Comparing Elite and Citizen Legitimacy Beliefs towards International Organisations

Today, a purported gap in legitimacy beliefs towards international organizations (IOs) between elites and general publics is much debated. Elites are said to be the winners of globalization, while substantial parts of publics supposedly feel left behind and turn against multilateral institutions of the liberal world order. Nationalist-populist politicians exploit this alleged elite-citizen gap to mobilise electorates, and contemporary events suggest that they are sometimes successful in undermining international cooperation. Yet, we lack systematic analyses on elite and citizen views of IOs, as well as the factors which might generate gaps between their legitimacy beliefs vis-à-vis IOs. This omission is glaring both for academic knowledge and policy practice. This paper inquires to what extent there is a gap between elite and citizen perceptions of legitimacy of key IOs in the areas of economy, security, and sustainable development (ICC, IMF, UN, WHO, World Bank, and WTO), in Brazil, Germany, and the USA. Where are gaps in these legitimacy perceptions particularly evident: in certain countries, between certain sectors of political and societal elites and publics, or in relation to particular IOs? How can elite-citizen divergences of views (where they exist) be explained? Preliminary findings show substantial gaps between legitimacy perceptions among publics and elites. Gap sizes vary between IOs and countries, and the gap in legitimacy beliefs of IOs is larger between publics and political elites, than between publics and societal elites. The explanatory findings will further corroborate or challenge the current public discourse about ‘anti-globalism’ and may have significant political implications for the sustainability of IOs.