Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T12:55:05.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - The Legitimacy of Groups and the Mobilization of Resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2015

Morris Zelditch
Affiliation:
Stanford University USA
Edward J. Lawler
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Shane R. Thye
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Jeongkoo Yoon
Affiliation:
EWHA Women's University, Seoul
Get access

Summary

Abstract

The legitimacy of a group has important consequences for social order: It is a condition under which the collective interest over-rides self interest. The present chapter is a theory that describes how and under what conditions groups that depend for their survival on mobilizing the resources of their own members acquire legitimacy and its consequences for the organizational capacity of the group. Legitimacy is not only a condition of collective rationality, it is also a mechanism of achieving it. Previous research finds that cooperation is conditional on the cooperation of others. Legitimacy at the collective level assures the cooperation of others. The structure of the mechanism itself has an important implication for the problem of order: Much theory of legitimacy thinks of legitimacy as consent. Coercion is its antonym. But legitimacy at the collective level creates both consent and coercion. It depends on both to achieve collective rationality. It is based on principal, but principal backed by sanctions. But coercion absent legitimacy is resisted, costly, depends on capricious, unstable, resources. A stable social order therefore depends not only on principal backed by coercion but also on coercion backed by principal.

INTRODUCTION

In most theories of legitimacy, its importance derives from the impotence of pure power. Classic theories of legitimacy were mostly concerned with the stability of systems of power (Zelditch 2001). Compliance induced by the naked exercise of power is involuntary. Involuntary compliance induces resistance (Lovaglia 1995). Resistance escalates the transaction costs of exercising power– the costs of monitoring and punishing noncompliance, the costs of police forces, armies, and prisons (Hechter 1984). Furthermore, absent legitimacy, the incentives motivating police forces, armies, and prisons are purely instrumental, often unreliable in bad times (Gellner 1983:22). A stable system of power therefore depends, at least in part, on consent. Its legitimacy, its acceptance as “right” even by those disadvantaged by it (Anderson et al. 2005; Connel 1992; Linz 1978), is important because it gives rise to consent.

The power these theories are talking about is the power of one actor over another, inter-personal or “micro” power (the sort of power analyzed by Emerson (1962) or Willer and Anderson (1981)).

