WORLDS OF WATER:

(1)

Det här verket har digitaliserats vid Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek.

Alla tryckta texter är OCR-tolkade till maskinläsbar text. Det betyder att du kan söka och kopiera texten från dokumentet. Vissa äldre dokument med dåligt tryck kan vara svåra att OCR-tolka korrekt vilket medför att den OCR-tolkade texten kan innehålla fel och därför bör man visuellt jämföra med verkets bilder för att avgöra vad som är riktigt.

Th is work has been digitised at Gothenburg University Library.

All printed texts have been OCR-processed and converted to machine readable text.

Th is means that you can search and copy text from the document. Some early printed books are hard to OCR-process correctly and the text may contain errors, so one should always visually compare it with the images to determine what is correct.

012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 CM

(2)

WORLDS OF WATER:

WORLDS APART

HOW TARGETED DOMESTIC ACTORS TRANSFORM INTERNATIONAL REGIMES

PATRIK STÅLGREN

(3)

(4)

WORLDS OF WATER:

WORLDS APART

HOW TARGETED DOMESTIC ACTORS TRANSFORM INTERNATIONAL REGIMES

PATRIK STÅLGREN

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE GÖTEBORG UNIVERSITY

2OO6

(5)

(6)

(7)

Distribution Patrik Stålgren

Department ofPoliticalScience GöteborgUniversity

PO. Box 711 405 30Göteborg Sweden

E-mail : Patrik.Stalgren@pol.gu. se Worlds of Water: Worlds Apart

How TargetedDomestic Actors Transform International Regimes 2nd edition

Patrik Stålgren

ISBN 10: 91-89246-26-8 ISBN 13: 978-91-89246-26-3 ISSN: 0346-5942

©Patrik Stålgren

Printedby Grafikerna Livréna AB, Kungälv 2006

Thisdissertation is included as number 99in theseries Göteborg Studies in Politics, editedby BoRothstein, Departmentof Political Science, Göteborg University.

(8)

Preface

This book was written as a consequenceof adiscussion that I overheard at a conferencereceptionin Kadoma just outside Harare, Zimbabwe. The con

ference was organised by the World Bankas partof their efforts to instigate water sector reforms throughout Africa based on theinternationalregime of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). IWRMhadbeen developed by leading international experts and was identified by United Nations as a vital stepin achieving the Millennium Development Goals for eradicatingpoverty. Leading civil servants and water resources specialists from allover Africahad come toKadoma tobeinspiredand shareexperi encesofwatersectorreformsin theirrespective home countries.

After the firstdayofthe meeting, we all gathered by the pool to cool off beforedinner. As a junior researcher with an odd accent, Itried to keep a low profileand madeconversationwith a group of youngercivilservants.

As I enjoyed therefreshments andnodded along withtheconversationof my peer group,I overheard a seniorofficialfrom the Departmentof Water Development in Harare tellingcolleges from West Africa aboutproblems gettinglocal support for IWRM. After dinner I got a chance to talk to this Zimbabwean officialin private. He told me that when Zimbabwe began itswater sectorreform in theearly 1990’s itwas one ofthe first countries in Africa to activelyengageIWRMas a policy platform. Hehad person

allybeen involved in supporting the review of the legal and institutional structures, and been engaged in extensive campaigns to get public and private actors tochange the way they dealt with waterresources. Despite these efforts, he was disappointed by poor results. Attempting to explain this, hesaid:

You know, for manypeople water is not just water. It is part of their lives, their worlds. Sowhat we have seen with IWRM hereis like aclashof worlds, a clash ofwater worlds.

Thisconversationisthe root of thefocusof this book. International regimes aredeveloped attheinternational level with the aim of creating behavioural changes at domesticlevels. During theimplementation process theinter national regime can be transformedin relation to existingconstructions of reality in thetargeted domestic context in a way that redirects the origi

nally intended behavioural changes. Withthe aim to both understand and promote theimplementation ofinternational regimes—suchasIWRM—I present an analysis ofdomestic transformations of international regimes.

