Zugl.: Uppsala, Univ., Diss., 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 290-308).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Uppsala university, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 290-308).

In this thesis, I argue for rationalism, the claim that political legitimacy should be distributed such that justice is promoted best. In chapter 1, I define legitimacy as the permission to rule. I deny that political institutions generally enjoy authority, which is the moral power to directly impose duties on others. I then describe how legitimate political institutions without authority are possible in principle. In the second chapter, I outline a major problem for rationalism. If individuals have strong, moral rights, then it seems that political institutions cannot legitimately operate without their subjects' consent. I describe the key assumptions in this argument, and discuss a series of unconvincing proposals in the literature to escape it. In chapter 3, I argue that we can solve the problem if we look at theories of the moral justification of rights. There are two major such theories, the interest theory and the status theory. I outline the interest theory, and argue that it allows for non-consensual but legitimate political institutions. In chapter 4, I describe a Kantian claim about the nature of rights, according to which our rights are fully realised only if there are political institutions. If we accept this thought, then non-consensual political institutions can be legitimate on the status theory as well. In chapter 5, I outline what it means to promote-rather than respect-justice, and argue that the promotion of justice enjoys primacy over other values. At first sight, rationalism appears to have very radical implications, given that it asks us to base legitimacy on justice. In chapter 6, I argue that this impression is mistaken. We should often pursue justice indirectly, for example, through methods which focus on legal validity or democratic procedure rather than justice.

This is an integrative paper aiming to encapsulate the themes of my previously published work upon which this PhD is being assessed. This work; encompassing several papers and various chapters of my book are attached behind this essay. The research question, examines the effect of Western support to warlords on political legitimacy in the post 9/11 Afghan war. I contextualise the research question in terms of my critical engagement with the literature of strategists in Afghanistan during this time. Subsequently, I draw out themes in relation to the available literature on warlords, politics and security in Afghanistan. I highlight the value of thinking about these questions conceptually in terms of legitimacy. I then introduce the published work, summarising the focus of each paper or book chapter. Later, a ‘findings’ section addresses how the policy of supporting warlords has affected legitimacy through its impact on security and stability, the political settlement and ultimately whether Afghans choose to accept the Western-backed project in Afghanistan, or not. I argue that this issue is important as it has security implications not just in the immediate region, but increasingly, throughout the Middle East and possibly further.

Organizational forms can become institutionalized in the sense that their existence and application is taken-for-granted and perceived as legitimate by stakeholders. Over time, new organizational forms can emerge that challenge perceived legitimacy of the established form. From this perspective, this dissertation examined institutionalization in the context of online business degree programs (OBDP) in higher education. Specifically, this dissertation examined OBDP as an emerging institutionalized form in relation to its cognitive legitimacy (taken-for-grantedness) and sociopolitical legitimacy (appropriateness) from the perspectives of four key stakeholder groups (students, faculty, academic administrators, and business practitioners). Survey results suggest that OBDPs are perceived as cognitively legitimate across each of the groups studied and socio-politically legitimate in each the four groups studied except for faculty. Furthermore, a conjoint experiment was conducted to determine the influence that four program related characteristics (accreditation, reputation, placement after graduation, and physical linkage) have on the legitimacy perceptions of OBDPs. Conjoint results indicate that each of the factors studied were significant predictors of legitimacy with accreditation being the most significant across each of the four groups. These findings provide a novel test of institutional theory as well as contributing to practice by offering strategic guidance to business schools either currently offering ODBPs or those planning to develop an online version of an existing program.

