Suchergebnisse

Branding of foreign aid may undermine government legitimacy in developing countries when citizens see social services being provided by external actors. We run a survey experiment on a sample of Indian respondents. All subjects learn about an HIV/AIDS program; treated subjects learn that it was foreign-funded. Although the results are not statistically significant at conventional levels, the patterns in the data suggest that approval ratings for key government institutions are lower in the treatment conditions while assessments of government performance are higher. These contrasting effects point toward the multiple ways in which government legitimacy might be affected by the presence of foreign aid: political representatives might suffer reputational loss, while overall state legitimacy remains unchanged.

"This book examines and investigates the legitimacy of the European Union by acknowledging the importance of variation across actors, institutions, audiences, and context. Case studies reveal how different actors have contributed to the politics of (re)legitimating the European Union in response to multiple recent problems in European integration. The case studies look specifically at stakeholder interests, social groups, officials, judges, the media and other actors external to the Union. With this, the book develops a better understanding of how the politics of legitimating the Union are actor-dependent, context-dependent and problem-dependent. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of European integration, as well as those interested in legitimacy and democracy beyond the state from a point of view of political science, political sociology and the social sciences more broadly"--

Defense date: 04/06/2008 ; Examining Board: Professor Michael Keating, European University Institute, Supervisor Professor Christine Chwaszcza, European University Institute, Co-supervisor Professor Dario Castiglione, University of Exeter Professor Ulrika Mörth, Stockholm University ; This thesis examines the uses of legitimacy in debates on European integration. It treats the issue at a normative and empirical level. The normative part is an analysis of four theoretical contributions to the discourse on EU democracy: the standard version of the democratic deficit, the regulatory state, multi-level governance and integration through deliberation. The empirical part explores the political use of the theories' legitimacy claims in two cases: the European Parliament's inquiry into BSE and its debates relating to the Convention on the Future of Europe. The analysis reveals certain problems in theoretical and political discourse. Whereas the critique of the standard version has some merit, the positions formulating non-majoritarian notions of EU democracy are equally, if not more, problematic. The regulatory state, multilevel governance and integration through deliberation dress up old ideas – technocracy, interest group pluralism and constitutionalism respectively – and attempt to reinvest them with democratic legitimacy. The cases further illustrate the problem. For one thing, they indicate that the assumptions of the positions do not hold. What is more, non-majoritarian approaches to EU democracy, while allowing political actors to use the language of democracy, do not provide them with concrete proposals as to how existing structures might be democratised. The result is a discrepancy between the language of democracy, promising popular control and political equality, and the proposals for institutional and constitutional reforms, which tend to either discourage mass engagement or obscure how and in what capacity citizens are to participate. There is a tendency, I conclude, to confuse democracy with legitimacy, and legitimacy with consensus. As a result, the attempts at rearticulating EU democracy succeed neither in establishing a new basis for EU democracy, nor in identifying different or new forms of legitimacy. From this, three consequences derive: First, the democratic deficit should be regarded as structurally determined. Second, the persistence of the democratic deficit requires a thorough debate on the scope of EU competences. Finally, more attention should be devoted to the role of national and regional actors in European integration.

AbstractBranding of foreign aid may undermine government legitimacy in developing countries when citizens see social services being provided by external actors. We run a survey experiment on a sample of Indian respondents. All subjects learn about an HIV/AIDS program; treated subjects learn that it was foreign-funded. We find null results that, along with existing results in the literature obtained from observational data, call into question the view that foreign-funded service delivery interferes with the development of a fiscal contract between the state and its citizens.

The Norwegian system of government comprises three levels: highest is the central government, or Storting (Parliament); in the middle are the counties, and at the lowest level are the municipalities. The municipal and county levels are considered local government. In this paper the degree of central control of the lower two levels of Norwegian government are compared and the implications of national regulations for local democracy, particularly for county governments, are discussed. The counties are more heavily controlled by the central government than are the municipalities, measured both by reliance on central grants and by regulation of the service supply. Whereas the representatives of the municipal councils are ambiguous when it comes to expressing the extent of central government control, the county-level politicians are clearly dissatisfied with central governmental constraints. Central regulations appear not to weaken the attractiveness of positions on the local councils, and the desire for reelection appears higher at the county level than at the municipal level. Voters see the parliamentary elections as most important, the municipal elections as of secondary importance, and the county elections as least important. At the county elections, national policymakers are to some extent responsible for the performance of the county government. It is argued that the lack of voter interest and voter control increases the ability of lobbying organizations to influence county decisions, which is likely to strengthen the dominance of producer interests relative to that of citizens and consumers. Such developments may induce demand for further state legislation to protect consumer interests, which will challenge the overall legitimacy of intermediate democracy.

This volume presents a selection of papers exploring the ways by which medieval powers sought to legitimize themselves, the political discourses through which this was effected, and a wide range of related problems. The six chapters in Part I analyse particular cases in which processes of legitimation can be seen at work, in order to disentangle the wide range of strategies and resources deployed by competing actors in a given context. Part II gathers five articles discussing the specific discourses of legitimation contained in a text or group of related texts, in order to expose their intricacies and their bearing on the way historians look at their sources. The book is of relevance for readers interested in new ways of approaching the History of Power. With contributions by Frances Andrews, Carlos Estepa, Paul Fouracre, Chris Given-Wilson, Piotr Górecki, Patrick Henriet, José Antonio Jara Fuente, Cristina Jular Pérez-Alfaro and Stephen D. White. Contributors include: Paul Fouracre, Stephen White, Isabel Alfonso, Chris Given-Wilson, Cristina Jular Pérez-Alfaro, José Antonio Jara Fuente, Carlos Estepa, Julio Escalona, Piotr Górecki, Patrick Henriet, Frances Andrews

Dilemmas from climate change to financial meltdowns make it clear that global interconnectedness is the norm in the twenty-first century. As a result, global governance organizations (GGOs)-from the World Trade Organization to the Forest Stewardship Council-have taken on prominent roles in the management of international affairs. These GGOs create and promulgate rules to address a host of pressing problems. But as World Rule reveals, they struggle to meet two challenges: building authority despite limited ability to impose sanctions and maintaining legitimacy while satisfying the demands of key constituencies whose support is essential to a global rulemaking regime. Through a novel empirical study of twenty-five GGOs, Jonathan GS Koppell provides a clearer picture of the compromises within and the competition among these influential institutions by focusing attention on their organizational design. Analyzing four aspects of GGO organization in depth-representation and administration, the rulemaking process, adherence and enforcement, and interest group participation-Koppell describes variation systemically, identifies patterns, and offers explanations that link GGO design to the fundamental challenge of accountability in global governance.

Based on four national surveys conducted in Spain, 1978-90. Factors include decline of polarization, economic growth, social equity, and level of trust in government.

Rights for LGBT people are a recent arrival in the international political sphere. While some countries in Europe and the Western Hemisphere have gaurnteed rights for LGBT people, many African and Asian countries have not gaurnteed these same rights. In Russia, an ingenuine push for democracy has resulted in an authoritarian state under the guise of democracy. Political legitimacy looms as a pressing issue for Vladimir Putin, and LGBT rights are one of the casualties in this quest to have his government be seen as just. Close ties with the Russian Orthodox Church, Russian public opinion of LGBT people, and well as persistent anti-Western rhetoric, force Putin to oppose rights for LGBT people. This paper explores the link between these factors, LGBT rights, and government legitimacy, and argues that Putin must oppose the rights of LGBT people in order to maintain legitimacy as the President of Russia.