(11)

(12)

Acknowledgment

Where I come from, academic studies are, at best, a legitimate spring boardto a goodjob in the ‘real’ world. Had I notmeet Petter Brolin and Mats Ekelund during my early studies in economics,my life today might therefore havebeenquite different. Petter’s persistent challengingof every aspect of normality and Mats’ habitofkeeping hisnose inthick books on economic theory awokemy curiosity toplunge into ‘real’ academia. Like many students of economics, I soon became quiteconvinced of the infe riority of other academic disciplines. However, theinspiring teachings on International Relationsby Gustaaf Geeraerts atVesalius College, Brussels, convinced me that this was wrong, and the intellectual care of Bengt-Ove Boström atthe Department of Political Science in Göteborg setmeonthe trajectory that leadto thisdissertation.

I owe a tremendous debt to BoRothstein and Ulf Bjereldwho have been mydissertationadvisors.In his support,Bo has emphasisedwhat heso often teaches;theimportanceof trust and intellectual integrity. Ulf has tirelessly pushed me to further intellectual consistency and clarity,while generously sharing advice on how tomanoeuvre in social as well as spiritual spheres. I havereceived much encouragement, good adviceand companionship from other colleagues atthe Department of Political Science at Göteborg Univer sity.Monika Bauhr,Carl Dahlström,Johannes Lindvall and Daniel Naurin have provided much intellectualstimuli throughout the years. Together with Lennart J. Lundqvist andAnnTowns they have read and commentedon the entire manuscript. Thesame goes for Fredrik Söderbaum at the Depart

mentof Peace and Development Research in Göteborg who has become not only a strong academicpartner, but a close friend. Specialthanks also go to SverkerJagers, Victor Galaz, Mette Anthonsen,Ulrika Möller, Mar tin Sjöstedt, Jon Pierre,Erik Arnnå, Eva Meuller, Edwin Muchapondwa, Christina Dyall, Robert PriceandSeanRintel. Istarted mypost-graduate studieswith Monika Bauhr, Carl Dahlström,Maria Jarl and Daniel Naurin, and without you I don’tthink Iwould have finished them.

Thewriting of James G. March have been a continuously source of inspiration in myacademic life. I was thrilledto spendthe academic year 1999/2000 at Scancor, Stanford University, enjoying Jim’s teaching and warmth as wellasthat of RussellHardin, Rodrik Kramer, Woddy Powell and Richard Scott.Anders Söderholm andMaria Bengtsson took meunder their care and sharedtheir family life with me whenI desperately missed that ofmy own. The Centre forApplied Social Sciences (CASS) at the Universityof Zimbabwe providedguidance andsupport during my field

work. Without thelegitimacycoming from being associated with CASS,I would nothave been given access to the many interviewees who made this dissertation possible. Special thanks go to Claudious Chikozho, and the

(13)

late StanelyVombo. Thanks also to Bill Derman, Francis Gonese, and Bev Sithole, as well as Alois Mandondoand Peter van der Zaagatthe Institute of Environmental Studies. During the years that I commuted between Göteborg, PaloAlto, and Harare, Lars Oscàrofferedhousingand friend

ship in Harare and brought me along to the happy society ofthe Young Diplomatic Association of Zimbabwe.TogetherwithJoakim Harlinand Richard Liden, this made time away from home morebearable.My greatest debt, however, stands to all the interviewees in Zimbabwe and elsewhere who took thetime, and occasionally, the risk, of talking tome.

Thisproject has received core funding from Humanistisk samhällsveten skapliga forskningsrådet (Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Science). Generous financial support has also been extended by Adlerbertska Stiftelserna, ForskraftstiftelsenTheodorAdelswärdsMinne, HelgeAx:sonJohnsonsStiftelse,Jubileumsfonden vid Göteborgs universitet, Kunt och Alice Wallenberg, Kungl och Hvitfeldtska Stiftelsen, Kungliga Vetenskapsakademin (The RoyalSwedish AcademcyofSciences), Nordiska Afrikainstitutet (The Nordic Africa Institute), Oscar Ekmans stiftelse, Paul ochMarieBerhaus donationsfond,Stiftelsen Lars Hiertas Minne, Svenska Institutet (The Swedish Institute), Stiftelsen Siamon, Wilhelm ochMartina LundgrensVetenskapsfond. The research period at Stanford was made pos siblewith support fromFulbright Commission and Rotary International AmbassadorialScholarships.

