interdependence between technology and governance: cases and theories

PSIRU World Water Forum 2009, Istanbul, Session 6.2.3 www.psiru.org

Interdependence between Technology and Governance:

cases and theories by

Emanuele [email protected]

Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU)University of Greenwich, UK

www.psiru.org21 March 2009

Sustainable Water management Improves Tomorrow’s Cities’ HealthSustainable Water management Improves Tomorrow’s Cities’ Health SWITCH, European Commission, 6th Framework Programme, 2006-2010, SWITCH, European Commission, 6th Framework Programme, 2006-2010,

Contract No. 018530 (GOCE), Integrated Project.Contract No. 018530 (GOCE), Integrated Project. The findings are the The findings are the responsibility of the author and should not be construed as representing the responsibility of the author and should not be construed as representing the views of the European Commission.views of the European Commission.

PSIRU World Water Forum 2009, Istanbul, Session 6.2.3 www.psiru.org Research questions and theoretical

framework • Why have we not yet moved to an integrated

approach to urban water management?

• Is the limiting factor technology or institutional frameworks (or a combination of both)?

• Theories applied to the case of sewerage:

Knowledge theory (technological change)

Governance theory

Network theory


Characterisation of sewerage as technology

• Second generation technology Implications: perceived social necessity is key to

decision making (e.g. Sabesp/COBES in 1980s São Paulo)

• Centralised system (“Victorian” technology) Implications: adverse impact of localised solutions

on public health and environment (e.g. Peru, Pakistan, Jakarta)

• Highly capital intensive Implications: affordability, subsidies, timescale of

universal coverage (e.g. history of OECD countries, MDGs, donors’ policies)


Knowledge and decision making

• Moriarty et al. (2005: 11) define knowledge as “the intrinsic ability of individuals or groups to carry out actions”

• Knowledge defined as the “awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information, gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori)”

• Knowledge is part of the governance “equation” and reminds us that governance is a resource-dependent process


Geodesic networks and inefficient knowledge transfer

E.g. PPWSA prior to 1993

Government

Management

Labour

Consumers


Monopolistic hubs and inefficient knowledge transfer

E.g. Aguas Argentinas, 1993-2002

Private Operator


Highly integrated networks and efficient knowledge transfer (e.g. DMAE, 1961-2001)


Definitions: Governance

• “Governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences, and exercise their legal rights and obligations” (UNDP, 1997)

• In mainstream literature, governance is presented as the articulation of management regimes and their institutional frameworks: the State, Market and Civil Society (Castro, 2003)

• Is governance just another byword for politics and decision making? (Green, 2007)

• Knowledge as part of the governance “equation”


The ideal-type model of governance …

State(hierarchical order)

Market (self-organization driven by competition)

Civil society (cooperation driven by voluntary association)

Adapted from Picciotto (1997),

Castro (2003)

State

Civil society

Market


Policy networks and state autonomy

• Looks at inter-actor relationships in light of relative interests/objectives, available resources, applicable rules and existing constraints (Hermans, 2005; Klijn, 1997)

• State and different levels of government recognised as carrying own and distinct interests (Smith, 1993)

• Relationships vary in type (confrontational and transactional)

• Criticised for not representing a theory of power, but it is a valuable analytical framework for testing the cogency of other theories, e.g. property rights and public choice, as it addresses both resources- and context-dependence (Lobina and Hall, 2007)


Implications for IUWM

• What generation is IUWM?What is the perceived social necessity of IUWM?

• Centralised vs. localised systemsWhat is the impact of centralised/localised

solutions in terms of PESTE sustainability?

• What are the financial implications of moving to IUWM? In terms of: affordability; trade offs between

economic, social and environmental objectives; sources of funding


Selected References

• Hall, D., Lobina, E. (2008) Sewerage Works – Public investment in sewers saves lives. PSIRU Reports, commissioned by UNISON and PSI, March 2008 (http://www.psiru.org/reports/2008-03-W-sewers.pdf).

• Lobina, E., Hall, D. (2008) The comparative advantage of the public sector in the development of urban water supply, in Progress in Development Studies, 8(1), pp. 85-101.

• Hall, D., Lobina, E. (2007) Profitability and the poor: Corporate strategies, innovation and sustainability, in Geoforum, 38(5), pp. 772-785.

• Lobina, E., Hall, D. (2007) Experience with private sector participation in Grenoble, France and lessons on strengthening public water operations, in Utilities Policy, 15, pp. 93-109.

interdependence between technology and governance: cases and theories

Documents