In this study, we argue the organic industry's move towards a more legal definition of organic production indicated a shift in the legitimating criteria in the organic agriculture institutional field, which can be observed through the analysis of the legitimating accounts of various actors. Prior to USDA certification, institutional actors in the organic food field largely relied upon the norms and values of its participants to maintain order. Legitimacy was based on the perception that a firm embodied a certain value set, which typically included opposition to large-scale commercial operations (DeLind, 2000; Drinkwater, 2009). To some, the introduction of federal standards signaled a replacement of the personal trust between consumer and producer, and an increased reliance on external policies mandated by federal certification (Guthman, 2000; 2004a; 2004b). This study explores the intricacies of the various actors' legitimating accounts during this time of a shifting institutional field. Central questions include: how do these actors adapt their legitimating accounts to the changing context? Is there a discernible pattern to their rhetoric, not only over time, but also in relation to the other contemporary legitimating accounts? And finally, if patterns are evident, can they provide insight into the dynamics of legitimating sources in this institutional field?

abstract: ABSTRACT Many studies testing the effects of procedural justice judgments rely on cross-sectional data. The shortcomings of such a strategy are clear and alternative methodologies are needed. Using a factorial vignette design, this study tests a variety of hypotheses derived from the process-based model of regulation, most of which involve the posited outcomes of procedural justice judgments during police-citizen encounters. This technique allows the researcher to manipulate police process during citizen encounters via hypothetical scenarios. Experimental stimuli are used as independent variables in the regression models. The results show that participants who were administered vignettes characterized by procedural injustice had lower levels of encounter satisfaction, decision acceptance, immediate compliance and greater expectations that police handle similar situations in the future differently relative to individuals who did not receive the negative stimulus. These effects are statistically significant across encounters involving traffic stops and noise complaints. As anticipated, the effect of procedural injustice often proved more salient regardless of whether participants were administered vignettes where they received a citation. Given the utility of the vignette design, future researchers are encouraged to apply the design to additional causal questions derived from the process-based model. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Criminology and Criminal Justice 2016

abstract: Recently, there has been an upsurge in highly publicized negative police-citizen encounters, contributing to the current crisis in police legitimacy. These encounters, mostly filmed and disseminated by citizens, provide a new type of vicarious experience through which the viewer can assess police-citizen interactions, potentially shaping their perceptions of the police. These recordings have sparked national conversations and protests regarding police behavior and treatment of minority citizens. An area that has received less attention, however, is what effect viewing video recordings of less contentious police-citizen interactions has on public perceptions of police. To that end, this study seeks to address the knowledge gap through experimental methodology. Using actual footage of a variety of police-citizen encounters, this study examines the impact of viewing videos of police encounters on individuals' perceptions of police legitimacy, procedural justice, estimates of police misconduct, and their willingness to cooperate with police. Also examined are the impact these videos have on support for officer body-worn cameras and willingness to film the police. The findings indicate the impact of viewing police-citizen encounters on individual perceptions and attitudes are primarily linked to the content – whether positive, negative or neutral – of the video. Specifically, positive videos depicting procedurally just encounters increased perceptions of procedural justice, decreased estimations of police misconduct and increased support for officer body-worn cameras. Viewing negative videos, however, decreased perceptions of police legitimacy, distributive fairness, and procedural justice while increasing estimations of police misconduct and willingness to film the police in the future. The effects of the video encounters on perceptions of police were not lasting and were not stable when respondents were surveyed again two weeks later. Lasting effects were found for individuals’ self-reported willingness to film the police in the future. Given these findings, the process-based model of policing should consider also incorporating digital vicarious experiences when examining factors impacting perceptions of police. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Criminology and Criminal Justice 2017

abstract: The role of the American police is to work for and with the communities they serve. The relationship between police and community, however, has not always been a positive one. In recent decades, police organizations throughout the United States have attempted various approaches to addressing the problem. Most recently, they have been focused on improving that relationship by enhancing their legitimacy. This practice is commonly known as the process-based model of policing: theoretically, a procedurally just interaction will enhance legitimacy, which in turn will enhance willingness to cooperate with the police. The benefit for police agencies in enhancing legitimacy lies in the idea that when the police are perceived as a legitimate entity, the public will be more likely to cooperate with them. Enhancing police legitimacy also offers benefits for the public, as this is preceded by a procedurally just interaction. The goal of this dissertation is to assess the applicability of the process-based model of policing to an under-studied population: Hispanics and undocumented immigrants residing within Maricopa County, Arizona. The analysis for this dissertation uses data from two different sources: a sample of Maricopa County residents (n=854) and a sample of Maricopa County arrestees (n=2268). These data are used to assess three research questions. The first research question focuses on assessing the applicability of the process-based model of regulation as a theoretical framework to study this population. The second research question compares Hispanic and White respondents’ views of procedural justice, police legitimacy, and how these perceptions relate to their willingness to cooperate with the police. The last research question examines the differences between undocumented immigrants’ and U.S. citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice, police legitimacy, and how these perceptions relate to their willingness to cooperate with the police. In doing so, this study examined the convergent and discriminant validity of key theoretical constructs. Among several notable findings, the results show that the process-based model of regulation is a promising framework within which to assess perceptions of the police. However, the framework was only supported by the sample of arrestees. Implications for theory, practice, and suggestions for future research are discussed. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Justice Studies 2017