I ampartof a great family. I owemy interest and concern for problems of underdevelopmenttomy parentsandthe loving upbringing they provided in the “missionaryfields” of Central Africa.Mysiblings, Evaand David, are closertomy heart thanwords can tell. Togetherwithmy extended family in Göteborg, they have provided endless moral andpracticalsupportoverthe years. About two years ago, I became a father and I havesince been blessed once again. To Alma, Wilgot and the love of Annika I dedicate this book.

Youwatermy worlds!

(14)

1. DOMESTIC TRANSFORMATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL REGIMES

Conservative estimateshold that the lack of clean watercauses the death of five million people worldwide every year (UN 2002).1 To grasp the magnitude of this horrendous figure, we can translate it into 12,500 jumbo jets each carrying 400 passengers. Thought of in this way, the death toll from lackofcleanwater is equivalent to 34fulljumbojetscrashing every dayoftheyear.

1 Researchers at John Hopkins School of Public Health put the death toll at 12 million (Hinrichsen, Robey, et al. 1997). For a comment on the methodological problems arriving at such estimate, see Gleich (2002).

Moreover, competition for water resources and water pollution is in

creasing on a global scale. The resulting soil degradation, destruction of ecosystems, and loss of productive land has serious effects for sustainable social andeconomicdevelopment, as wellas political stability.Among the problems faced are water pollution, unevengeographic and seasonal distri bution of water resources, and, perhapsmost challenging,the distribution of water resources and related servicesbetween social groups and countries (UN 2003; Elliott 2004; Jonch-Clausen 2004;UN 2005a).

Over the last thirtyyears,a wide varietyofconcerned actors and experts have been engagedwith advancing the understanding about, and coop

eration on, water resources management. The need for sustainablewater management has been at the top of the agendaat international meetings such as the UN conferences for sustainable development in Stockholm (1972),Rio deJaneiro (1992), and Johannesburg (2002). From these meet

ings there has grown a generally accepted understanding that the global watercrisis is mainlya problem of management. The water crisisis not the result of lackof natural supplyof water,nor is it primarily anengineering problem (i.e. stemming from the lack of technicalsolutions). Instead, as a group of experts under the UN Millennium Project recently put it, the problem is “thelack ofappropriate institutions at all levels, and chronic dysfunction of existing institutional arrangements” (UN 2005a:27). The water crisis—causing thedeathand underdevelopment of millionsof people each year—is thusnotprimarilyconstituted by over-demand for water or lack oftechnical know-how. It derives from under-supply of knowledge and institutions for sustainable waterresources management.

(15)

The recognitionof the needforimproved water resources management has leadto theformation ofthe internationalregime of Integrated Water Resources Management(IWRM). The internationalregimeof IWRM con

sists of “norms, rules, anddecision-making procedures”(Krasner 1983b:1) that leading international experts see as paramount to fostersustainable water resources management.2 Recognising the need to accommodate to local conditions in terms of wateravailabilityand needs, IWRM does not provide detailed prescriptions forevery aspect of water resources manage

ment. However, IWRM buildsona distinct setof core ideas and values that aredifferent from previously recognised approaches to water management in several regards.Most notably, whereas water resources management used to be seen as an engineering practice with the goal to optimise the output supply of water fromnature, IWRM proposean approachbasedon water as part ofthe ecosystem, the economic value of water, and the need for stakeholder participation (GlobalWater Partnership 2000; Jonch-Clausen 2004).

2 For further definition of “international regime” see chapter three. Note here that I, apart from Krasner, focus on the role of international regimes to regulate social interaction at domestic levels. For a review on the role of international regimes to foster behaviour between actors at the international level such as state-to-stat relations, see e.g. Young (1989a); Roman (1998); Hasenclever, Mayer, et al. (2000); Little (2001).

The delegates atthe2002 UN Summit in Johannesburgrecommended that allcountries worldwide shouldadoptIWRM as thebasis fortheir water management policies as this is deemed necessary to arrive at the Millennium Development Goals setout to curb global underdevelopment(UN2005b).

