Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. 250 pp. (Tables, illustrations.) US$85.00, cloth. ISBN 978100922203.
As a type of international actor, international organizations(IOs)play a noticeable role in global governance. However, IOs are subject to increasing contestation in contemporary global politics, and elite communication has had an undeniable impact on citizens’ perceptions of IOs. In the context of democratic governance, popular legitimacy is essential for IOs’ capacity to exercise their authority and solve international problems. Therefore, exploring the implicit correlation between elite communication and popular legitimacy has clear practical significance. Lisa Dellmuth and Jonas Tallberg’s latest book, Legitimacy Politics: Elite Communication and Public Opinion in Global Governance—centred on the question of whether,when,andwhyelitecommunication shapescitizens’legitimacybeliefstowardIOs—provides an in-depth analysis about how various elites change public opinions on global governance.
The book is organized into eight chapters, including a detailed introduction as chapter 1 and an elaborate conclusion as chapter 8. Chapter 2 gives an empirical overview of citizen legitimacy beliefs, elite legitimacy beliefs, and elite communication in global governance. Chapter 3 presents the theory of elite communication in global governance. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the elites engaging in communication, respectively, exploring the conditions under which globally and domestically active elites are influential in shaping citizens’ legitimacy beliefs toward IOs. Chapters 6 and 7 concentrate on the content of communicated messages, separately examining whether and to what extent information about IOs’ procedures and performances, authority, and purpose, affects citizens’ legitimacy beliefs.
The volume involves four key concepts: elites, citizens, communication, and legitimacy. The authors define these terms successively as follows: the people who hold leading positions in political and societal organizations; the general public in a country; the discursive messages conveying information about a particular topic; and the belief that an institution exercises authority appropriately. The difficult point of this research lies in how to capture citizens’ legitimacy beliefs, for they are commonly considered to be complex and elusive. To cope with this challenge, the authors adopt three research approaches: survey, experiment, and comparison. The survey approach is mainly used to identify, aggregate, compare, and explain legitimacy beliefs. By aggregating data of survey responses, researchers outline legitimacy beliefs across societal groups, institutions, countries, and time. The experimental approach contains two specific types: vignette experiments and conjoint experiments. Through comparing citizens in a treated group with particular messages from specific elites to citizens in a control group that are not receptive to any message, the research established causal effects of elite communication. The comparative approach is used to examine effects of elite communication across multiple countries and IOs.
After a number of survey experiments on several selective countries and IOs, Dellmuth and Tallberg identify a certain correlation between elite communication and citizens’ legitimacy beliefs towards IOs. The elites’ influence varies with conditions related to the communicative setting, which comprises three components: the elite, the message, and the citizen. Furthermore, the authors list six moderating factors: elite credibility, elite polarization, tone of the message, object of the message, citizens’ political awareness, and citizens’ political beliefs. Simply put, citizens are varyingly susceptible to the communication of elites depending on a set of identifiable conditions in the communicative context.
According to the authors, elites can exert their influence on citizens by invoking IOs’ qualities from the degree of authority they possess and the social purpose they pursue to the procedures they follow and the performance they achieve, and citizens are sensitive to both global and domestic elites’ communication. Based on the experimental results, elites impact citizens’ legitimacy perceptions under some conditions more significantly than others. Specifically, when elites are considered more credible and highly polarized, they have stronger influence in shaping citizens’ perceptions of legitimacy. Messages are more effective in shaping citizens’ legitimacy beliefs when they are negative rather than positive in tone and subject to less debate. Moreover, Citizens are more easily responsive to elite communication that is closer to their own political beliefs. Unlike the aforementioned cases, the research indicates citizens’ political awareness has no significant correlation with the effectiveness of elite communication.
With regard to the question why elite communication is influential in shaping citizens’ legitimacy beliefs toward IOs, the authors propose three assumptions: (1)citizens’politicalawarenesstendstobelow,(2)citizensthereforerelyonheuristicstoformpoliticalopinions,and(3)relianceonheuristicsmakescitizenssusceptibletoeliteinfluence (208). Inspired by theories of heuristics in cognitive psychology, the authors are convinced these three assumptions can provide a logical starting point for looking into the effects of elite communication. Besides, the theories of cueing and framing in comparative politics contribute to a better understanding of when, how, and why citizen opinions are influenced by political information.
Lisa Dellmuth and Jonas Tallberg have conducted research on global governance for many years and published a considerable number of related works. This book not only develops a novel theory for why elite communication effects public opinions and when those effects are strong in global governance, but also expands the methodological frontier in research on global governance legitimacy by applying experimental methods to causal inference.
Against the backdrop of increasing attention to legitimation and delegitimation of IOs, as well as public opinion towards IOs, this book is undoubtedly explanatory and inspirational. In spite of acknowledging the value of this book, we have to express some of our concerns. The quantitative method has indeed helped the authors capture the elusive legitimacy beliefs, but compared to the large population we are interested in, the sample size in this survey is relatively small. So before getting further tested and verified, being vigilant about the reliability of conclusions should not be superfluous. Notwithstanding, scholars, students and other readers interested in international politics will discover the value of this book, especially its perspectives and research methods.
Jia Jingjing
Guang Dong University for Foreign Studies, Guangzhou
Guo Juanwugao
South China Normal University, Guangzhou