Hydraulic Bureaucracies and the Hydraulic Mission: Flows of Water, Flows of Power

Anchored in 19th century scientism and an ideology of the domination of nature, inspired by colonial hydraulic feats, and fuelled by technological improvements in high dam constructions and power generation and transmission, large-scale water resources development has been a defining feature of the 20th century. Whether out of a need to increase food production, raise rural incomes, or strengthen state building and the legitimacy of the state, governments – North and South, East and West – embraced the 'hydraulic mission' and entrusted it to powerful state water bureaucracies (hydrocracies). Engaged in the pursuit of iconic and symbolic projects, the massive damming of river systems, and the expansion of large-scale public irrigation these hydrocracies have long remained out of reach. While they have enormously contributed to actual welfare, including energy and food generation, flood protection and water supply to urban areas, infrastructural development has often become an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, fuelling rent-seeking and symbolising state power. In many places projects have been challenged on the basis of their economic, social or environmental impacts. Water bureaucracies have been challenged internally (within the state bureaucracies or through political changes) and externally (by critiques from civil society and academia, or by reduced funding). They have endeavoured to respond to these challenges by reinventing themselves or deflecting reforms. This paper analyses these transformations, from the emergence of the hydraulic mission and associated water bureaucracies to their adjustment and responses to changing conditions

The water resources policy process in India: Centralisation, polarisation and new demands on governance

This paper reviews the literature on the characteristics of the post-Independence water resources policy process in India, with an emphasis on the recent period when critiques of existing and demands for new or adapted governance structures have become increasingly forceful. It will be shown that the dynamics of the water resources policy process has been studied to a very limited extent, compared to, for example, the study of (economic) impacts of policies and local-level water management practices. The first point the paper makes is that in an era of institutional transformation in the water sector, analysis of the actual dynamics of policy processes is required. The paper will sketch the 'policy as process' and 'politics of policy' perspectives from which such analysis could be undertaken. The paper then moves on to discuss certain main characteristics of the water resources governance structure and policy process in India. A first main characteristic is that of centralisation and hierarchy, rooted in the post-Independence planned development approach, the inherited structure of the government administration, the specific nature of the civil engineering dominated water resources bureaucracy and other factors, which have reproduced themselves in new forms and shapes under competitive populism, but are facing severe dilemmas and problems in the age of liberalisation. A second characteristic of the Indian water resources policy process is the high degree of polarisation in the debate and the interaction between civil society and the state. The Narmada and interlinking of rivers issues are cases in point, but it is a much broader phenomenon. This points to the absence of (effective) institutions for mediating water resources conflicts, particularly at the intermediate level. Great hopes are put by some on the decentralisation through the Panchayat Raj institutions. The paper argues that the PRI system and 'localist' approaches in general will be unable to address some of the core problems and issues in the water sector. The paper concludes with a research agenda for strategic analysis of policy processes in the water sector from a political economy of public policy perspective

For a political sociology of water resources management

This paper uses the growing volume of scholarly work on 'water and politics' to conceptually and methodologically frame an approach to the social analysis of water resources management. This paper sets out the thrust and focus of such a 'political sociology of water resources management'. The framing draws theoretical insights from sociology, development studies, and, obviously, water resources studies. The main theoretical inputs are: a) critical realism as the general ontological and epistemological foundation (Bhaskar, 1989; Sayer, 1984); b) sociological theory on structure-agency dynamics (Giddens, 1984; Archer, 1995) and the notion of public sociology (Burawoy, 2005a); development studies' understanding of the different meanings of 'development' (Thomas, 2000); d) theory on politics and social power (Kerkvliet, 1990; Lukes, 2005); and e) my own reading of the water resources literature through the lens of the boundary concept of 'water control'. The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 1 explains where the attempt at defining a field of water resources management studies in this particular way comes from. The section situates the field in relation to development sociology as the intersection of sociology and development studies; discusses how the notions of discipline and scientific community help to understand the field's characteristics; and briefly presents my own intellectual trajectory as part of this account. Section 2 discusses the object of a political sociology of water resources management. That discussion has four components: a) presenting 'water control' as a boundary concept that captures the multidimensionality of water resources management; b) conceptualising the interplay of structure and agency in water resources management as 'morphogenetic practice', that is, a cyclic process stretched over time and space; c) discussing the embeddedness of water resources management in the broader process of development; and d) showing the inherently political nature of water resources management and presenting a framework to analyse the working of social power in water control. Section 3 maps the field by presenting the five domains in which contested water resources management plays out: a) the everyday politics of water; b) the politics of water policy in the context of sovereign states; c) hydropolitics; d) the global politics of water; and e) the linkages through which water resources management issues travel across domains. Section 4 presents the approach and method of the political sociology of water resources management. The presentation moves in four steps: a) a discussion of Burawoy's notion of 'public sociology' to clarify the 'for what and for whom' of knowledge generation in the field; b) a discussion of the unit of investigation of the field - arguing that 'problemshed' and 'issue network' are more helpful units than 'watershed' and 'basin'; c) an argument for a comparative approach to research in the field given existing regional and sector fragmentation of water resources studies; and d) a look at the challenges for further development of the field

Water policy - water politics: Social engineering and strategic action in water sector reform

The objective of this paper is to map the 'politics of water' as a field of research. Such mapping logically has two parts. The first is an explanation of what is meant by politics and what could be the overall conceptual approach for analysing the politics of water - the formal part of the mapping. The second part of the mapping is the substantive dimension: what are the concrete issues and questions around which research on water politics could be organised? While the first part can have a single answer, the approach one prefers to take, the second is an in principle endless list of relevant and interesting topics for concrete investigation, each with their own specific conceptual and methodological demands. Selection within that list follows primarily, at least in this paper, from an assessment of what are pertinent policy questions in (a certain part of) the real world of water resources management. This paper focuses on the issue of water sector reform in developing and transition countries, particularly the reform of the public organisations that manage agricultural water. Agriculture is the dominant form of water use in most developing and transition countries, and changes in water resources management towards a more 'integrated' approach require quite fundamental changes in how agricultural water management is done. The need for a more integrated approach to water resources management is taken as the context for the argumentation in this paper, though 'integration' is by no means a clear, single 'thing', but a contested concept

