The Legitimacy of IO Resilience: An Experimental Study of Public Preferences for Resistance and Adaptation

Crises are moments when the authority of international organizations (IOs) becomes highly visible and contested. Although existing research on IO legitimacy highlights effectiveness, inclusiveness, and institutional authority as key drivers of public support, it has paid far less attention to how IOs respond during crises when uncertainty is high, decisions must be made rapidly, and trade-offs between stability and flexibility are most acute. As a result, we still know little about how citizens evaluate IO behavior under such conditions. This paper addresses this gap by theorizing and empirically testing how the public evaluates IO responses to crises. We argue that citizens distinguish between two broad strategies – resistance (rule-bound continuity) and adaptation (rule-revising change) – and that their perceived legitimacy of each depends on the nature of crisis. We further contend that procedural features moderate these effects, with efficiency reinforcing support for resistance and inclusiveness strengthening support for adaptation. To test these claims, we conduct a vignette experiment that systematically varies response strategy, crisis type, and procedural features of global IOs. To our knowledge, this study provides the first experimental evidence on how the public evaluates the trade-off between stability and flexibility in IO during crises, advancing research on legitimacy and resilience in global governance.