Legitimacy, metacoordination and context-dependence

Abstract

This paper argues that the process of deriving legitimacy criteria for political institutions ought to be sensitive to features of the political context in which that process is to occur. The paper builds on Allen Buchanan’s ‘Metacoordination View’ of legitimacy, which we explicate in the first section. While sympathetic to Buchanan’s practical approach, we believe the idea of a metacoordination process to be underspecified across two dimensions, which we explain in the second section: (i) constituency and (ii) normativity. Both dimensions admit of differing specifications. In the third section, we suggest that how best to fill in these dimensions in any one instance depends upon the political context in which the metacoordination process is to occur. We highlight three relevant elements of a political decision context – criticality, institutional time point, and motivational landscape – and illustrate their significance by way of reference, respectively, to the World Health Organization, the European Economic and Monetary Union, and the Bank of International Settlements. The ‘context-dependence’ of the metacoordination process, and therefore of legitimacy, entails the possibility that institutions that are similar, even identical, in terms of their nature and function may nevertheless be held to differing legitimacy criteria in differing political contexts.

Towards a ‘pluralist’ world order: creative agency and legitimacy in global institutions

“…For example, it is commonly claimed that liberal and democratic standards generate legitimacy by helping institutions satisfy moral demands for individual autonomy (Valentini, 2012) or political equality (Christiano, 2008); similarly, consequentialist moral principles are invoked as grounds for ‘output’ legitimacy standards (Keohane, 2011; Scharpf, 1999). Such ‘moralist’ (Williams, 2005) accounts appeal to normative reasons articulated by moral philosophers; but in many global institutional contexts, philosophers’ moral principles are rejected by many political agents whose support is at issue – due to repudiation of cosmopolitan morality (Walzer, 1980) or the view that the scope of liberal and democratic moral principles is limited to domestic (Miller, 2010; Rawls, 2001) or otherwise circumscribed (Maffettone and Ulas, 2019) institutional spheres. In such contexts, the required link cannot be sustained between moral principles and legitimacy’s demand for standards acceptable to real political agents.…”

I Trends in Theorizing Democratic Legitimacy

“…Global governance, they argue, is “the exercise of authority across national borders as well as consented norms and rules beyond the nation state” (Fioretos & Tallberg, 2021, p. 100). In turn, legitimacy relates to the perception that authority is appropriately exercised (Maffettone & Ulas, 2019). As such, legitimacy is a relational feature established by how audiences perceive the exercise of power.…”

Peaceful Use of Lasers in Space: Context-Based Legitimacy in Global Governance of Large Technical Systems

“…Finally, Maffettone and Ulaş (2019) claim that legitimacy should be judged differently for new institutional authorities than for those that already exist. Bringing subjects under a new authority calls for greater attention to the decision-making processes and overall governance design.…”

“…Building upon the conceptual apparatus of context-based legitimacy recently put forward by Maffettone and Ulaş (2019), we outline the contours of the legitimate global governance of highpower laser systems that could a) enable the development and use of high-power lasers to address space-related challenges that all of humanity shares and b) maintain a reasonable degree of global inclusivity. Specifically, we show how the inevitable trade-offs between effectiveness and democratic quality (inclusivity) can be conceptualized within a complex picture of legitimate decision-making.…”

“…Each phase possesses distinct characteristics and, therefore, calls for different criteria of evaluation as regards choice (in)sensitivity, the social environment that accompanies it, the type of constituency to which decision-making should be accountable, and the trade-off priorities pertaining to input and output legitimacy. This is where the context-sensitive framework provided by Maffettone and Ulaş (2019) proves especially useful. Among other things, our contribution lies in showing how the general framework may combine with a specific policy/governance challenge (use of high-power lasers in space), which, even if complex, is rather clearly delineated and rests on a high degree of scientific consensus.…”