Tradeoffs in International Order: Comparing Ideological and Output Legitimation

• In Event: Rhetoric and Its Effects on Security, Stability, and Legitimacy

Abstract

Autocratic states are challenging the terms of the international order and
the United States' leading role in the system. Policy debates have focused on
specific economic and military responses while largely taking for granted that
the effort should be organized around a core of like-minded liberal states. I
treat this emphasis on promoting a liberal narrative of international order as an
effort to make U.S. leadership acceptable to domestic and foreign audiences; it
is a legitimation strategy. Justifying U.S. leadership in liberal terms is only one
option, however, and the trade-offs of such an approach are not well understood. Leading states in
the international system have used a range of legitimation strategies that present
unique advantages and disadvantages. The main choice they face is whether to
justify their leadership in terms of an ideology like liberalism or to emphasize
a pragmatic ability to solve collective problems. This project explains how the
choice of legitimation strategy affects the durability of international orders and
their ability to expand without coercion. Ideological orders are more able to
weather periods of difficulty than orders that derive legitimacy from their
performance. However, ideological orders are inherently particularistic, and that
limits the breadth of their appeal.

Author

• Andrew Goodhart, University of Nebraska - Lincoln