To date, morethanone hundredcountrieshave embarked onIWRM-based reformsof their water management policies. The empirical material for this book wascollected during the implementation processinZimbabwe, which was one of thefirst countries to actively engage IWRM as a platformfor a national water managementpolicy.Currentreforms in China, Brazil, and Uganda aremappedonIWRM, as is the EU’sWater Framework Directive which encourages the member states to reform their water managementin accordance with IWRM.Allmajor international development agencies and institutes,including the WorldBank and United Nations, as well as bilateral agenciesfromcountriesliketheUK, Sweden, andGermany use IWRM as the platform for their engagements with sustainable water management in the developingworld (UN 2003;Global Water Partnership2004).

At a general level, IWRMthus has ahigh degree of acceptanceand legiti

macy throughout the world and represents a widely endorsed platform for sustainable water management. It has substantial backing from scientific experts and international policy institutions, and it already serves as the foundation for national water sector reforms inall parts ofthe world.

(16)

The analytic point of departure for this bookis that despiteof thegeneral acceptance of IWRM ataglobal level, the understanding of it may vary across different targeted domestic actors whose practicesIWRMsets out to change. In the case under review this implies variations between the understandings of IWRM held by, on theonehand,development agencies and scientific experts attheinternationallevel, and, onthe other hand, the targeteddomestic actors in Zimbabwe whosewater related practices were up for reform (e.g. policy makers,scientificexpertsingovernment depart

ments, farmers ofdifferentsorts, and rain-makers).3

3 As an analytic category, “targeted domestic actors” is distinct from advocacy groups in civil society, the private sector, or elsewhere, engaged in promoting the adoption of an international regime or norm see Checkel (1997a); Keck and Sikkink (1998); Risse, Ropp, et al. (1999).

4 The underlying assumption—that agency derives from actors’ understandings of reality—is addressed in chapter four.

The reason for thesevariations, I suggest, is that in the process ofimple menting IWRM it becomes part ofevolving domesticpractices and politics.

More specifically, IWRMis transformed in relation to domestic construc tions of reality. An international regime is transformed if different actors internalise it in conjunction with their existingconstructions of realityand subsequently ascribe it new meanings. The transformed understanding that iseventuallyheld by targeted domestic actors is thus made up of a mixtureof theoriginal formulation of IWRM and prevailing constructions of reality at thedomestic level.Aninternationalregime which is transformed shouldbe distinguished from a regime which is rejected oraccepted. Rejectedregimes are in no way internalised orturned into practicewhile accepted regimes are whollyinternalised and practisedasaresultof theimplementationprocess (for furtherdefinitions, see chapterthree).

My interest in domestic transformationsof international regimes is based on the assumptionthattheymaydecrease the usefulness ofinternational regimes as a tool to obtain specificchanges indomestic policy and practice.4 The actual impactof IWRM tomeetthe global water crisis is contingent on how targetedwaterusers at domesticlevels transformIWRM andturn it into concrete politics andpractices.Consider two examplesfrom the em pirical study presented below. Key actors inthe Zimbabwean government subscribed to a construction of reality wherewater resourcesmanagement was ofgreat importance in the post-colonial project ofnation building in Zimbabwe.For them,gainingcontrol overwaterresources was part of breakingwith ahistory in whichwhite men have made ahabitof providing ready-made solutions to how they should manage their natural resources.

Thus in relation to this conception of 'Water asZimbabwe’, I'MRM was transformed intoyet another instrument byimperialistic forcesto interfere in Zimbabwe’s domestic politics. As aconsequenceof this transformation,

(17)

the watersector reform in Zimbabwe wasobstructed and delayedfor several years during which theincumbent political andeconomicelitescontinued to enjoy their privileged position andexistinginequalities in the water sec tor were further entrenched. When IWRM waseventually endorsed by the government as the platform for the water sector, its meaning was coloured by the construction of ‘Water as Zimbabwe’ in a way that substantially redirected its behavioural implications (see chapter five). Similarly, the conceptof ‘Water as a Gift fromthe Gods’ is widespread among Zimbab

weans and places jurisdiction over water resources in the hands ofthe ancestral gods. In this construction of reality, IWRM calls for economic and scientificmeanstodirectthe use of water were seen as tantamount to rebellion against the gods.While IWRM, for example, favoured putting a price onwater to deal with waterscarcity, such a policy wasseen as alack of trust in the abilities ofthe gods and their right to distribute water in accordance with their will. Toaccommodate this view,a policy was eventu allydevelopedwhere the price forwater consumption was related to the use of the infrastructure neededto manage water (e.g. pumps andpipes) rather than onthe amount ofconsumedwater. Whilethispolicy avoided

‘pricing the gift from thegods’,it alsomade theprice for waterinsensitive to thesupplyand demand for waterandthus the use of market incentives to regulateconsumption (see chapter eight).

