THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND THE WATER DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A CONSTRUCTIVIST SYNTHESIS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Identification of the Research Theme

Since 1648, humankind has relied on the Westphalian state, as a political entity, for a number of services including the provision of freshwater (Harsant & Duvenhage, 2000: 5). In most cases, the provision of water is made possible through water resources management projects (WRMPs) that supply bulk water to utilities, which in turn provide it to local governments and the public. Supplying water by means of this process requires public policies to ensure that the largest number of people has potable water and adequate sanitation. Through these policies states have become the custodians of water resources in, or flowing across, their territories. This custodianship is imbedded in the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Because the state, or more specifically the government of the state, is responsible for the well-being of the population, interest groups who lobby against WRMPs, directly oppose government policy to implement these projects. This implies that, as interest groups successfully lobby against WRMPs, there might be an erosion of the state’s agential power to construct these projects.

Significance of the Research Theme

The research theme is significant in a practical and theoretical context. At a practical level, firstly, as water becomes scarcer throughout the world, many states in the developing world are turning to WRMPs to solve their water deficiency problems and energy needs. Secondly, as articulated and expressed by interest groups, there is an increasing awareness of the negative impact of WRMPs on communities and the environment. As a result, since the early 1990s, engineers, managers and political decision-makers in the water sector have been faced with increasing opposition to such plans. The opposition emanating from interest groups in particular restrict the policy choices of those entities involved in WRMPs. This has already led to increased political interaction between states and interest groups that are in all likelihood to continue in future.

Research Question

Considering the aforesaid context of the role and involvement of interest groups in water politics, the primary research question is: To what extent do the transnational activities of interest groups, concerning the implementation of WRMPs in selected Southern African international river basins, undermine the acceptance of policies and actions authorised at the state level of world politics? Or, to phrase it differently: To what extent does the transnational role and involvement of interest groups challenge and erode state agential power (at a national and international level) in respect of water politics?

