Comparing Elite and Public Opinion on the Legitimacy of Global Governance

• In Event: Populist Challenges to International Organizations

Abstract

Current populist challenges to international organizations (IOs) purportedly draw on a gap in legitimacy beliefs between elites and general publics. Elites are said to be the winners of globalization, while substantial parts of publics supposedly feel left behind and turn against IOs of the liberal world order. Nationalist-populist politicians exploit this alleged elite-citizen gap to mobilize electorates, and contemporary events suggest that they can be successful in undermining international cooperation. Yet, we lack systematic analyses on elite and citizen views of IOs, as well as the factors that might generate gaps between their respective legitimacy beliefs vis-à-vis IOs. This paper offers the first attempt to systematically identify and explain such gaps between elite and citizen opinion toward IOs. Drawing on uniquely comparable survey data on elite and citizen opinion, the paper explores gaps in legitimacy beliefs toward key organizations in economic, security, and sustainable development governance (ICC, IMF, UN, WHO, World Bank, and WTO) in Brazil, Germany, and the US. The findings have implications for our understanding of the societal and attitudinal conditions that generate populist contestation of IOs.

Authors

• Lisa Maria Dellmuth, Stockholm University

• Jan Aart Scholte, University of Gothenburg

• Jonas Tallberg, Stockholm University

• Soetkin Verhaegen, Stockholm University