The limits of proceduralism: Critical remarks on the rise of ‘throughput legitimacy’

Abstract

‘Throughput legitimacy’ is among the most successful conceptual innovations that scholars of public policy and administration have produced in recent years. I argue that this new understanding of legitimacy needs to be seen in the context of an increasing proceduralism in political science and public administration. Throughput legitimacy attracted so much attention because it is the perfect normative companion to the analytical concept of governance. Governance is procedure, and throughput legitimacy tells us what good procedures are. In my critical discussion of this innovation I examine the analytical value of the concept, as well as its normative and practical implications. I argue that, regarding concept formation, throughput legitimacy may enrich existing typologies of legitimacy but at the same time has a severe problem of fuzzy borders. Politically, throughput legitimacy lends itself to apologetic uses when it is applied as a tailor‐made normative standard for technocratic, non‐majoritarian institutions.

How to Produce and Measure Throughput Legitimacy? Lessons from a Systematic Literature Review

“…First, we examine the most influential publications in the literature on throughput legitimacy. In line with Steffek (2019), we find among them the pioneering reflexion of Scharpf (1997Scharpf ( , 1999 on the two modes of production of democratic legitimacy, and the subsequent work of Benz and Papadopoulos (2006) on the application of democratic standards to multilevel governance arrangements. We also find the conceptual work of Risse and Kleine (2007) and Schmidt (2013) on the constitutive principles of throughput legitimacy.…”

“…Throughput legitimacy, as a third mode of production of legitimacy pertaining to the quality of the governance process, gained prominence in the 2010s. For Steffek (2019), this was due to the proceduralist turn in political science-a shift in scholars' attention from the content of decisions to the process and procedures of decision-making. We believe that this was also due to the conceptual work of Risse and Kleine (2007) and Schmidt (2013).…”

“…In their introduction, Schmidt and Wood (2019) pointed out that the concept had been applied to nearly all levels of government and all policy sectors. In his literature review, Steffek (2019) focused on the proceduralist underpinnings of throughput legitimacy, its added value compared to input and output legitimacy, and its normative implications rather than on lessons learned from empirical investigations. Another issue was the lack of indications regarding the methodology.…”

“…Still others have explored the relations between throughput legitimacy and collaborative governance (4). The works of Schmidt and Wood (2019) and Steffek (2019) extensively addressed question 1. In this article, we focus on the last three questions and their answers.…”

Throughput Legitimacy and the Duty to Consult: The Limits of the Law to Produce Quality Interactions in British Columbia's EA Process

“…Although the duty is meant to advance reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests, there are limits to how proceduralism can resolve serious political conflict (Steffek, 2019). Indigenous peoples experience a deep distrust of state institutions and processes as a result of Canada's state-sanctioned assimilatory efforts.…”