Red Tape, Rule Legitimacy, and Public Service Motivation: Experimental Evidence From Korean Citizens

While legitimacy plays a key role in determining if a public sector rule or process objectively qualifies as red tape, it is unclear if legitimacy shapes subjective red tape judgments. We use a sample of South Korean citizens and a vignette-based survey experiment describing applying for a small business COVID-19 relief fund to test the relevance of rule legitimacy for perceived red tape. We find that obtaining a favorable outcome (receiving the fund) reduces perceived red tape, but that neither input nor output legitimacy plays a consistent role. Second, we find that public service motivation moderates the role of both input and output legitimacy on perceived red tape, though in different directions. For those with high levels of public service motivation, output legitimacy reduces perceived red tape. However, for the same group, input legitimacy increases it. We provide a detailed discussion of the contributions of our study.

Transnational Representation in Global Labour Governance and the Politics of Input Legitimacy

Private governance raises important questions about democratic representation. Rule making is rarely based on electoral authorisation by those in whose name rules are made—typically a requirement for democratic legitimacy. This requires revisiting the role of representation in input legitimacy in transnational governance, which remains underdeveloped. Focussing on private labour governance, we contrast two approaches to the transnational representation of worker interests in global supply chains: non-governmental organisations providing representative claims versus trade unions providing representative structures. Studying the Bangladesh Accord for Fire and Building Safety, we examine their interaction along three dimensions of democratic representation: 1) creating presence, 2) authorisation, and 3) accountability to affected constituents. We develop a framework that explains when representative claims and structures become complementary but also how the politics of input legitimacy shape whose interests get represented. We conclude by deriving theoretical and normative implications for transnational representation and input legitimacy in global governance.

Peaceful Use of Lasers in Space: Context-Based Legitimacy in Global Governance of Large Technical Systems

Technology offers unique sets of opportunities, from human flourishing to civilization survival, but also challenges, from partial misuse to global apocalypse. Yet technology is shaped by the social environment in which it is developed and used, prompting questions about its desirable governance format. In this context, we look at governance challenges of large technical systems, specifically the peaceful use of high-power lasers in space, in order to propose a conceptual framework for legitimate global governance. Specifically, we adopt a context-based approach to legitimacy to address the trade-offs between effectiveness (output legitimacy) and inclusivity (input legitimacy) in the governance of large technical systems. We show that distinguishing two basic phases of space laser policy which call for different legitimacy criteria helps balance out the trade-offs without sacrificing either effectiveness or inclusivity. Finally, we construe LTSs’ governance as a tool for creating globally networked spaces which may enable coordinated global democratic governance.

Should we stay or should we go: EU input legitimacy under threat? Social media and Brexit

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to reflect on the conditions of referenda as an EU input legitimacy, on the era of social media microtargeting campaigns. Taking the case of Brexit as an example, it takes conclusions for the democracy as an inherent value of the EU multilevel polity and opens prospects for possible solutions. Design/methodology/approach The paper is interdisciplinary based, complementing political science approaches on EU democratic legitimacy and communication studies on social media and political communication. These are the theoretical frameworks for analysing the case of Brexit referendum campaign, which is based on an empirical tracing of strategies and contents used. This empirical assessment is supported by official reports of the House of Commons and of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office and media news on the case. Analysis and discussion of it allows to come to conclusions. Findings Primary finding is that manipulation and disinformation occurred in Brexit campaign, creating a biased, fake and unbalanced information. Second main finding is that microtargeting and suppression of public debate enhances the typical polarisation of binary options on a referendum, and in the case of Brexit deepened the social cleavage that already shaped voter’s preferences, once information consumed by citizens functioned as “eco-chambers”, strengthening preconceptions. The ultimate conclusion in this case is a sign that social media can deepen the historical gap between elites and voters in the EU, with negative consequences for democracy and social legitimacy of the EU political system. Research limitations/implications The almost impossible access to the digital microtargeted adverts used in campaigns, to allow a more detailed analysis of the EU content issued. Practical implications Conclusions of this research are useful for politicians and advisers of policy-making to reflect on the future of the political system of the EU in terms of democracy, and the Europe as a whole and think about measures to be taken either on the level of improving legitimacy processes or regulation of digital media. Social implications If practical implications are taken from conclusions of this study, enhancing democratic processes, avoiding privacy data manipulation and providing accurate, impartial and trustworthy information to citizens public can be a social benefit achieved mainly through regulation. Originality/value Despite some studies have been released on Brexit referendum, they have mainly been single-disciplinary. This study innovates because it conciliates political science theoretical views with communications studies’ ones, to produce strengthened reasoning ground on the purposed of this research: to search evidence that new political communication strategies within the social media landscape can be of special negative influence in EU referenda and for the future of the multilevel polity.

