What sets credibility apart from legitimacy?

Q: What sets credibility apart from legitimacy?

As stated: “ Legitimacy, derived from the Latin legitimare (i.e., to make lawful) inherently bears the connotation to externality and rational agency – either on the part of the governors (who allegedly can actively establish a certain rule), or on the part of those governed (who allegedly can actively change that rule). By contrast, the focus on institutional function rejects axioms of externality and rational agency, as credibility is a measure of how institutions are formed and perceived as a result of autonomous, endogenous patterns of interaction and power differences. See Peter Ho, “ The ‘Credibility Thesis’ and its Application to Property Rights: (In)secure Land Tenure and Social Welfare in China ”, Land Use Policy , 2014, Vol. 40, September, p. 16. [ap_toggle title="Read more" status="close"] Furthermore, although credibility is undoubtedly related to distributional conflict, it does not posit that a “fully credible institution” – if that ever exists – would also be free from conflict. (…) Therefore, whereas legitimacy is perhaps more mono-dimensionally related to social conflict and discontent, credibility by definition presupposes a wider array of indicators by which it could and should be measured, depending on the temporally and spatially determined functions of institutions. ” See P. Ho, “ The ‘Credibility Thesis’ and its Application to Property Rights ”, Land Use Policy , 2014, 40, Sept., p. 16. [/ap_toggle]

Question

Accepted Answer

As stated: “Legitimacy, derived from the Latin legitimare (i.e., to make lawful) inherently bears the connotation to externality and rational agency – either on the part of the governors (who allegedly can actively establish a certain rule), or on the part of those governed (who allegedly can actively change that rule). By contrast, the focus on institutional function rejects axioms of externality and rational agency, as credibility is a measure of how institutions are formed and perceived as a result of autonomous, endogenous patterns of interaction and power differences. See Peter Ho, “The ‘Credibility Thesis’ and its Application to Property Rights: (In)secure Land Tenure and Social Welfare in China”, Land Use Policy, 2014, Vol. 40, September, p. 16.

Furthermore, although credibility is undoubtedly related to distributional conflict, it does not posit that a “fully credible institution” – if that ever exists – would also be free from conflict. (…) Therefore, whereas legitimacy is perhaps more mono-dimensionally related to social conflict and discontent, credibility by definition presupposes a wider array of indicators by which it could and should be measured, depending on the temporally and spatially determined functions of institutions.” See P. Ho, “The ‘Credibility Thesis’ and its Application to Property Rights”, Land Use Policy, 2014, 40, Sept., p. 16.