These examples illustrate that targeted domestic actors in Zimbabwe transformed the original meaning of IWRM in relation to domestic con structions of realityina way that redirected its behavioural implications.

The targeted domesticactors’understandings of IWRM are made up of a mixtureof the original formulation of IWRM and prevailing social, politi

cal, religious, and scientificpractices surrounding water. Totheextent that targeteddomestic actors base their actionson transformed understandings of theinternational regime,ratherthan its original formulation, thetrans formation process should concern both students of international regimes and parties concerned with using international regimesas aninstrument to effect domestic practices.

In orderto both understand andpromotetheimplementationof IWRM in particular, and international regimes for sustainable development in general, in this book Iwill present atheory ofdomestic transformations of international regimes. This theory seeks to explain how international regimes aretransformed in the process ofimplementation into domestic contexts. Morespecifically,I askthefollowing questions:

1.Howand why dotargeted domesticactors arrive at transformed understand

ings of the international regime?

2. How dothese transformed understandings affect the behavioural implication ofthe international regime?

(18)

With reference to the case-studyconducted for this book, the focusis on what IWRMmeantto the people in Zimbabwe whose water practices it soughtto influence. How was IWRM transformedby targeted domestic actors engagedinthestrugglefor water resources inZimbabwe?How did these transformedunderstandings affect the policies and practices around water inZimbabwe?

Domestic transformations of international regimes and theories on international relations

Mystudy is placedin the midst of a literature on international relations that is concernedwith how politics and practices atdomesticlevels can be effected by policies developed atthe international level (e.g. Krasner 1983a;

Haas 1989; Klotz 1995; Clapham 1996; Finnemore 1996; Keohane and Levy 1996; Cortell and Davis 2000; Checkel 1997b; Finnemore andSikkink 1998; Risse, Ropp et al. 1999;Meyer 2000; Checkel 2001; Miles, Underdal et al. 2002;Acharya 2004). The common denominator of this literature is the realisation thatin a worldwith increasing global interdependence, the need for effective instrumentstofosterdomesticbehavioural change is eminent. Many ofthechallenges of global sustainabledevelopment derive from politics and practicesat domestic levels. Global warming, HIV/AIDS, and smallarms proliferation are but a few examplesof policy areasthat have motivated scholars to findout how developments at theinternationallevel can contribute to increased levels of cooperation atdomesticlevels.

The theoreticalliterature on internationalrelations provides three main approaches to understand international regime implementation: realism, liberalism, and constructivism.5 In chapter three, I arguethat independ

ent of theoretical orientation,scholars ondomesticeffects of international policydevelopment havetypically treatedinternational regimesas entities that have a fixed social andpolitical meaning throughout the implementa tionprocess. The analytical point of departure of existingtheories is that actors attheinternationallevel ascribe thesamemeaning to an international regime as dothe targeteddomesticactors.Theassumption is,for example, that themeaning of “human rights” or“environmentalsustainability”isthe samefor actors at the targeted domestic levels as itis at the international level where the regime was first developed and formulated, e.g. the UN or the World Bank. While dominant theories ofinternational relations

5 Depending on which theory of international relations that is applied, scholars have studied domestic effects of international policies under the banner of “implementation of interna

tional regimes (realists and liberalists) or as a process of “norm diffusion” (constructivists).

For reasons that I elaborate in chapter three, I will henceforth use “implementation of international regimes”.

(19)

shed light on different components ofthecomplexpuzzleofinternational regime implementation, my main critique of these theories is that they do not acknowledge that international regimes can betransformed andtake on new meanings with newbehavioural consequencesduring the implementa tionprocess. In contrast to the existingliterature,Ipropose a theory that considersthe meaning of internationalregimes during theimplementation as constructedratherthan constant.

