Cited by 1,215Regulation and Compliance StudiesManagement and Organizational StudiesGlobal Financial Regulation and Crises

Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes

Open access
Black, Julia·2008·Regulation & Governance

Abstract

The legitimacy and accountability of polycentric regulatory regimes, particularly at the transnational level, has been severely criticized, and the search is on to find ways in which they can be enhanced. This paper argues that before developing even more proposals, we need to pay far greater attention to the dynamics of accountability and legitimacy relationships, and to how those in regulatory regimes respond to them. The article thus first seeks to develop a closer analysis of three key elements of legitimacy and accountability relationships which it suggests are central to these dynamics: The role of the institutional environment in the construction of legitimacy, the dialectical nature of accountability relationships, and the communicative structures through which accountability occurs and legitimacy is constructed. Second, the article explores how organizations in regulatory regimes respond, or are likely to respond, to multiple legitimacy and accountability claims, and how they themselves seek to build legitimacy in complex and dynamic situations. The arguments developed here are not normative: There is no “grand solution” proposed to the normative questions of when regulators should be considered legitimate or how to make them so. Rather, the article seeks to analyse the dynamics of legitimacy and accountability relationships as they occur in an attempt to build a more realistic foundation on which grander “how to” proposals can be built. For until we understand these dynamics, the grander, normative arguments risk being simply pipe dreams – diverting, but in the end making little difference.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2008.00034.x

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Black, J.
Affiliations
London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Corresponding author
Black, Julia
Venue
Regulation & Governance
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-03-13
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
137-164
ISSN
  • 1748-5983 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-5991
OpenAlex
W3121399009
Cited by
1,215
References
139
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 106 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 129 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 46
FWCI
120.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Regulation & Governance (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Global Financial Regulation and Crises
Keywords
polycentric governance, transnational regulation, regulatory legitimacy, accountability, institutional environment, communicative structure, regulatory agencies, legitimacy claims

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review