Legitimacy and Modes of Global Governance

Abstract

The architecture of global governance has undergone profound changes in recent decades. On the one hand, states have continued to empower the hierarchical international organizations (IOs) that were established in the post-Second World War era and constitute the backbone of global governance. 1 While IOs no longer constitute the growth area in global governance, those that exist have been conferred ever more authority in an increasing range of policy domains. On the other hand, we have witnessed a proliferation of new modes of global governance, involving a shift toward network-and market-based organization. 2 Transgovernmental networks (TGNs), transnational hybrid institutions (THIs), and transnational private arrangements (TPAs) have emerged in a broad range of policy areas. 3 As a result, various forms of non-state actors have assumed a more prominent role in the governing of global concerns. 4 This chapter follows on from previous chapters in this volume that have documented this transformation in the architecture of global governance. Instead of offering further testimony of this trend, it explores one of its potential sources: the legitimacy of old and new forms of global governance. Specifically, it examines whether the gradual shift from hierarchical IOs and toward TGNs, THIs, and TPAs could be explained by a decline in the legitimacy for old-style governance and the promise of higher legitimacy for new-style governance. Legitimacy is understood here as the perception or belief within a given audience that an have all provided very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. In addition, I am indebted to Karin Sundström and Soetkin Verhaegen for invaluable assistance with public and elite survey data. Finally, I would like to thank Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (Grant M15-0048:1) for generous financial support.