Figure 1.1 presentsthe focus of my study (lower section) in contrast to the dominant focusof studies of international regimeimplementation(upper section).

Dominant view in international political theory on domestic implementation of international regimes.

Behavioural implication A International

regime at international level

International regime at domestic level

Theory of domestic transformations of international regimes.

Domestic transformation process

Behavioural implication B International

regime at international level

Transformed understanding of international regime at domestic levels

Figure 1.1 Contrasting the theory ofdomestic transformations of inter national regimes with the dominant view in theories on international relations.

The value added from the theory of domestic trans

formations of international regimes

The theory ofdomestic transformations of international regimes is an attempt to complement existing theories on international regime imple mentation. A detailed critique of existing theories is found in chapter three. Chapter four provides a comprehensive presentation of the theory

(20)

ofdomestictransformations. Bywayofintroduction, three aspects of how thistheorycomplements existing views can be outlined as follows:

Targeted domestic actors as subjects of change

The theoryofdomestic transformations of international regimesfocuses on the relations between international regimes and domestic actors’ con

structions of reality. Asstated above, theanalytic point of departure isthat thisrelationship is constructedrather than constant. More specifically, this relationship is analysed as a strategic process in which targeted domestic actors try to transform and establish as legitimate their understandings of theinternational regime.6

6 By labelling a process as “strategic” I mean to emphasise that it is characterised by pur

poseful actors applying a carefully worked out plan or method to achieve specific goals. I do not make a priori assumptions about the (material or non-material) nature of the means used, nor the goals aspired to.

Dominant theories ofinternationalrelations tend to regard the targeted domestic actors as passive recipients ofinternationalregimes. Recent schol arship has elucidatedhowdomestic advocacy groups engage strategically to getthe targeteddomestic actors to adhere toan international regime.A typicalexampleishow human rights groups pressure oppressinggovern mentstorespect international standardson human rights (Risse, Ropp et al.

1999, cf.Risse-Kappen 1995;Price 1997;Keck and Sikkink 1998). These scholarsfocusonthedomestic actorswho are advocatingchange, while the domestic actors who arethe primetarget for changeare largely left out of the analysis.They are‘black-boxed’, i.e. seen as a passive entity intowhichthe internationalregime is inserted,and fromwhich certain behaviour comes out.Scant interest is paid to what goes on ‘inside the black box’: how the targeted domestic actors receive and interpret the international regime.

The targeted domestic actors are theorised as subjected to change rather than subjects of change. Bycontrast, the analysisthat I propose focuses on thetargeteddomestic actors as subjects of changewho activelyengage to transform the meaningand implications of the international regime (see also Checkel 2000; Acharya 2004)

Transformed understandings of international regimes as proxies for action

International regimes aim to changethe pattern of domestic social interac

tion. To assess the degree to which this is achieved, dominanttheories on international regimes focus on changes in formal institutional structures, material power relations,and economicpay-offsatdomestic levels(Victor, Raustiala etal. 1998; Hasenclever, Mayer et al. 2000; Miles, Underdal eral.

2002). There is, however, much research tosupport theargument that such

(21)

indicationsare poor proxiesfor how targeteddomestic actors will adaptto the behavioural imperativesof internationalregimes. The argument is that action is influencedby actors’ internally imposedconstructions of reality (March andOlsen 1989; North 1990; Ostrom 1991;Bates,de Figueiredo etal. 1998; Rothstein2000; Wendt1999).Oran Young, aleading researcher on international regimes, hascalledfor explorations of how nonutilitar ian forces play as drivers of behaviour associated with the operation of international regimes”(Young 1999:206). The need to expand theories on international regimes in this direction wasalso recently emphasised by Miles etal. (2002) inthe conclusion totheir major study of theimplementation of fourteen internationalregimes.Toassess the behaviouralimplications of international regimes, they argue that the implementation process should be analysedas a “conflictovervalues'rather than the establishmentofformal regulative arrangements (p. 474, emphasis in original).

My analyticpoint of departure is that for an international regime to have alongterm impact on domesticpolitics and practices,its propositions must have an impact on thetargeteddomestic actors’ constructions of reality. The behavioural impact of an international regime at domesticlevels islargely contingent on howthe targeted domestic actorstransformthe international regime during theimplementation process. A focusonthe targeted domestic actors’ subjectively held (but socially constructed) understandings ofthe internationalregime is therefore abetter indicator oflongterm compliance thanchanges informal regulative arrangements.

