Water Governance and Water Institutional Reform - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 8

2.1.2

Water Governance

A general definition of water governance does not exist. This is partly because the concept is
still in the phase of development, but also because it is questionable whether a general defini
tion is possible and desirable at all (UNESCO 2003: 371). As the term is being developed and
used mainly by international actors that connect it with their own goals, it is not surprising that
normative and analytic notations are often interchanged. The same problem can be noticed
with the usage of the concepts of global governance and good governance, which are being
used in many nuances as well. In the following, an analytical and a normative notion of water
governance are distinguished. The first sub chapter describes water governance as an analytical
approach and the second sets out the normative conception of good water governance.

2.1.2.1

The Analytical Perspective

In Political Science, governance refers to a distinct analytical perspective on regulation and
coordination processes. It has to be stressed that governance is neither a theory nor does it
imply a certain theory, rather it is an analytical tool to describe and assess reality using a certain
perspective. However, there are very different meanings of the term governance (for an over
view see Kooiman 2002: 72f). Pierre and Peters (2000: 7) therefore conclude that “[t]he con
cept of governance is notoriously slippery”.
The rise of the governance concept on the one hand shows the desire or need for a dif
ferent perspective to analyze reality; on the other hand it is a reaction to a changed reality so
that new approaches in its analysis are necessary: It reflects a shift of power from government
alone to local levels, transnational organizations, civil society and private actors. The state and
its government are questioned as a sole actor (Pierre, Peters 2000: 75 93). Consequently, poli
tics is not seen as regulation and control by one authoritative actor (the state), but as interac
tion between interdependent collective actors on different levels local, regional, national,
international. These different levels are especially considered with the term “multi level gover
nance” (Benz 2004a, 2007). There can be distinguished broader and narrower understandings
of governance. The broader view sees governance as coordination and regulation of interde
pendent actions of societal actors. The narrower view understands governance to be in opposi
tion to government as modes of regulation between state and society. Its focus is on the effec
tiveness of processes in terms of problem solving (Benz 2004: 17f).
Although there are “perhaps as many views about governance as there are scholars inter
ested in the subject” (Pierre, Peters 2000: 28), they have one thing in common: Besides ques
tioning the role of government, they assume the governability of society and economy. One
premise of the governance approach is that regulation between actors is possible; hence that
policy is not entirely determined by economic constraints, institutions, or power interests. 7
Governance evolved as a useful concept to grasp the interrelationship of polity, politics, and
policy. As it assumes that politics is not only a power game of elites, it acknowledges that insti
tutions do have influence. So, while in general governance analyses are more interested in
output than in institutional forms, they are not incompatible with a neo institutionalist pers
pective as taken in this study. The governance perspective can reveal the dynamic concurrence
of structures and processes, institutions and actors, rules and rules application, e.g. when it
7 However, the neglect of power as aim and not only as tool of political actions, and of central questions of authority
and legitimacy, is also one frequent point of criticism (see e.g. Mayntz 2001).