Farsan Ghassim’s research while affiliated with Maastricht University and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (9)


Who on Earth Wants a World Government, What Kind, and Why? An International Survey Experiment
  • Article

August 2024

·

14 Reads

·

2 Citations

International Studies Quarterly

Farsan Ghassim

·

Markus Pauli

Amidst multiple transnational crises, global governance has retaken center stage in academic and public debates. While previous generations of thinkers and citizens vigorously discussed the perennial idea of a world government, such proposals are nowadays often discarded quickly among scholars and practitioners. However, we know little about citizens’ present-day attitudes toward world government proposals. In a survey experiment on more than 42,000 citizens in 17 countries in the global South, North, East, and West, we find that the idea is only rejected by international majorities if it remains unspecified and if we weight countries equally. Specifications as democratic and/or focused on global issues like climate change significantly increase public support and lead overwhelming majorities worldwide to favor a global government. Support is even stronger in more populous, less free, less powerful, and/or less developed countries. The only exception is the United States, where no global government specification receives majoritarian public approval. Overall, our findings show significant international support for fundamental transformations of global governance, and thus indicate to activists and policymakers that relevant reform efforts can build on widespread public endorsement. En medio de múltiples crisis transnacionales, la gobernanza global ha vuelto a ocupar un lugar importante en los debates, tanto académicos como públicos. Si bien las generaciones anteriores de pensadores y ciudadanos debatieron firmemente la idea perenne de un gobierno mundial, hoy en día los académicos y los profesionales descartan, con frecuencia, rápidamente tales propuestas. Sin embargo, tenemos poca información referente a las actitudes de los ciudadanos hacia las propuestas de un gobierno mundial. Llevamos a cabo un experimento de encuesta con más de 42.000 ciudadanos en 17 países del Sur, Norte, Este y Occidente global, y concluimos que la idea solo es rechazada por las mayorías internacionales si esta idea no es concreta (y solo cuando se ponderan los países por igual). El hecho de incluir especificaciones como la democracia y/o centrarse en temas globales como el cambio climático aumentan significativamente el apoyo público y llevan a mayorías abrumadoras en todo el mundo a favor de un gobierno mundial. Por lo general, el apoyo es más fuerte en los países más poblados, menos libres, menos poderosos y/o menos desarrollados. La única excepción es Estados Unidos, donde ninguna de estas especificaciones gubernamentales globales recibe una aprobación pública mayoritaria. En general, nuestras conclusiones muestran un importante apoyo público internacional a las transformaciones fundamentales de la gobernanza mundial y, por lo tanto, indican a los activistas y a los responsables políticos que los esfuerzos de reforma pertinentes pueden partir de un amplio respaldo público. Face aux nombreuses crises transnationales, la gouvernance mondiale revient sur le devant de la scène dans les débats académiques et publics. Alors que les générations antérieures de penseurs et de citoyens débattaient vivement de l’idée toujours d'actualité de gouvernement mondial, de telles propositions sont de nos jours souvent rapidement rejetées par les chercheurs et les professionnels. Cependant, nous en savons peu sur l'attitude des citoyens par rapport aux propositions de gouvernement mondial. Dans une expérience de sondage sur plus de 42 000 citoyens de 17 pays du Sud, du Nord, de l'Est et de l'Ouest, nous constatons que l'idée n'est rejetée par les majorités internationales que si elle reste vague (et seulement si l'on considère les pays à parts égales). Lorsque l'on précise l'idée en qualifiant ce gouvernement mondial de démocratique et/ou de centré sur des problématiques mondiales comme le changement climatique, le soutien public augmente drastiquement et des majorités écrasantes dans le monde entier en viennent à soutenir un gouvernement mondial. Généralement, le soutien est supérieur chez les pays plus peuplés, moins libres, moins puissants et/ou moins développés. La seule exception reste les États-Unis: aucune précision concernant le gouvernement mondial ne reçoit d'approbation d'une majorité du public. Dans l'ensemble, nos résultats montrent qu'il existe un soutien international important du public vis-à-vis de transformations fondamentales de la gouvernance mondiale, et donc signalent aux militants et aux décideurs qu'ils peuvent s'appuyer sur un large soutien populaire pour promouvoir des réformes pertinentes.