Dans ce travail de thèse, nous avons tenté de répondre à la question suivante : Comment un observateur extérieur –ou témoin– détecte-t-il une situation observée comme discriminatoire ? Notre objectif était donc d'élaborer un modèle général de détection de la discrimination de la part de l'observateur extérieur. En nous basant sur les conceptions scientifiques, légales et profanes de la discrimination, ainsi que sur la littérature traitant de cet objet, nous avons formulé la thèse suivante. La discrimination étant conceptualisée comme un comportement intergroupe contre-normatif, la détection de la discrimination serait déterminée par a) la différenciation des catégories sociales du discriminateur et de la victime et le caractère de leur échange, et b) l'évaluation de la légitimité du comportement du discriminateur. La première partie de ce travail de thèse traite du premier point cité. Nous avons défendu l'hypothèse que la détection de la discrimination était fonction de la perception de l'échange entre le discriminateur et la victime comme intergroupe plutôt qu'interpersonnel. Afin de tester cette hypothèse, nous avons manipulé la distinctivité catégorielle des groupes sociaux du discriminateur et de la victime, ainsi que le rapport entretenu entre le discriminateur et la victime. Les cinq études de la première partie permettent de soutenir l'hypothèse que la catégorisation sociale des acteurs et la perception de leur échange détermine la détection de la discrimination. La seconde partie de ce travail de thèse traite du second point cité. Nous avons défendu l'hypothèse que la légitimité perçue du comportement du discriminateur modère l'effet de la distinctivité catégorielle sur la détection de la discrimination. Les deux études de la seconde partie fournissent des arguments empiriques qui soutiennent cette hypothèse. Globalement, l'ensemble de ce travail permet d'appréhender le processus de détection de la discrimination comme relevant de l'interaction entre un processus perceptif –la catégorisation sociale des acteurs–, et un second processus, davantage délibératif, qui implique l'évaluation normative du comportement du discriminateur et/ou de ses motivations. / In this research, we attempt to answer the following question: How a distant observer – or witness – will detect an observed situation as discriminatory? Our aim is to elaborate a general model of discrimination detection by the distant observer. Based on scientific, legal, and lay definition of discrimination, we propose the following argument: As discrimination is defined as a counter-normative intergroup behavior, discrimination detection will depend on a) the distinctiveness of both perpetrator and victim social categories, and by the nature of these actors exchange, and b) the perceived legitimacy of the perpetrator's behavior. The first part of this research deals with the first point quoted above. We made the hypothesis that discrimination detection will depend on the nature of the perceived exchange between the perpetrator and the victim as intergroup rather than interpersonal. In order to test this hypothesis, we manipulated the distinctiveness of the respective social categories of perpetrator and victim. The five studies of this research first part support the hypothesis that the social categorization of perpetrator and victim and the following perception of their exchange impact discrimination detection. The second part of this research deals with the second point quoted above. We defended the hypothesis that the perceived legitimacy of the perpetrator's behavior moderates the effect of social categories distinctiveness on discrimination detection. The two studies of the second part of this work support this hypothesis. Broadly speaking, this work allows to understand the discrimination detection process as the interaction between a perceptive process –the social categorization of the actors–, and a deliberative process, which imply the normative evaluation of perpetrator's behavior and/or motivations.