Domestic heterogeneity around international regimes

Students ofinternational relations tend to regard the implementation of international regimes as aprocess leadingto increased global homogeneity.

The idea is thatas institutions and norms spread from one countryand society to the next,this leads to an increased levelof similarity in the organi

sationand behaviour within these states. This is perhaps mostevident in thework by John Meyer whoanalyses how “common models of socialorder become authoritative in many differentsocial settings” (Meyer2000:233;

cf. Krasner 1983a;DiMaggio and Powell1991; Katzenstein 1996; Keohane and Levy 1996; Lafferty and Medowcroft 2000; Bauhr 2005). A similar focuson processes of homogeneity dominates thework by scholars in the constructivist turn of internationalrelationstheory(Klotz1995;Finnemore 1996; Price1997; Finnemore and Sikkink1998;Keck andSikkink1998).

When constructivists setout to study theimplementationof international regimes—or similarly, “the diffusion of norms”—their analysis leaves little or noroom for thetargeted domestic actors’ understandings andreconstruc

tions of these external impetus.As noted by Landolt (2004) the change that constructivists examine is often change in thedirection of isomorphism;

(22)

i.e. the successful adoption of common internationalnorms by stateswith a variety of material and cultural endowments.

Focusing ondomestictransformations ofinternational regimes, I argue that theglobalspreadofinternational regimes is compatible with sustained domestic heterogeneity. This can bedescribed asa processtaking place on two levels: At aformallevel, domestic actors may adopt the policies rec

ommended by the international regime andmake adjustments in formal regulatory arrangements (e.g. laws and institutions). Simultaneously, but at thelevel of subjectively held understandings of theinternational regime, these actors may transform the meaningof theinternationalregime in rela tion to their constructions of reality. Consequently,the implementation of an international regimemay lead to asituationin which differentgroups of domestic actors ascribe differentmeanings and behavioural implications to the same formal set of regulatory arrangements.

Outline of the book

Chapter two provides an introduction ofthe international regime of IWRM. The presentation is organised around the three ‘pillars’ of IWRM- environmental sustainability, economic efficiency, and democratic partici patio n-that structures the subsequent empirical chapters (see table 1.1.).

Furthermore,chapter two provides an introduction to the agenda forwater managementin Zimbabwe and how this was related to IWRM at the outset of the water sector reform analysed for this book.

Chapter three positionsthe focus on domestic transformationsof interna

tional regimes inthe contextof dominant theories oninternational relations.

Attention is givento the three dominant theories oninternational relations:

the realist, liberal,and constructivist approaches.I detailmy critique of this literature, and argue forhow a theory of domestic transformationswill add to theunderstandingof international cooperation.

Chapter four presentsthetheory ofdomestic transformations of interna tional regimes. Drawing on theories in political science, social psychology and sociology, I outline how transformations ofinternational regimestake place in the interaction of political entrepreneurs engagedin strategic re interpretationsof the international regimeagainstthe backdrop of domestic constructions of realities.

Chapters five through eight contain the empirical analysis. The analysis is organisedaround four constructionsof realitiesaround water in Zimbabwe and the three pillars of IWRM (see table 1.1). In chapter five, I analyse thetransformationofIWRM inrelation to political entrepreneursacting outofthe construction of ‘Water as Zimbabwe’. Here, the main player is the political eliteofZimbabwe and the roleof water intheir post-colonial

(23)

project ofnation building. The transformation ofIWRM in relation to Water as Zimbabwe is marked by strategic considerations to strengthen the legitimacy ofthe nation-state and the government by placing them in the nexus of water distribution.

Chapter six is labelled‘WaterasGold’ and focusesonthe role ofwaterfor the white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe. Theorganisationof their real ity centres around thecollectivememory of successful watermanagement, and their constructions of racial social identities serves as background for ananalysis of positions and politics during thewater sector reform.

Thefocus of chapterseven is on theconstruction of water management as ascientific practice: ‘Water as Science’. This construction is nurtured by water professionals within the Zimbabwe public administration who see themselves as the avant-garde inmodern water management in Zim

babwe.