Figure 2 Minor global democratic deficit
Figure 3 Major global democratic deficit
Figure 4 Domestic global democratic deficit, split by survey countries' freedom ratings
Figure 5 Input-and output-related global democratic deficit
Figure 7 Absolute global democratic deficit (world politics definition) by country type

+4

Perceptions of a Global Democratic Deficit: An International Survey Experiment
  • Article
  • Full-text available

August 2024

·

41 Reads

Perspectives on Politics

While scholars consider the global democratic deficit a key issue, we know little about citizens’ perceptions in this regard. To what extent and why do citizens perceive global democratic deficiencies? I conceptualize deficiencies absolutely and relatively—theorizing countries, knowledge, and framing as explanatory factors. Between 2018 and 2021, I conducted survey experiments on around 42,000 respondents in 17 highly diverse countries. Contrary to many scholarly assessments, I find that most people do not perceive major global democratic deficiencies, in the sense that global governance is generally not perceived as highly undemocratic in absolute terms and more democratic than developing democracies. However, the results vary by the object and aspect of inquiry: World politics (versus international organizations) and input (versus output) are perceived as less democratic. Plus, neither gains in relevant knowledge nor common framings affect public perceptions, which are thus quite robust. These findings add novel evidence to debates about global governance.

Download

Schematic illustration of Andersen-Gill data setup. This illustration refers to four hypothetical IOs (a, b, c, and d), all in different shades of gray. Every framed box illustrates one observation at the IO-time-to-event-level. Thus, this hypothetical dataset contains 11 observations
Are authoritative international organizations challenged more? A recurrent event analysis of member state criticisms and withdrawals

July 2024

·

418 Reads

·

2 Citations

The Review of International Organizations

Member states’ challenges to international organizations (IOs) are at the heart of the supposed crisis of our multilateral order – from the “African bias” debate surrounding the International Criminal Court, to the United Kingdom’s “Brexit” from the European Union, to Trump’s attacks on the World Health Organization during the COVID-19 pandemic. IOs are regularly challenged by their member states in different ways, ranging from verbal criticisms to withdrawals. But why are some IOs challenged more than others? An important – but so far largely theoretical – academic debate relates to the authority of IOs as an explanatory factor for why some face more challenges: Authoritative IOs may invite more challenges (for example, due to domestic contestation) or fewer challenges (due, in part, to the investment of member states and their greater capacity to resolve conflicts internally). Our article assesses these explanations using the Andersen-Gill approach for analyzing recurrent events of member states’ public criticisms and withdrawals. We do not find strong and consistent evidence that more authoritative IOs are more regularly challenged by their own member states. There is some evidence that authoritative IOs experience fewer withdrawals, but we find stronger evidence for alternative factors such as preference heterogeneity between members, the existence of alternative IOs, and the democratic composition of an IO’s membership. Our study is significant for scholarly debates and real-world politics, as it implies that granting IOs more authority does not make them more prone to member state challenges.


Effects of Self-Legitimation and Delegitimation on Public Attitudes toward International Organizations: A Worldwide Survey Experiment

March 2024

·

3 Reads

·

3 Citations

International Studies Quarterly

Public views on international organizations (IOs) have become a matter of central concern. While actors in world politics increasingly try to legitimize or delegitimize IOs, scholars have begun investigating such phenomena systematically. This paper provides the most comprehensive IO (de)legitimation study to date. Building on cueing theory, and considering input as well as output legitimacy, I examine the isolated and combined effects of delegitimation and self-legitimation on public perceptions of IOs. I concentrate on government criticism and citizen protests as two salient practices of delegitimation. In investigating self-legitimation, I focus on IOs’ public statements and institutional reforms. I study public opinion on the UN, World Bank, and WHO, as IOs of different functional scopes and levels of salience. In 2021, I conducted survey experiments on more than 32,000 citizens in ten countries worldwide (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Egypt, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Kenya, South Korea, and Turkey) – weighted by age, gender, region, and education. My main findings are: Delegitimation by governments and citizen protests has some limited effectiveness, depending on the IO in question. While IO self-legitimization statements and reforms in themselves do not boost public support for IOs, they are generally effective at neutralizing delegitimation attempts by governments and citizen protests.


Fig. 2.1 Conceptual map of theoretical framework on the (de)legitimation of GGIs
The Politics of Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: A Theoretical Framework

July 2022

·

182 Reads

·

8 Citations

·

·

Farsan Ghassim

·

[...]

·

Anders Uhlin

This book explores processes of legitimation and delegitimation of global governance institutions (GGIs). How, why, and with what impact on audiences, are GGIs legitimated and delegitimated? The book develops a comprehensive theoretical framework for studying processes of (de)legitimation in global governance and provides broad comparative analyses to uncover patterns of (de)legitimation processes. It covers a diverse set of global and regional governmental and nongovernmental institutions in different policy fields. Variation across these GGIs is explained with reference to institutional setup, policy field characteristics, and broader social structures, as well as to the qualities of agents of (de)legitimation. The approach builds on a mixed-methods research design that uses both quantitative and qualitative new empirical data. Three main interlinked elements of processes of legitimation and delegitimation are at the center of the analysis: the varied practices employed by different state and non-state agents that may boost or challenge the legitimacy of global governance institutions; the normative justifications that these agents draw on when engaging in legitimation and delegitimation practices; and the different audiences that may be impacted by legitimation and delegitimation. This results in a dynamic interplay between legitimation and delegitimation in contestation over the legitimacy of GGIs.


Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: Practices, Justifications, and Audiences

July 2022

·

151 Reads

·

23 Citations

This book explores processes of legitimation and delegitimation of global governance institutions (GGIs). How, why, and with what impact on audiences, are GGIs legitimated and delegitimated? The book develops a comprehensive theoretical framework for studying processes of (de)legitimation in global governance and provides broad comparative analyses to uncover patterns of (de)legitimation processes. It covers a diverse set of global and regional governmental and nongovernmental institutions in different policy fields. Variation across these GGIs is explained with reference to institutional setup, policy field characteristics, and broader social structures, as well as to the qualities of agents of (de)legitimation. The approach builds on a mixed-methods research design that uses both quantitative and qualitative new empirical data. Three main interlinked elements of processes of legitimation and delegitimation are at the center of the analysis: the varied practices employed by different state and non-state agents that may boost or challenge the legitimacy of global governance institutions; the normative justifications that these agents draw on when engaging in legitimation and delegitimation practices; and the different audiences that may be impacted by legitimation and delegitimation. This results in a dynamic interplay between legitimation and delegitimation in contestation over the legitimacy of GGIs.


Audiences of (De)Legitimation in Global Governance: A Comparative Overview

July 2022

·

27 Reads

·

4 Citations

This book explores processes of legitimation and delegitimation of global governance institutions (GGIs). How, why, and with what impact on audiences, are GGIs legitimated and delegitimated? The book develops a comprehensive theoretical framework for studying processes of (de)legitimation in global governance and provides broad comparative analyses to uncover patterns of (de)legitimation processes. It covers a diverse set of global and regional governmental and nongovernmental institutions in different policy fields. Variation across these GGIs is explained with reference to institutional setup, policy field characteristics, and broader social structures, as well as to the qualities of agents of (de)legitimation. The approach builds on a mixed-methods research design that uses both quantitative and qualitative new empirical data. Three main interlinked elements of processes of legitimation and delegitimation are at the center of the analysis: the varied practices employed by different state and non-state agents that may boost or challenge the legitimacy of global governance institutions; the normative justifications that these agents draw on when engaging in legitimation and delegitimation practices; and the different audiences that may be impacted by legitimation and delegitimation. This results in a dynamic interplay between legitimation and delegitimation in contestation over the legitimacy of GGIs.


The Effects of (De)Legitimation on Citizens’ Legitimacy Beliefs about Global Governance: An International Survey Experiment

July 2022

·

13 Reads

·

7 Citations

This book explores processes of legitimation and delegitimation of global governance institutions (GGIs). How, why, and with what impact on audiences, are GGIs legitimated and delegitimated? The book develops a comprehensive theoretical framework for studying processes of (de)legitimation in global governance and provides broad comparative analyses to uncover patterns of (de)legitimation processes. It covers a diverse set of global and regional governmental and nongovernmental institutions in different policy fields. Variation across these GGIs is explained with reference to institutional setup, policy field characteristics, and broader social structures, as well as to the qualities of agents of (de)legitimation. The approach builds on a mixed-methods research design that uses both quantitative and qualitative new empirical data. Three main interlinked elements of processes of legitimation and delegitimation are at the center of the analysis: the varied practices employed by different state and non-state agents that may boost or challenge the legitimacy of global governance institutions; the normative justifications that these agents draw on when engaging in legitimation and delegitimation practices; and the different audiences that may be impacted by legitimation and delegitimation. This results in a dynamic interplay between legitimation and delegitimation in contestation over the legitimacy of GGIs.


Figure 2. Subgroup analysis on important decisions by UN Security Council membership status.
Figure 3. Subgroup analysis on veto rights by UN Security Council membership status.
Figure 4. Subgroup analysis on vote shares by population size.
Figure 5. Subgroup analysis on status of democracies by regime type.
Figure 7. Subgroup analysis by cultural libertarianism versus traditionalism (proxied by views on homosexuality).
Public Opinion on Institutional Designs for the United Nations: An International Survey Experiment

July 2022

·

70 Reads

·

22 Citations

International Studies Quarterly

Scholars and policy makers have intensely debated institutional reforms of the United Nations (UN) since its creation. Yet, relatively little attention has been given to institutional design preferences among the public in UN member states. This study examines two questions: Which possible rules concerning UN authority and representation do citizens prefer? Which personal and country characteristics are associated with their varying institutional preferences? A population-based conjoint survey experiment conducted in Argentina, China, India, Russia, Spain, and the United States is used to identify public preferences on nine distinct institutional design dimensions figuring prominently in UN reform debates. We find widespread support for increasing or at least maintaining UN authority over member states and for handing control over its decision-making to UN organs that would represent the citizens of every member state more directly. Citizens’ institutional preferences are associated with their political values and vary depending on whether their home countries would gain or lose influence from a specific reform.

