governance, building on two uniquely coordinated surveys covering multiple countries and international organizations. Theoretically, it develops an individual-level approach, exploring how a person's characteristics in respect of socioeconomic status, political values, geographical identification, and domestic institutional trust shape legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. The book's central findings are threefold. First, there is a notable and general elite–citizen gap in legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. While elites on average hold moderately high levels of legitimacy toward international organizations, the general public is decidedly more skeptical. Second, individual-level differences in interests, values, identities, and trust dispositions provide significant drivers of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs toward global governance, as well as the gap between the two groups. Most important on the whole are differences in the extent to which citizens and elites trust domestic political institutions, which shape how these groups assess the legitimacy of international organizations. Third, both patterns and sources of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs vary across organizations and countries. These variations suggest that institutional and societal contexts condition attitudes toward global governance. The book's findings shed light on future opportunities and constraints in international cooperation, suggesting that current levels of legitimacy point neither to a general crisis of global governance nor to a general readiness for its expansion.

This study analyses the legitimacy of different pay determination principles in Swedish public sector organisations. The aim is to explore what dimensions of worth exist in pay determination and to analyse the extent to which differences in legitimacy can be explained by organisational position, professional identity and organisational context. Theoretically, the article is influenced by "valuation studies" and the "institutional logics" and "orders of worth" approaches in analysing the existence of multiple dimensions of pay determination. Empirically, the study is based on surveys to employees and managers. The main results are that individual performance is the most legitimate dimension of worth, although job requirements and employee behaviour also have a high level of legitimacy. Formal individual competence and market value have a somewhat lower level of legitimacy, while organisational results is the dimension that has least legitimacy. In addition, the perceptions of legitimacy are shown to vary somewhat with position, profession and organisational context.

This article reveals the existence of a so-called 'ghost policy' (informal tradition and/or obsolete policy rules) that resists new official policy concerning the management of natural resources in Sweden. These ghost policies are often ignored in the Swedish policy making process inhibiting, therefore, viable and legitimate solutions to the profound negative consequences that costly local conflicts of interest have on democracy. These conflicts of interest expose and represent a classic and current problem intrinsic to the communitarian policy process in Sweden. That is, since the Swedish policy process has a blind spot, it focuses on the views of experts and interest organisations and, subsequently, overlooks the perceptions of those stakeholders (in this case local game hunters) affected by policy. This undermines the policy's goals since they are alien to local tradition. Furthermore, not just the existence and ubiquity of ghost policies, but even social facts such as the physical size and membership of an organisation influence conflicts of interest. This implies that there is still room for collaborations with locals as well as social engineering in the policy process. In order then for the Swedish policy process to gain more legitimacy from stakeholders involved with natural resource management the government must review and change its present processes of policy making. Adapted from the source document.

Discusses the impact upon the People's Republic of China of the erosion of state legitimacy seen across postcommunist Eastern Europe. "Regime legitimacy" is understood here as citizens' trust that the essence & operations of national institutions accord with their own fundamental political & moral beliefs. Legitimacy thus is relational -- ie, a state may not claim it unless its citizens freely & willingly cooperate. High & low levels of legitimacy are described & the causal relationship, especially as concerns the PRC, between a democracy deficit & low legitimacy is shown. The argument utilizes the available literature to demonstrate that the erosion of Chinese state legitimacy is less the consequence of entrenched authoritarianism than a marker of frustration over the socioeconomic effects of economic reforms. K. Coddon

The post Patterns of Legitimacy appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.