Public Opinion on Institutional Designs for the United Nations: An International Survey Experiment

Author:

Ghassim Farsan1,Koenig-Archibugi Mathias2ORCID,Cabrera Luis3

Affiliation:

1. University of Oxford, UK, and Lund University , Sweden

2. London School of Economics and Political Science , UK

3. Griffith University , Australia

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Funder

London School of Economics and Political Science

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science

Reference103 articles.

1. Does International Pooling of Authority Affect the Perceived Legitimacy of Global Governance?;Anderson;The Review of International Organizations,2019

2. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens

3. Cosmopolitan Democracy: Paths and Agents;Archibugi;Ethics & International Affairs,2011

4. The Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism;Arrighi,1993

5. The Effectiveness of a Racialized Counterstrategy;Banks;American Journal of Political Science,2019

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3