5. Democracy and the EU

This chapter examines the relationship between European integration and democracy. The continuous transfer of policy-making powers from European Union (EU) member states to the European level has raised serious concerns about democratic legitimacy. The chapter assesses the claims that European integration undermines national democracy, and that decision-making at the EU level is not sufficiently democratic. It argues that while significant challenges remain, European integration has definitely become more democratic over the years. But there is perhaps a trade-off, with stronger input legitimacy potentially an obstacle to efficient European-level decision-making. It also underlines the multilevel nature of the EU polity and the importance of public debates about European integration.

Decision-Making in Collaborative Governance Networks: Pathways to Input and Throughput Legitimacy

Participants may lose faith in collaborative governance processes if they do not perceive internal decision-making processes to be legitimate. Yet, understanding how to assess internal legitimacy and what network characteristics are associated with it has been an enduring challenge. In this article, we propose conceptualizing internal legitimacy as multi-vectored, contrasting input legitimacy—the degree of openness and access that participants experience in their attempt to offer voice—with throughput legitimacy—the quality of the decision-making process itself. Using data from a comparative case study of 18 different US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-mandated Continuums of Care, we assess this framework with a mixed-methods approach, combining thematic analysis of interview data (n = 145) with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to show (1) differences in how participants experience input and throughput legitimacy, (2) the nature of the relationship between input and throughput legitimacy, and (3) what specific network characteristics are associated with positive assessments of each. Our findings indicate that input and throughput legitimacy are distinct but related—throughput legitimacy is harder to achieve and dependent on positive assessments of input legitimacy. Some network characteristics, particularly large size and commissioner-style network management, pose challenges, but a focus on in-person engagement can help ameliorate them. We conclude that distinguishing between input and throughput legitimacy can help managers identify where and how to intervene in order to improve the legitimacy of decision-making processes in collaborative governance networks.

1. Introduction

This introductory chapter begins with a consideration of what purpose EU regulation serves and why the EU should regulate. This is a way of introducing students to the main themes of the book. These can be introduced in the form of two questions: ‘What should the EU be doing?’ and ‘How should the EU go about doing it?’ The first question is linked to the concept of ‘output legitimacy’, that is, the EU proving its value to the public by showing that it is effective in contributing to the achievement of objectives which have wide public support (e.g. economic growth and job creation). The second question is linked to the concept of ‘input legitimacy’, that is, how fair and democratic is the process by which the EU takes decisions.

The Council

Chapter 5 discusses the pathway to legitimacy of the European Council (and the Council), with a special focus on Germany’s predominance through “one size fits one” rules. The chapter begins with an analysis of the Council’s particular sources of power and grounds for throughput legitimacy in Eurozone governance. It questions member-state leaders’ assumptions about their representativeness (input legitimacy), then asks if they meet the requirements of deliberative mutual accountability (throughput legitimacy) or even whether Germany fits the criteria expected of a benevolent hegemon. Next the chapter discusses the Janus-faced public perceptions of Council crisis governance. These are divided between views of the Council as an unaccountable (German) dictatorship or as a mutually accountable deliberative body (in the shadow of Germany). This part first presents the Council as an unaccountable dictatorship by detailing the ways in which Germany was predominant on its own and/or in tandem with a weaker France. It then counters with a discussion of the Council as a mutually accountable deliberative body, by charting not only the many instances in which member states agreed with German preferences but also where Germany acquiesced to those of other member states. The chapter ends with an examination of the actions of the Council (in particular the Eurogroup of Finance Ministers) and the Troika (IMF, Commission, and ECB) with regard to the program countries. This can be seen as two sides of the same coin: harsh dictatorship (especially the third Greek bailout) or deliberative authoritarianism (eg, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus and Greece in the second bailout).