Global governance organizations

Legitimacy and authority in conflict

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Global governance organizations (GGOs) are frequently maligned as both illegitimate and ineffective. With the growing prominence of entities that promulgate global rules governing trade, communications, finance, and transport, these shortcomings take on greater importance. This essay presents a theoretical framework to understand the challenge of legitimacy for GGOs. It argues that GGOs tend to face trade-offs between legitimacy and authority, but that widespread usages of these important terms conflate or confuse them and thus obscure critical issues in GGO politics. Once these terms are more clearly defined, we see more easily that GGOs must sometimes violate democratic norms, sacrificing equality and bureaucratic neutrality, to satisfy key constituencies and thus retain power. The argument lays the foundation for an empirical study that demonstrates how the structure and processes adopted by GGOs are intended to satisfy the conflicting demands of legitimacy and authority.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)177-203
Number of pages27
JournalJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Volume18
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

global governance
legitimacy
neutrality
Authority
Global governance
Legitimacy
equality
finance
communications
politics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Marketing

Cite this

Global governance organizations : Legitimacy and authority in conflict. / Koppell, Jonathan.

In: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 18, No. 2, 04.2008, p. 177-203.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5e0a1e6e7e7c49e8aa0088c7ea0b81a4,
title = "Global governance organizations: Legitimacy and authority in conflict",
abstract = "Global governance organizations (GGOs) are frequently maligned as both illegitimate and ineffective. With the growing prominence of entities that promulgate global rules governing trade, communications, finance, and transport, these shortcomings take on greater importance. This essay presents a theoretical framework to understand the challenge of legitimacy for GGOs. It argues that GGOs tend to face trade-offs between legitimacy and authority, but that widespread usages of these important terms conflate or confuse them and thus obscure critical issues in GGO politics. Once these terms are more clearly defined, we see more easily that GGOs must sometimes violate democratic norms, sacrificing equality and bureaucratic neutrality, to satisfy key constituencies and thus retain power. The argument lays the foundation for an empirical study that demonstrates how the structure and processes adopted by GGOs are intended to satisfy the conflicting demands of legitimacy and authority.",
author = "Jonathan Koppell",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1093/jopart/mum041",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "177--203",
journal = "Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory",
issn = "1053-1858",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Global governance organizations

T2 - Legitimacy and authority in conflict

AU - Koppell, Jonathan

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - Global governance organizations (GGOs) are frequently maligned as both illegitimate and ineffective. With the growing prominence of entities that promulgate global rules governing trade, communications, finance, and transport, these shortcomings take on greater importance. This essay presents a theoretical framework to understand the challenge of legitimacy for GGOs. It argues that GGOs tend to face trade-offs between legitimacy and authority, but that widespread usages of these important terms conflate or confuse them and thus obscure critical issues in GGO politics. Once these terms are more clearly defined, we see more easily that GGOs must sometimes violate democratic norms, sacrificing equality and bureaucratic neutrality, to satisfy key constituencies and thus retain power. The argument lays the foundation for an empirical study that demonstrates how the structure and processes adopted by GGOs are intended to satisfy the conflicting demands of legitimacy and authority.

AB - Global governance organizations (GGOs) are frequently maligned as both illegitimate and ineffective. With the growing prominence of entities that promulgate global rules governing trade, communications, finance, and transport, these shortcomings take on greater importance. This essay presents a theoretical framework to understand the challenge of legitimacy for GGOs. It argues that GGOs tend to face trade-offs between legitimacy and authority, but that widespread usages of these important terms conflate or confuse them and thus obscure critical issues in GGO politics. Once these terms are more clearly defined, we see more easily that GGOs must sometimes violate democratic norms, sacrificing equality and bureaucratic neutrality, to satisfy key constituencies and thus retain power. The argument lays the foundation for an empirical study that demonstrates how the structure and processes adopted by GGOs are intended to satisfy the conflicting demands of legitimacy and authority.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=40849098561&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=40849098561&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jopart/mum041

DO - 10.1093/jopart/mum041

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 177

EP - 203

JO - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

JF - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

SN - 1053-1858

IS - 2

ER -