Sleeping with the enemy: Dichotomies and polarisation in Indian policy debates on the environmental and social effects of irrigation

Large-scale, government-managed canal irrigation represents the technocratic approach to water development. Large-scale irrigation faces many problems but they have been relegated to the periphery in the water debate generally and about large dams in particular. It has given rise to dichotomous thinking and polarised politics. This paper explores these issues in case of large canal irrigation in India. The debates imply implication for institutions, science and technology and developmental practices which need to be viewed within the domain of new approach

The environment and human health: An agenda for research

The Working Paper Environment and Human Health gives a comprehensive review of the related literature in order to aid understanding of the (missing) link between the environment and health. Given the exhaustive literature on the subject the paper focuses on the water]related and land]related diseases namely in the fast growing and poor countries. By assessing the terrain of research on the subject, the paper aims to look beyond the causal linkage between environment and health and instead emphasis the underlying question about how environmental factors, along with man]made changes, influence human health. Specifically, the review examines the ability of the literature to define the incidence of environmentally]related diseases as well as their distribution across social and geographical scales, understands the role of diverse factors influencing these diseases and the adaptive capacity of societies in managing these illnesses or disorders. The paper draws on a wide range of sources from a variety of disciplines to unpack the linkage between the environment and health, and identifies issues, themes and questions raised by the literature. The review reveals limited understanding of the complex relationship between the environment and health. Although these researches provide grounds for a curative approach and in recent years have called for a preventive approach, they still retain a esimplistic high school modelf of examining the linear cause]effect relationship. This nevertheless fails to take on the growing risks posed by climate change and globalisation, as well as the dynamics of pathogens (and vectors) and of society affecting human health. These risks characterise complexity, uncertainty, conflicts and change. Given this characterisation of risks, the review calls for a modern approach to foresee and control the future consequences of human actions in order to live and adapt to the risks. This requires a comprehensive understanding of risk (from water pollutants) by identifying the pathways of risk assessment, understanding the impacts of pollutants and identifying a diverse set of strategies adopted by the individuals, organisations and agencies involved in bringing change to existing institutions and bio]physical resources

Cultural Political Economy and Critical Water Studies: An Introduction to the Special Themed Section

The attraction of taking a Cultural Political Economy (CPE) perspective in the analysis of questions related to water use, management and governance is threefold: (i) CPE is an effort to capture the multidimensionality of social dynamics by emphasising the cultural dimension of political economy and then investigating the internal relations of these different dimensions; (ii) CPE addresses both the structure and agency dimensions of social reproduction and transformation; it proposes a particular (strategic-relational) way of studying the two in an interlinked manner; (iii) the object of (most) CPE analysis – the state – is highly relevant to water studies, as the state is a, if not the, central actor in water governance, with state action as regards water resources increasingly set in the context of globalisation and neoliberalisation

'Follow the innovation' - a joint experimentation and learning approach to transdisciplinary innovation research

The ZEF-UNESCO project on Sustainable Management of Land and Water Resources in Uzbekistan addresses the environmental, social and economic problems in the Khorezm province, located within the so-called Aral Sea Zone in Uzbekistan. Currently in its seventh year (third phase), the project aims “to provide sustainable solutions to the Aral Sea region through a holistic approach, combining technology, policy and institutional options developed in cooperation with local and international stakeholders” as stated on the project website. Consequently, the mutually enriching interplay of multiple disciplines is a precondition for a successful project. Inter- and eventually transdisciplinary research, rather than the mere co-existence of different disciplines captured under the notion of ‘multidisciplinarity’ is the chosen and actively facilitated approach. A work package is specifically designed to foster the creation of inter- and transdisciplinary research teams around innovation packages developed by the project and identified as possessing ‘plausible promises’ to take hold in the Khorezm agricultural system. To trigger and sustain this process, a stepwise approach is taken. In a workshop series, four ‘Follow the Innovation (FTI)’ teams of scientists surrounding innovations were formed, roadmaps prepared and a set of tools and skills for stakeholder interaction taught. A participatory joint experimentation and learning approach was chosen to validate innovations in the farmer’s setting. Between the workshops, all four FTI teams are supported and accompanied by a full-time FTI facilitator in their stakeholder outreach and designing and implementing processes of joint experimentation and learning with stakeholders. After the first steps of stakeholder involvement are made and contacts well established, the stakeholders, as partners take part in all following training workshops. Here the further processes of testing, experimenting and jointly adapting the developed innovation packages to match the local needs as well as bio-physical and socio-economic environments are jointly designed with the partners. Additionally this process is continuously monitored, documented, critically discussed and adjusted accordingly by all partners. This paper seeks to illustrate and discuss the experiences collected so far in nurturing a transdisciplinary process of joint experimentation and learning between researchers and local stakeholders, each in their behaviours, attitudes and actions shaped by the context and culture of their places of origin. These include amongst others the academic disciplines of the researchers, the research project, the local Uzbek setting, shaped by strong hierarchical structures and a post-soviet system of knowledge governance. Thus, diverse forms and contents of knowledge, carried by uniquely socialised actors, shall be mutually exchanged and lead to the joint development of new knowledge, to innovations that ‘make sense’ in the rural setting of Khorezm/Uzbekistan. The process design, its strengths and weaknesses are outlined and recommendations for improvement discussed