Type
Chapter
Information
Order on the Edge of Chaos
Social Psychology and the Problem of Social Order
, pp. 286 - 306
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alm, J., Bahl, R., and Murray, M. N.. 1991. “Tax Base Erosion in Developing Countries.Economic Development and Cultural Change 39: 849–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher, Blais, Andre, Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Listhaug, Ola. 2005. Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert and Hamilton, William D.. 1981. “The Evolution of Cooperation.Science 211: 1390–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, Robert H. (2008). “State Failure.Annual Review of Political Science 11: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Joseph, Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Zelditch, Morris. 2002. “Construction of Status and Referential Structures.Sociological Theory 20: 150–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Joseph, Zelditch, Morris, Anderson, Bo, and Cohen, Bernard P.. 1972. “Structural Aspects of Distributive Justice: A Status Value Formulation.” Pp 119–46 in Sociological Theories in Progress. Vol 2, edited by Berger, Joseph, Zelditch, Morris, and Anderson, Bo. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Bonacich, Phillip. 1972. “Norms and Cohesion as Adaptive Responses to Potential Conflict: An Experimental Study.Sociometry 35: 357–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connel, Carrol. 1992. “Legitimacy.” Pp 1095–99 in Encyclopedia of Sociology. Vol. 3, edited by Borgatta, E. and Borgatta, M. L.. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dodge, Toby. 2010. Inventing Iraq: The Failure of Nation-building and a History Denied, updated edition. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dornbusch, Sanford M. and Scott, W. Richard. 1975. Evaluations and the Exercise of Authority.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Emerson, Richard M. 1962. “Power-Dependence Relations.American Sociological Review 27: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Ernst and Fischbacher, Urs. 2004. “Third-party Punishment and Social Norms.Evolution of Human Behavior 25: 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fjelstadt, Odd-Helge and Semboja, Joseph. 2001. “Why People Pay Taxes: The Case of the Development Levy in Tanzania.World Development 29: 2059–74.Google Scholar
Fund for Peace. 2013. “Failed States Index.” ffp.statesindex.org/rankings 2013.
Gamson, William A. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hannan, Michael T., Polos, Laszlo, and Carroll, Glenn R.. 2007. Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hawley, Amos H. 1963. “Community Power and Urban Renewal Success.American Journal of Sociology 68, 422–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hechter, Michael. 2013. Alien Rule.New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hechter, Michael. 1984. “When Actors Comply: Monitoring Costs and the Production of Social Order.Acta Sociologica 27: 161–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, Cristine. 2004. “Collective Benefits, Exchange Interests, and Norm Enforcement.Social Forces 82: 1037–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, Greta, Michael T., Hannan and Kocak, Ozgecan. 2009. “Multiple Category Memberships and Markets: An Integrative Theory and Two Empirical Tests.American Sociological Review 74: 150–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Margaret. 1997. Consent, Dissent, and Patriotism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Margaret 1988. Of Rule and Revenue.Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Levi, Margaret, and Sacks, Audrey. 2009. “Legitimating Beliefs: Sources and Indicators.Regulation and Governance 3: 311–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Margaret, Sacks, Audrey, and Tyler, Tom. 2009. “Conceptualizing Legitimacy, Measuring Legitimating Beliefs.American Behavioral Scientist 53: 354–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, Juan J. 1978. Crisis, Breakdown, and Re-equilibration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review 53: 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovaglia, Michael J. 1995. “Status and Power: Exchange, Attribution and Expectation States.Small Group Research 26: 400–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, Douglas, and Scott, W. Richard. 2005. “Organizations and Movements.” Pp. 4–40 in Social Movements and Organization Theory, edited by Davis, Gerald F., McAdam, Douglas, Scott, W. Richard, and Zald, Mayer N.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John D. and Zald, Mayer N.. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements.American Journal of Sociology 82, 1212–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGowan, Patrick. 2006. “Coups and Conflict in West Africa, 1955–2004. Part II, Empirical Findings.” Armed Forces & Society 32: 234–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, John W. and Rowan, Brian. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migdal, Joel S. 1988. Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Richard A. 1959. The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor, Walker, James A., and Gardner, Roy. 1992. “Covenants with and without the Sword: Self-governance Is Possible.” American Political Science Review 86: 404–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1963. “On the Concept of Political Power.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107: 232–62.Google Scholar
Pruitt, D. G. and Kimmel, M. J.. 1977. “Twenty Years of Experimental Gaming: Critique, Synthesis, and Suggestions for the Future.” Annual Review of Psychology 28: 363–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, Hayagreeva, Monin, Philippe, and Rodolphe Durand, R. 2005. “Border-Crossing: Bricolage, and the Erosion of Categorical Boundaries in French Gastronomy.American Journal of Sociology 108: 795–843.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1978. Corruption: A Study in Political Economy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Stephen A. 1973. “The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem.American Economic Review 63: 134–9.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1938. Power: A New Social Analysis.New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Steffen W., Scott, James C., Lande, Carl, and Guasti, Laura (Eds.). 1977. Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, Brent. 2003. “Sex, Fear, and Greed: A Social Dilemma Analysis of Gender and Cooperation.Social Forces 82: 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. W. 1992a. “Reciprocity and Fairness: Positive Incentives.” Pp. 223–250 in Why People Pay Taxes. Tax Compliance and Tax Enforcement, edited by Slemrod, Joel. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Smith, K. W. 1992b. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution.Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1987. “Rent-seeking.” Pp. 147–9 in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, 2nd ed, Volume 4, edited by Eatwell, John, Milgate, Murray, and Newman, Peter. New York: Stockton Press.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon 1967. “The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft.Western Economic Journal 5: 224–32.Google Scholar
Walker, Henry A., Rogers, Larry, and Zelditch, Morris. 2002. “Acts, Persons, Positions, and Institutions: Legitimating Multiple Objects and Compliance with Authority.” Pp. 232–339 in Structure, Culture, and History: Recent Issues in Social Theory, edited by Chew, Sing C. and Knottnerus, J. David. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. [1918] 1968. Economy and Society. Edited by Roth, G. and Wittich, C.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Willer, David, and Anderson, Bo, eds. 1981. Networks, Exchange, and Coercion: The Elementary Theory and its Applications. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wimmer, Andreas. 2013a. Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Power, Networks.New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, Andreas 2013b. Waves of War: Nationalism, State Formation, Ethnic Exclusion, and the Modern World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, Toshio. 1988. “Seriousness of Social Dilemmas and the Provision of a Sanctioning System.Social Psychology Quarterly 51: 32–42.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, Toshio 1986. “The Provision of a Sanctioning System as a Public Good.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 110–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamagishi, Toshio, and Sato, Kaori. 1986. “Motivational Bases of the Public Goods Problem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaggl, Michael A. 2014. “Eleven Mechanisms for the Evolution of Cooperation.Journal of Institutional Economics 10: 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelditch, Morris. 2011. “Three Questions about the Legitimacy of Groups and the Mobilization of Resources.Advances in Group Processes 28: 255–83. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Zelditch, Morris 2006. “Legitimacy Theory.” Pp. 324–356 in Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, edited by Burke, Peter. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Zelditch, Morris 2004. “Institutional Effects on the Stability of Organizational Authority.Research in the Sociology of Organizations 22: 25–48.Google Scholar
Zelditch, Morris 2001. “Theories of Legitimacy.” Pp. 33–53 in The Psychology of Legitimacy, edited by Jost, John J. and Major, Brenda. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zelditch, Morris, Harris, William A., Thomas, George W., and Walker, Henry A.. 1983. “Decisions, NonDecisions, and Meta-Decisions.” Pp. 1–32 in Research on Social Movements, Conflict, and Change Vol 5, edited by Kriesberg, Louis. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Zelditch, Morris, and Walker, Henry A.. 2003. “The Legitimacy of Regimes.Advances in Group Processes 20: 217–49.Google Scholar
Zelditch, Morris, and Walker, Henry A. 2000. The Normative Regulation of Power. Advances in Group Processes 17: 155–78.Google Scholar
Zelditch, Morris, and Walker, Henry A. 1984. “Legitimacy and the Stability of Authority.Advances in Group Processes 1: 1–25.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Ezra W. 1999. “The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Legitimacy Discount.American Journal of Sociology 104: 1398–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×