Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Who Has Power?
Ultimately, all changes involve some physical
change in the world, i.e. physical power exercised
by some individual or group. Outside this defini-
tion,he ability to influence others to act in a
certain way is defined as social power.
In this functional sense, power is anything that
works; if something can be used to induce change
then that is a formof power. Hence, there aremany
different forms of power (Green et al. 2007); any-
one who thinks that because a 2-year-old has
neither physical power nor money then that child
has no power has obviously never had a toddler.
Power thus varies in its range of application and its
strength. In this empirical sense, information and
skills are forms of power, as is access to reasoning.
Science is therefore not neutral because, poten-
tially, it is power.
If 'who has power now' is a pragmatic question,
the issue of who should have power raises both
questions of effectiveness and of justice. The first
is a question of how power should be allocated so
as maximize the conversion of resources sustain-
ably into societal objectives. The latter question
is clearly central when the issue of power over self
is raised and the ability to influence others
necessarily impacts upon their power over self.
Power over self and the power of others over self
are the key ingredients of human rights (Free-
man 2002). The question of equality is not there-
fore a question of being nice to other groups by
gender, age or race, or of seeking to promote
equality of outcomes, but is centred on the equal-
ity of power so that all groups have the same right
to make choices, and the same potential range of
choices.
To be effective, the range of power must en-
compass all of thatwhich is to be changed andhave
sufficient strength to induce the change. A crucial
change in flood risk management is the shift from
a reliance on physical power - an organization
having the capacity to build some structure - to
the requirement for social power: the ability
to influence the behaviour of others. A second
change is that frequently no single organization
has an adequate set of powers either to make the
change in the physical world or to influence those
who must make such a change.
Who has what power now determines what can be
done and where it can be done. Thus, it is futile to
call for the control of development on floodplains
if no organization has the power to restrict
development (e.g. there is no zoning of any
kind inHouston), or if those powers are ineffective
-for instance, many developing countries are
experiencing rapid informal development, a pro-
cess that ignores not only planning requirements
but also ownership of the land. So, a first concern
in relation to power and social justice in relation
topower is whether any organization or organiza-
tions acting alone, cooperatively or collaborat-
ively, have 'ownership' of the power to deliver
a particular technology.
The pragmatic problem of power is that unless
some organization has the power to act in a par-
ticular way in a particular place then that partic-
ular flood risk management intervention cannot
be undertaken. But power is bounded; rules create
boundaries to power in terms of the types of power
that can be used, where, and for what purposes.
Thus, a key duality is between rules and power. So,
a key function of rules is to delimit one or more of
what the subject of the rule
must not do
,
may do
,
and
must do
. Consequently, rules define function-
al boundaries as well as geographical boundaries.
In turn, the standard definition of an institution
is that it is created by the existence of a formal or
informal set of rules (Uphoff 1986; North 1990;
Scott 1995) where rules can govern both its inter-
nal behaviour and its external relationships. Rules
create and delimit power, whilst a very effective
form of power is the ability to define the rules; so
rules both create and limit power, whilst being
created by power. Legal frameworks are the arche-
typal system of formal rules, whilst governments
are the archetypal setters of formal rules.
Institutions have to be distinguished from or-
ganizations; any organization is also an institution
because an organization is governed by both inter-
nal and external rules. But an institution does not
necessarily result in an organization. Similarly,
the different academic disciplines are clearly
institutions, ones defined by informal rules and,