Citations (8)


... This contrasts with the recent literature on varying public perceptions of IO legitimacy (e.g. Ghassim, Koenig-Archibugi, and Cabrera 2022;Dellmuth et al. 2022b;Brutger and Clark 2023;Ghassim 2024). It is possible that the effect of IOs' endorsement of the use of force on public opinion may be heterogeneous by individuals and countries. ...

Reference:

Ubiquitous but heterogeneous: International organizations’ influence on public opinion in China, Brazil, Japan, and Sweden
Effects of Self-Legitimation and Delegitimation on Public Attitudes toward International Organizations: A Worldwide Survey Experiment
  • Citing Article
  • March 2024

International Studies Quarterly

... In particular, cosmopolitan theorists frequently take the democratic deficiency of the international system as a starting point of their arguments for global democracy (Archibugi and Held 1995). Different scholars consistently find substantial international public support for democratizing IOs and extending their competences (Fabre, Douenne, and Mattauch 2023;Ghassim 2020;Ghassim, Koenig-Archibugi, and Cabrera 2022;Ghassim and Pauli forthcoming;Hahm, Hilpert, and König 2020). Yet, to what extent such public preferences are grounded in an underlying dissatisfaction with the democratic virtues of present-day global governance remains to be explored. ...

Who on Earth Wants a World Government, What Kind, and Why? An International Survey Experiment
  • Citing Article
  • August 2024

International Studies Quarterly

... Dissatisfied powers contest international institutions, i.e., international agreements and organizations, in various ways (Chan 2021;Dijkstra and Ghassim 2024;Hirschmann 2020;He et al. 2021;Stephen and Zürn 2019). They publicly voice criticism of international institutions. ...

Are authoritative international organizations challenged more? A recurrent event analysis of member state criticisms and withdrawals

The Review of International Organizations

... The contestation of IOs has taken center stage in academic discussions in recent years (Bexell et al. 2022;Dellmuth et al. 2022b;Tallberg et al. 2018;Zürn 2018 We focused on two types of member state challenges: public criticism and withdrawals. ...

Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: Practices, Justifications, and Audiences

... Importantly, we do not assume that all citizens have a full understanding of decision-making procedures in IOs and thus the capacity to rationally evaluate elite proposals for feasibility (see also Dellmuth, 2016). Instead, building on theories of elite cues in public opinion formation (see Dellmuth & Tallberg, 2023;Ghassim, 2022), we argue that it is easier for communitarians to point to a presumably fundamental flaw in cosmopolitan promises of democratic reform that undermines cosmopolitans' ability to positively cue citizens toward (increased) IO authority. Communitarians, by contrast, can offer a 'solution' to the democratic deficit of IOs that seems prima facie feasible and is hardly contestable on this groundan invaluable mobilisation advantage. ...

The Effects of (De)Legitimation on Citizens’ Legitimacy Beliefs about Global Governance: An International Survey Experiment

... A second aspect is the variety of relevant actors, not only as audiences, but also as agents of (de)legitimation (Bexell et al., 2022b;Gregoratti & Uhlin, 2018). Extending the classic focus on member states and bureaucratic staff as the main actors of self-legitimation, studies have begun to consider a variety of other actors (Anderl, 2024;Bäckstrand & Söderbaum, 2018, p. 102;Bernstein, 2011;Zaum, 2016Zaum, , p. 1116) that can simultaneously be agents and audiences of (de)legitimation. ...

Audiences of (De)Legitimation in Global Governance: A Comparative Overview

... Third, these (de)legitimation studies apply practice theory (Adler-Nissen & Pouliot, 2014;Büger & Gadinger, 2018;Kustermans, 2016) by integrating a variety of practices that may result in (de)legitimation. The majority of (de)legitimation practices manifest through language, in oral and written forms of communication, deliberation, and contestation, referred to as discursive (de)legitimation (Bäckstrand & Söderbaum, 2018;Bexell et al., 2022a;Jönsson & Uhlin, 2022). Institutional (de)legitimation practices (Bexell et al., 2022a, p. 31) include GGIs' institutional and administrative reforms that respond to contestation, such as transparency initiatives or consultation forums. ...

The Politics of Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: A Theoretical Framework