Chaptereight analyses the transformation ofIWRM in relation to the constructionof reality in which wateris interlinked withthe spiritual world:

‘Water as a Gift from the Gods’. This constructionof realityassumes the existence of an invisible worldinhabited by actors that engage with people’s lives inthe materialworld. Actorsin thespiritual world are in control of many of theevents in the material world, including the allocation of water.

The analysisof thetransformationof IWRMin relation to Wateras aGift fromthe Gods placesparticular focuson how thisreality construct provides a basisforlegitimate rule in many rural societies. The transformation of IWRM thusbecomespart ofthe post-colonial struggle between centralised and localruleinZimbabwe;i.e.between proponents ofWateras Zimbabwe andWater as a Gift from the Gods.

Table 1.1. Outlineof the empirical section of thebook.

Chapter five

Chapter six

Chapter seven

Chapter eight Constructions of water

in Zimbabwe

Pillar of IWRM

Water as Zimbabwe

Water as Gold

Water as Science

Water as a Gift from the Gods

Ecosystem management (Catchment management)

Economic efficiency (Water as an economic good)

Democratic participation (Stakeholder participation)

(24)

2. IWRM AND POLITICS AROUND WATER IN ZIMABWE

This book doesnot presenta case-study ofthe implementation of IWRM inZimbabweinthesenseof settingoutto account for the implementation perse. I use theimplementationofIWRM inZimbabwe toillustrate and

elaborate the theoryof domestictransformations ofinternational regimes.

This casehas been selected withthe aim ofarrivingat a more general un derstanding of the transformationofinternational regimes.

The internationalcommunityisgrowing dense with internationalregimes relating to a wide spectrum of policy areas, including gender equality, education, human rights, international trade, and small arms proliferation.

In the environmental sectoralone there are more than one hundredand thirtyinternational regimes(Keohane and Levy 1996; Hasenclever, Mayer et al. 2000;Lafferty andMedowcroft2000). While IWRMis onlyone of this increasing number ofinternational regimes, it was selected for this study becauseitis built around norms and ideas thatare widely sharedby international regimesconcerned with a diversesetofpolicy areas. There is a common core connecting IWRMandmany other internationalregimes.

This coreconsists of thecall for environmental sustainability, economicef ficiency, and democratic participation(e.g. Young 1982; Risse, Ropp et al.

1999;Little 2001; Miles, Underdal etal. 2002; Young2002). Dueto this similarity,an analysis of thetransformation of IWRMmay provideuseful insights for better understanding and promoting therealisationof interna tionalregimes inpolicy areas beyond water resources management.

The Zimbabwe case has both potential and limitations for generating general knowledge.Since the turn ofthe millennium, thepolitics ofland distribution in Zimbabwe has made world-wide news in a way that implies that Zimbabwe is a highlyunique case. During the land reform process, the Government of Zimbabwe has shown striking disrespectfor the country’s own legaltraditions and systematically broken any number of internationally established norms on human rightsandruleof law (Worby 2001;Derman and Helium 2004). Therefore it needs saying that the bulk ofthe water sector reform thatwasanalysed for this study tookplace before the recent debacle inthe country. My primary focus is on the water sector reform from theearly 1990’s until 2001. Nevertheless, while the politics surrounding natural resources in Zimbabwe mayat times be extreme, it also provides an unusually clear andrichexampleof politics inAfrica. The predicament

WORLDS OF WATER:

WORLDS OF WATER:

WORLDS APART

HOW TARGETED DOMESTIC ACTORS TRANSFORM INTERNATIONAL REGIMES

PATRIK STÅLGREN

WORLDS OF WATER:

WORLDS APART

HOW TARGETED DOMESTIC ACTORS TRANSFORM INTERNATIONAL REGIMES

PATRIK STÅLGREN

Contents

Preface

Acknowledgment

1. DOMESTIC TRANSFORMATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL REGIMES

Domestic transformations of international regimes and theories on international relations

The value added from the theory of domestic trans­

formations of international regimes

Outline of the book

2. IWRM AND POLITICS AROUND WATER IN ZIMABWE

The value added from the theory of domestic trans