{"title":"发出合法性信号:竞争多边主义时代八国集团和二十国集团的自我合法化","authors":"J. Gronau","doi":"10.1515/wps-2016-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Given our pluralistic world today, the G8 or rather G7, is an anachronism. How has the club of Western nations managed to prevail over its four decades of existence? This question is even more relevant in the light of the rise of the G20 at the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008. By making use of the concept of self-legitimation, this paper seeks to gain a better understanding of how both informal institutions ended up in a state of coexistence rather than with the replacement of the G8 by the G20. The main argument is that both needed (and still need) to carefully position themselves as distinct from each other in order to prevail and to inspire adherence. By including visual data and examining two informal institutions rather than formalized international organizations, the analysis complements concurrent research on the legitimation efforts of international institutions. The article traces three modes of public self-legitimation: legitimation policies, legitimation talk and nonverbal self-presentation. Based on textual analysis and a reconstruction of ideal-typical summit photographs (1975–2013), this contribution shows how both institutions present themselves as inclusive, accountable managers for the benefit of all. Despite these similarities, a normative as well as a de facto division of labor makes it more likely for today’s G7 to prevail, even in – or even because of – today’s more pluralistic world.","PeriodicalId":37883,"journal":{"name":"World Political Science","volume":"107 1","pages":"107 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Signaling Legitimacy: Self-legitimation by the G8 and the G20 in Times of Competitive Multilateralism\",\"authors\":\"J. Gronau\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/wps-2016-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Given our pluralistic world today, the G8 or rather G7, is an anachronism. How has the club of Western nations managed to prevail over its four decades of existence? This question is even more relevant in the light of the rise of the G20 at the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008. By making use of the concept of self-legitimation, this paper seeks to gain a better understanding of how both informal institutions ended up in a state of coexistence rather than with the replacement of the G8 by the G20. The main argument is that both needed (and still need) to carefully position themselves as distinct from each other in order to prevail and to inspire adherence. By including visual data and examining two informal institutions rather than formalized international organizations, the analysis complements concurrent research on the legitimation efforts of international institutions. The article traces three modes of public self-legitimation: legitimation policies, legitimation talk and nonverbal self-presentation. Based on textual analysis and a reconstruction of ideal-typical summit photographs (1975–2013), this contribution shows how both institutions present themselves as inclusive, accountable managers for the benefit of all. Despite these similarities, a normative as well as a de facto division of labor makes it more likely for today’s G7 to prevail, even in – or even because of – today’s more pluralistic world.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Political Science\",\"volume\":\"107 1\",\"pages\":\"107 - 145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/wps-2016-0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/wps-2016-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Signaling Legitimacy: Self-legitimation by the G8 and the G20 in Times of Competitive Multilateralism
Abstract Given our pluralistic world today, the G8 or rather G7, is an anachronism. How has the club of Western nations managed to prevail over its four decades of existence? This question is even more relevant in the light of the rise of the G20 at the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008. By making use of the concept of self-legitimation, this paper seeks to gain a better understanding of how both informal institutions ended up in a state of coexistence rather than with the replacement of the G8 by the G20. The main argument is that both needed (and still need) to carefully position themselves as distinct from each other in order to prevail and to inspire adherence. By including visual data and examining two informal institutions rather than formalized international organizations, the analysis complements concurrent research on the legitimation efforts of international institutions. The article traces three modes of public self-legitimation: legitimation policies, legitimation talk and nonverbal self-presentation. Based on textual analysis and a reconstruction of ideal-typical summit photographs (1975–2013), this contribution shows how both institutions present themselves as inclusive, accountable managers for the benefit of all. Despite these similarities, a normative as well as a de facto division of labor makes it more likely for today’s G7 to prevail, even in – or even because of – today’s more pluralistic world.
期刊介绍:
World Political Science (WPS) publishes translations of prize-winning articles nominated by prominent national political science associations and journals around the world. Scholars in a field as international as political science need to know about important political research produced outside the English-speaking world. Sponsored by the International Political Science Association (IPSA), the premiere global political science organization with membership from national assoications 50 countries worldwide WPS gathers together and translates an ever-increasing number of countries'' best political science articles, bridging the language barriers that have made this cutting-edge research inaccessible up to now. Articles in the World Political Science cover a wide range of subjects of interest to readers concerned with the systematic analysis of political issues facing national, sub-national and international governments and societies. Fields include Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Sociology, Political Theory, Political Economy, and Public Administration and Policy. Anyone interested in the central issues of the day, whether they are students, policy makers, or other citizens, will benefit from greater familiarity with debates about the nature and solutions to social, economic and political problems carried on in non-English language forums.