Legitimacy Struggles in Global Governance: Legitimation and Delegitimation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Abstract

The Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) started operation in January 2016 in the context of severe criticism from the U.S. government and transnational civil society organizations, but with the support from major Asian and European states. The establishment of this new global governance institution (GGI) raises intriguing questions concerning legitimacy and (de)legitimation. What legitimacy challenges has the AIIB as a new institution experienced and how has the Bank tried to boost its legitimacy? What specific legitimation and delegitimation practices have been applied by what actors and with what effects? Contributing to research on legitimacy in global governance, this article develops a framework for analyzing legitimacy struggles. It highlights the dynamic relations between legitimation (practices intended to boost beliefs that the rule of a political institution is exercised appropriately) and delegitimation (practices challenging the appropriateness of a political institution's exercise of authority). The framework includes a systematic study of different agents of (de)legitimation (including GGIs, states, and nonstate actors), practices of (de)legitimation (categorized as institutional and discursive), and institutional sources of (de)legitimation (related to procedure as well as performance). The case study, based on indepth qualitative content analysis of documents produced by the AIIB and other actors, demonstrates how legitimizers and delegitimizers respond to each other. Being a new GGI, legitimacy struggles on the AIIB have to a large extent focused on its institutional design referring to (the lack of) democratic procedures. Legitimizers tend to stress technocratic performance, whereas delegitimizers are more concerned with fair performance.

How trust is lost: the Food Systems Summit 2021 and the delegitimation of UN food governance

“…IOs address relevant audiences to gain their trust. In their respective ‘legitimacy struggles in global governance’ (Uhlin, 2019), they interact with those actors that criticize them directly. Building on findings from the IR literature, we therefore assume that legitimacy is not only a structural issue but rather a dyadic practice in that legitimation is actively pursued by IOs and countered by different kinds of delegitimation practices of critical actors such as social movements (Bexell et al, 2022; Gronau and Schmidtke, 2016; Steffek, 2003; Tallberg and Zürn, 2019).…”

Global Legitimacy Crises

“…global governance in general, Beijing's more specific dissatisfaction with its limited power in the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) appears to have played a role in the creation of this IO (Uhlin, 2019). Member governments may also engage in the practice of re-unilateralization out of strategic concerns.…”

Challenges to Democracy in the Anthropocene

“…Questions about increasing the visibility and say of the underrepresented and amplifying the voices of the subaltern and the marginalized are also critical. Some of these questions are raised in the debates on democratic legitimacy in global governance institutions (Bäckstrand and Söderbaum 2018;Macdonald and Macdonald 2017;Uhlin 2019).…”