Problem-solving capacity

Apart from the mechanisms based on procedures, it has been argued that effectiveness⁷⁰ impacts on legitimacy. The basic line of argument is that APO participation impacts on effectiveness, which in turn impacts on perceived legitimacy. However, there are plausible arguments for both the assumption that enhanced participation increases effectiveness, and for the contrary assumption that it diminishes effectiveness.

On the one hand, it has been argued that APO participation results in functional benefits for institutions. The assumption that the bringing together of different constituencies and their resources in one institution enhances institutional effectiveness and legitimacy is a “basic rationale underlining the idea of inclusiveness” (Boström 2006: 354). Building on resource exchange theories,⁷¹ the underlying idea is that different types of actors dispose of different types of resources to varying degrees. If different constituencies cooperate in one institution, this enhances its diversity, but also the resources it can dispose of. In this context, resources explicitly include material resources such as financial means, immaterial resources such as knowledge and power, but also symbolic

70 It is important to note that effectiveness does not mean “personal profit”. Legitimacy is based on moral evaluations, not on self-interest (see Chapter two). In other words, effectiveness is understood as the coming to solutions which constitute good options for society as a whole.

71 The logic of functional demand and resource exchange theory have also become prominent candidates for explaining the emergence of participation arrangements (Rittberger 2008; Tallberg et al. 2013: 30–

31).

resources such as moral authority and credibility. Thus, states may provide funding and authoritative power; moreover, as being legitimized by popular consent, their recognition and participation may provide legitimacy to an institution. In turn, participating APOs might specifically contribute local knowledge based on lived experience and high degrees of authenticity. They often dispose of specific knowledge and expertise which they can feed into the policy-making process, and they may offer alternative and creative ways of addressing problems.

The pooling of these resources is considered to enhance legitimacy through better problem-solving capacity (Börzel & Risse 2005: 209). With regard to APO participation, effectiveness may be increased due to more adequate knowledge about local circumstances and a more effective realization of tasks. Information provided by APOs about the specific characteristics of the situation to be dealt with and about the needs of constituencies increases the probability of identifying common goals and coming to adequate solutions (Beisheim & Kaan 2010: 139). On the other hand, knowledge about the specific interests of constituencies facilitates the task of coming to decisions which the addressees are more likely to accept and support.

However, some authors have also assumed more negative effects to be at play. The basic line of argument is that higher numbers of participants may lead to rising costs of agreement (Börzel & Risse 2005: 210; Göbel 2009: Chapter 3). In other words, higher numbers of participants increase the number of points of view which are represented, making agreements more difficult (or even impossible) to reach. Moreover, negotiated agreements between different constituencies tend to be lowest common denominator solutions rather than optimal outcomes (Van de Kerkhof 2006: 282).

Both the range and depth of access impact on the functioning of this mechanism. The more diverse and heterogeneous participating APOs, the more specific local information will be available and can be taken into account. This seems specifically relevant in the context of APOs as local conditions may differ significantly. At the same time, costs of agreement rise when many actors participate, as significant time and space is needed to enable meetings with high numbers of participants. In turn, I assume that the effect of depth of access is more ambivalent. As long as APOs participate as observers through open access modalities, the specific conditions of their involvement in the institution probably will not significantly affect the costs of the decision-making process. However,

when APOs gain inclusive access and participate in decision-making, this can considerably enhance costs of agreement.

Figure 8: Hypothesis specified to problem-solving capacity. Source: author’s elaborations.

In short, I assume that the range and depth of access are central for institutional problem-solving capacity. APO access enhances the diversity of actors which are present in a given transnational institution. This contributes to rising costs of agreement; at the same time, it also feeds important local knowledge into the decision-making process (see Figure 8). The fourth hypothesis regarding possible links between APO access modes and perceptions of legitimacy specified to problem-solving capacity is thus:

H.M4: The effect of the depth and range of access for APOs on perceptions of institutional legitimacy is ambivalent. When APOs participate and bring in specific local knowledge, this increases institutional problem-solving capacity and consequentially perceived legitimacy.

At the same time, costs of agreement may also rise and negatively affect problem-solving capacity.

Concerning observable evidence for this mechanism, one might look for systematic attempts to bring in different viewpoints and resources. This may include further differentiation within the APO constituency, but also attempts to bring in a broad variety of actors with different resources. For example, while Indigenous governmental organizations might dispose of strong moral authority, international Indigenous NGOs have expertise and long-term experience with regard to international activism, and grassroots organizations possess specific local knowledge. Participants should highlight increased local knowledge or other contributions by APOs as one important benefit of APO participation. Moreover, we should be able to observe positive evaluations of outcomes. With regard to possible costs of agreement, I will specifically look at comments regarding the difficulties in coming to decisions, and most notably those mentioning lowest common denominator solutions.