Whose Legitimacy Beliefs Count? Targeted Audiences in Global Governance Legitimation Processes

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Whose Legitimacy Beliefs Count? Targeted Audiences in Global Governance Legitimation Processes. / Bexell, Magdalena; Jönsson, Kristina; Stappert, Nora.

I: Journal of International Relations and Development, Bind 24, Nr. 2, 2021, s. 483-508.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Bexell, M, Jönsson, K & Stappert, N 2021, 'Whose Legitimacy Beliefs Count? Targeted Audiences in Global Governance Legitimation Processes', Journal of International Relations and Development, bind 24, nr. 2, s. 483-508.

APA

Bexell, M., Jönsson, K., & Stappert, N. (2021). Whose Legitimacy Beliefs Count? Targeted Audiences in Global Governance Legitimation Processes. Journal of International Relations and Development, 24(2), 483-508.

Vancouver

Bexell M, Jönsson K, Stappert N. Whose Legitimacy Beliefs Count? Targeted Audiences in Global Governance Legitimation Processes. Journal of International Relations and Development. 2021;24(2):483-508.

Author

Bexell, Magdalena ; Jönsson, Kristina ; Stappert, Nora. / Whose Legitimacy Beliefs Count? Targeted Audiences in Global Governance Legitimation Processes. I: Journal of International Relations and Development. 2021 ; Bind 24, Nr. 2. s. 483-508.

Bibtex

@article{33251487daf841a8968ad9fab8c0e079,
title = "Whose Legitimacy Beliefs Count? Targeted Audiences in Global Governance Legitimation Processes",
abstract = "Which groups do global governance institutions address in their efforts to legitimate themselves? Global governance institutions are increasingly attempting to present themselves as legitimate vis-{\`a}-vis both internal and external audiences. Yet, empirical research on these legitimation audiences is still nascent. This article proposes a conceptual framework that highlights the selection of audiences by global governance institutions as a key element of their self-legitimation. Specifically, we argue that our approach addresses three continuing challenges in empirical research on self-legitimation. First, it emphasises how different actors within the institution may pursue multiple, and potentially conflicting, strategies with regard to the legitimation audiences they address. Second, our framework calls attention to what we call intermediary legitimation audiences, that is, audiences targeted with the expectation that they will in turn convince other audiences of the institution{\textquoteright}s legitimacy. Finally, instead of taking for granted that external critique steers who is targeted by self-legitimation, our approach highlights that an institution{\textquoteright}s internal assessment of such critique is decisive. We demonstrate the wide applicability of our framework through exploratory studies of three global governance institutions that differ with regard to their membership compositions: the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court and the Forest Stewardship Council.",
author = "Magdalena Bexell and Kristina J{\"o}nsson and Nora Stappert",
year = "2021",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "483--508",
journal = "Journal of International Relations and Development",
issn = "1408-6980",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Whose Legitimacy Beliefs Count? Targeted Audiences in Global Governance Legitimation Processes

AU - Bexell, Magdalena

AU - Jönsson, Kristina

AU - Stappert, Nora

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - Which groups do global governance institutions address in their efforts to legitimate themselves? Global governance institutions are increasingly attempting to present themselves as legitimate vis-à-vis both internal and external audiences. Yet, empirical research on these legitimation audiences is still nascent. This article proposes a conceptual framework that highlights the selection of audiences by global governance institutions as a key element of their self-legitimation. Specifically, we argue that our approach addresses three continuing challenges in empirical research on self-legitimation. First, it emphasises how different actors within the institution may pursue multiple, and potentially conflicting, strategies with regard to the legitimation audiences they address. Second, our framework calls attention to what we call intermediary legitimation audiences, that is, audiences targeted with the expectation that they will in turn convince other audiences of the institution’s legitimacy. Finally, instead of taking for granted that external critique steers who is targeted by self-legitimation, our approach highlights that an institution’s internal assessment of such critique is decisive. We demonstrate the wide applicability of our framework through exploratory studies of three global governance institutions that differ with regard to their membership compositions: the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court and the Forest Stewardship Council.

AB - Which groups do global governance institutions address in their efforts to legitimate themselves? Global governance institutions are increasingly attempting to present themselves as legitimate vis-à-vis both internal and external audiences. Yet, empirical research on these legitimation audiences is still nascent. This article proposes a conceptual framework that highlights the selection of audiences by global governance institutions as a key element of their self-legitimation. Specifically, we argue that our approach addresses three continuing challenges in empirical research on self-legitimation. First, it emphasises how different actors within the institution may pursue multiple, and potentially conflicting, strategies with regard to the legitimation audiences they address. Second, our framework calls attention to what we call intermediary legitimation audiences, that is, audiences targeted with the expectation that they will in turn convince other audiences of the institution’s legitimacy. Finally, instead of taking for granted that external critique steers who is targeted by self-legitimation, our approach highlights that an institution’s internal assessment of such critique is decisive. We demonstrate the wide applicability of our framework through exploratory studies of three global governance institutions that differ with regard to their membership compositions: the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court and the Forest Stewardship Council.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 24

SP - 483

EP - 508

JO - Journal of International Relations and Development

JF - Journal of International Relations and Development

SN - 1408-6980

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 334857754