Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
ones. While technical bricolage follows the logic of instrumentality, symbolic bricolage follows
the logic of appropriateness by framing new institutions with old symbols. Both types of brico
lage and accordingly both logics are often combined. He also stresses the constraining as well
as enabling effects of institutions leading to actors that are simultaneously objects (of institu
tions that limit the range of solutions) and subjects (that can creatively recombine and extend
institutional elements).
I will use bricolage to describe a non teleological, partly purposeful and partly undesigned
process of re combination and re interpretation of institutional elements from different logics
that results in a qualitative new type of institution. However, the result does not have to be a
more appropriate institution in a functionalist sense. Rather, it can be an institution that better
serves the interests of certain actors. In this process, actors are constrained by institutions
while they are at the same time actively involved in their reassembling and reinterpretation.
Institutional bricolage offers an approach to institutional change that is situated between path
dependency and the development of new, alternative paths, that are never completely “new”
but a re combination of existing institutional elements and new concepts (which are then going
to be institutionalized). It is not an alternative to the concept of critical junctures, but is rather
complementary. After the challenge of an external juncture, the question of interest remains
for whom beneficial elements persist and which elements change. Which actors can influence
the persistence or substitution of institutional elements and why? Bricolage is hence also re
lated to questions of power as stated by historical institutionalists. But it also stresses the 'mes
siness' of institutional change, rejecting the idea of completely conscious and rational 'design'
of institutions.
3.4
Problem Statement
In chapter 2, an overview on the discourses and concepts of water and its governance was
given. For research purposes, the water governance approach requires a broad analytical pers
pective on water. For practical purposes, the realization of good water governance requires
water institutional reforms (WIR). The previous chapter outlined fundamental assumptions on
institutions and institutional change that will guide the following analysis of WIR under a water
governance perspective. Based on these considerations, this section will formulate the problem
statement and general assumptions on institutional change.
A fundamental premise of the water governance discourse is that water scarcity is not
considered only as a consequence of limited water availability but for a great extent as one of
“bad” water governance. This will be taken into account by analyzing two countries rich in
water resources that nevertheless face scarcity and distribution problems. It can therefore be
excluded that problems arise due to physical shortage; the research can concentrate on institu
tional aspects.
Good water governance (GWG) is considered to be essential to addressing the global wa
ter crisis. It is seen as a precondition of sustainable and efficient water management that is
responsive to the needs of different user groups and hence necessary to prevent conflicts.
12
Water institutional reforms aim to change the mode of regulation and introduce principles of
12
It should be stressed that the good water governance norms as such are not the topic of this thesis. These principles
are surely worth discussing and need a critical scrutinization. However, the focus of this study is on the political
processes not on the policy goals. But the analysis of institutional reforms and efforts to achieve good water gover-
nance can also contribute to a reflection of the norms as such.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search