Contributions of the Framework

The framework outlined above offers a means to explore and assess the perceived legitimacy of the governance arrangement addressed by this study. This section briefly outlines three contributions of this approach. First, it enables an exploration into how stakeholders perceive and evaluate the legitimacy of the governance mechanism under question and the tensions that may arise across actors and dimensions of assessment.

Secondly, the framework also enables exploration into the professed linkages between dimensions of legitimacy, such as the impact of democratic procedures upon effective outcomes. Third, the framework enables for an exploration into the extent to which the case fulfils the promises, or succumbs and pitfalls, associated with MSPs. This section explores each of these contributions in turn.

3.4.1 Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives on Legitimate Governance

The primary contribution of this framework is that it facilitates a focused and comparative examination into stakeholder perspectives on legitimacy. Given the criticism of the GPEDC’s legitimacy since its inception, it arguably constitutes a ‘contested institution’ that can potentially provide crucial insight given that such:

…are the contexts in which actors will articulate most clearly what they deem problematic about an institution and in which they will be most explicit in their arguments about what form a legitimate institution should take (Peters, 2013: 14).

We can anticipate several tensions that may arise from stakeholder assessments on the legitimacy of the case under question. Taking the example of input legitimacy, each stakeholder may have their own view as to who were actually the legitimate stakeholders…

and to what extent a given stakeholder category should be represented (Boström and Hallström, 2013: 94). Some may argue that the inclusion of private stakeholders as equal partners within a governing arrangement may in fact ‘enhance problems of democratic legitimacy in international institutions (rather than helping to alleviate them)’ (Börzel and Risse, 2002: 17). Moreover, while CSOs may claim to represent the ‘public interest’, some may view their equal status as stakeholders problematic, given that they are often unelected and elite-driven (Keohane and Nye, 2001). Furthermore, sorting actors into groups of stakeholder categories may serve to ‘obscure important differences between these actors’ (Dingwerth, 2005: 73). It is thus of crucial importance to look beyond the formal groupings and categories and to inquire into how individual stakeholders position and perceive themselves within a broader MSP process (Kuchler, 2017).

As mentioned in previous sections, we can also anticipate tensions with regards to throughput legitimacy, such as who should be accountable to whom, and output legitimacy over what should constitute organisational effectiveness. The crucial point is that within each dimension of legitimacy, there is likely to be contestation over what constitutes legitimate processes. Rather than shying away from such contestations and complexities, the heuristic nature of this framework allows the researcher to explore differing stakeholder perceptions.

In doing so, the framework can contribute to policy debates on institutional design through providing research in terms of ‘what drives’ stakeholders to support or oppose particular governing arrangements (Dellmuth and Tallberg, 2015), thus connecting ‘largely deductive arguments with empirical analyses of real-world cases’ (Mügge, 2011: 69).

3.4.2 Exploring the Linkages Between Dimensions of Legitimacy

A further contribution of this framework pertains to its ability to explore a recurrent assumption made in the theoretical debate on legitimate governance beyond the level of the nation-state. As formulated by Schneider (2005: 10):

The more democratic an international decision-making process is (e.g.

the more democratic procedures such as inclusion, fair discourse and accountability it contains), the more probable is compliance to the rules generated by this process.

This hypothesis relates to the assumption that maximising democratic procedures leads to greater outcome effectiveness and sociological legitimacy (Dellmuth and Tallberg, 2015).

Exploring the link between ‘normative validity and empirical belief’ (Zürn, 2004) has long featured in debates on legitimate governance beyond the state. However, empirical studies have revealed that input, throughput, and output dimensions of legitimacy do not always positively correlate (Hatanka and Konefal, 2012). Instead, there appear to be several trade-offs that exist between the three dimensions. Most notably, is the professed trade-off that exists between input legitimacy and outcome effectiveness, linked to broader debates surrounding the intractable challenges in attaining democratic governance. While some assume a ‘virtuous circle’ in that the quality of enhanced input legitimacy leads to enhanced outcome effectiveness (Schmelzle, 2012; Levi and Sacks, 2009), some such as Scharpf (1999) argue that there exists an inevitable trade-off between the two dimensions. The case for the former perspective is rooted in the notion that the inclusion of a broad set of stakeholders may serve to create a sense of shared ownership over a process that may lead to better compliance and acceptance (Beisheim and Dingwerth, 2008). However, a positive relationship between input and output effectiveness may not result if the inclusion of a full gamut of actors results in ‘significant transaction costs, difficulties in reaching an agreement or slow-down in decision-making, sub-optimal compromises, or the diffusion of accountability’ (Nasiritousi, 2017: 7; Risse, 2004; Scharpf, 1999).

Nevertheless, there is a need to explore the notion that enhanced legitimacy in one dimension will lead to enhanced legitimacy elsewhere. It is possible and necessary to explore potential trade-offs that may exist between the dimensions and indicators of the proposed framework. Moreover, many normative approaches do not acknowledge that stakeholders may have different conceptions as to what constitutes appropriate governance or legitimacy at the input, throughput, and output level. Only in approaching the framework with a reflexive and critical attitude is it possible not to assume a simple congruence

between the three dimensions of legitimacy. However, doing so enables the researcher to examine possible ways to potentially resolve potential trade-offs between democratic principles, sociological legitimacy, and output effectiveness (Risse, 2004: 312).

3.4.3 Exploring the Promises and Pitfalls of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships

The final contribution of this framework is that it enables a focused exploration into whether a governance arrangement fulfils the promises, or succumbs to the pitfalls, associated with multi-stakeholder governance (see section 3.1). Short of recapitulating the arguments made earlier, there are numerable questions over the extent to which MSPs can provide more legitimate and effective governance. Although the language surrounding MSPs is often

‘innocuous and even benign-sounding’, it is essential to critically assess the perceived democratic credentials of these partnerships in order to ensure that they do not re-inscribe existing power asymmetries while promulgating the disproportionate wealth and influence of PSAs over that of public and civic stakeholders (Tiwana, 2014). By examining both the democratic credentials of the GPEDC through the perspectives that are held by stakeholders themselves - it is possible to contribute to academic and policy debate on how to ensure that MSPs are designed and function in more ‘representative, accountable, and effective ways’ (Bäckstrand, 2006a: 467). If the SDGs are to be achieved, it is essential that MSPs do not constitute ‘neoliberal solutions in disguise’ that, in practice, promulgate Northern donor and ‘corporate power while aggravating social justice and environmental harm, rather than abating them’ (Kuchler, 2017: 194; Lövbrand et al., 2009: 74-5). We now turn to explore how this framework will be applied, and how these inquiries will be explored in the following chapter that examines research methodology, design, and the conduct of research.