Why Elites and Citizens See International Organizations So Differently

🔎 What Was Studied

This article delivers the first systematic, comparative look at how elites and citizens view the legitimacy of international organizations (IOs). Legitimacy beliefs were measured for six key IOs across five countries: Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, and the United States. The study compares public opinion and multiple elite groups to assess where and how perceptions diverge.

📊 How Evidence Was Collected and Analyzed

• Uniquely coordinated surveys conducted across five countries to gather comparable individual-level data.
• Legitimacy beliefs toward six IOs were measured for both citizens and six distinct elite types.
• An individual-level analytical approach was developed to link personal characteristics to IO attitudes and to explain gaps between groups.

📌 Key Findings

• A clear elite–citizen gap exists for all six IOs examined.
• The gap appears in four of the five countries surveyed.
• The gap is present across all six elite types studied.
• The observed gap is driven not merely by elite status itself but by systematic differences between elites and citizens in characteristics that shape attitudes toward IOs.

⚖️ Why This Matters

These results show that persistent, deep-seated differences between elites and general publics can undermine both the democratic legitimacy of international institutions and the prospects for effective international cooperation. Understanding individual-level drivers of legitimacy beliefs is essential for scholars and policymakers seeking to bridge elite–public divides on global governance.