Propositions

The first subsidiary proposition is that in respect of water politics, interest groups are bridging the boundaries between the domestic and international domains to such an extent that the traditional distinction between the two spheres is difficult to maintain. The second subsidiary proposition is that
interest groups are influencing and changing the traditional relationship between state and society or government and citizen to such an extent that the citizen is empowered to influence governmental policies at an international level. Based on these sub-propositions, it is the primary proposition that in respect of the water politics of international river basins in Southern Africa, state agential power is undoubtedly affected and limited, but not significantly eroded by the transnational role and involvement of interest groups.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Identification of the Research Theme
2. Significance of the Research Theme
3. Identification of the Research Problem
3.1. Research Question
3.2. Propositions
3.3. Aim and Objectives of the Study
3.3.1. Aim
3.3.2. Objectives
4. Demarcation of the Study
5. Literature Survey
5.1. Previous and Related Research
5.2. Data Sources
5.2.1. Documentary Sources
5.2.2. Field Sources
6. Methodological Aspects
6.1. Approach
6.2. Method
6.3. Levels of Analysis
7. Structure of the Study
8. Conclusion
PART I: THEORETICAL DIMENSIONS
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND THE WATER DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A CONSTRUCTIVIST SYNTHESIS
1. Introduction
2. The Water Discourse and International Relations Theory
3. The Development and Typology of International Relations Theory
3.1. The ‘Great Debates’
3.2. Mainstream Theories
3.3. Tributary Theories
3.4. Reflectivist and Rationalist Theories and the Water Discourse
4. Theories and Water Politics
4.1. The Realist Perspective
4.1.1. Basic Assumptions
4.1.2. Realism and Water Politics
4.2. Liberal-pluralist Perspectives
4.2.1. Conventional Liberal-pluralism
4.2.1.1. Basic Assumptions
4.2.1.2. Liberal-pluralism and Water Politics
4.2.2. Interest Group Pluralism
4.2.2.1. Basic Assumptions
4.2.2.2. Interest Group Pluralism and Water Politics
4.2.3. Interest Group Corporatism
4.2.3.1. Basic Assumptions
4.2.3.2. Interest Group Corporatism and Water Politics
4.2.4. Modernity
4.2.4.1. Basic Assumptions
4.2.4.2. Modernity and Water Politics
4.2.5. The Hydrosocial Contract Theory
4.2.5.1. Basic Assumptions
4.2.5.2. The Hydrosocial Contract Theory and Water Politics
4.3. Risk Theories
4.3.1. Risk Society
4.3.1.1. Basic Assumptions
4.3.1.2. Risk Society and Water Politics
4.3.2. Political Ecology
4.3.2.1. Basic Assumptions
4.3.2.2. Political Ecology and Water Politics
4.4. Social Constructivism
4.4.1. Basic Assumptions
4.4.2. Social Constructivism and Water Politics
5. Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: INTEREST GROUPS AS TRANSNATIONAL AGENTS
1. Introduction
2. Conceptualisation of Interest Groups
2.1. Preference for a Particular Concept
2.2. Combination of Concepts
2.3. The Concept Interest Group
3. Interest Group Typology
4. Interest Groups as Transnational Actors
4.1. Transnational Dimensions
4.2. Transnational Approaches
4.2.1. The Power Approach
4.2.2. The Technocratic Approach
4.2.3. The Coalition-building Approach
4.2.4. Grass-roots Mobilisation
5. Interest Group Roles
5.1. Discursive Roles
5.1.1. Opinion Generation Agent
5.1.2. Standard Creation Agent
5.1.3. Norm and Rule Creation Agent
5.1.4. Epistemic Agent
5.1.5. Agenda Construction Agent
5.2. Participation Roles
5.2.1. Interactive Agent
5.2.2. Representation Agent
5.2.3. Transnational Agent
5.2.4. Policy Shaping Agent
5.2.5. Institution Creation Agent
5.2.6. Watchdog Agent
5.2.7. Oppositional Agent
5.2.8. Empowerment Agent
5.3. Philanthropic Roles
5.3.1. Guardian Agent
5.3.2. Assistant Agent
5.3.3. Safety Provider Agent
6. Interest Group Success
6.1. Influencing Factors
6.2. Methodological Difficulties
7. Conclusion
CHAPTER 4: INTEREST GROUP INVOLVEMENT IN WATER POLITICS: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
1. Introduction
2. Key Components of International River Basins
2.1. Geographic Area
2.2. Actors
2.3. Hydropolitical History
3. Agential Power
3.1. Conceptual Clarification
3.2. Theoretical Dimensions
3.3. Sources of Agential Power
3.3.1. Ideological Power
3.3.2. Economic Power
3.3.3. Military Power
3.3.4. Political Power
3.4. Actor Interaction
4. Criteria for Comparison
4.1. Processes
4.1.1. Micro-macro Interactions
4.1.2. Organisational Explosion
4.1.3. Bifurcation of Global Structures
4.1.4. Weakening of States and Territoriality
4.1.5. Authority Crises
4.1.6. Subgroupism
4.2. Institutions
4.2.1. Authority Structures
4.2.2. Authority Types
4.2.3. Transnationalism
5. Conclusion
PART II: CASE STUDIES
CHAPTER 5: THE KUNENE RIVER BASIN: THE CASE OF THE PROPOSED EPUPA DAM
1. Introduction
2. The River Basin
2.1. Utilisation of the Kunene River: The Proposed Epupa Dam Project
2.2. The Rationale behind Epupa 118
3. The Actors
4. The Hydropolitical History of the Kunene River
4.1. Early Plans
4.2. Cooperation between Portugal and South Africa: 1926-1975
4.2.1. Preliminary Cooperation
4.2.2. The Rationale of Economic Development
4.3. The Border War: 1975-1988
4.4. Peace and Renewed Cooperation: 1989-2000
4.5. The Civil War in Angola: 1990-2003 135
5. Interest Group Involvement: 1990-2003
5.1. Issue Areas
5.1.1. The Himba
5.1.2. The Environment
5.1.3. Water Loss
5.2. The Role and Involvement of Interest Groups 140
6. Actor Agential Power
6.1. Ideological Power
6.1.1. Angola
6.1.2. Namibia
6.1.2.1. South African Dominance
6.1.2.2. The Ruling Elite
6.1.2.3. How Democratic is Namibia?
6.1.2.4. Level of National Unity
6.1.3. The Core Interest Group
6.1.4. Peripheral Interest Groups
6.1.4.1. Earthlife Africa (Namibia Branch) (ELA)
6.1.4.2. The Legal Assistance Centre (LAC)
6.1.4.3. The National Society for Human Rights (NSHR)
.1.5. Outer Peripheral Interest Groups
6.1.5.1. The Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG)
6.1.5.2. The Association for International Water and Forest Studies (FIVAS)
6.1.5.3. The International Rivers Network (IRN)
6.2. Economic Power
6.2.1. Angola
6.2.2. Namibia
6.3. Military Power
6.4. Political Power
7. Interaction between the Actors
8. Analysis
9. Conclusion
CHAPTER 6: THE ORANGE RIVER BASIN: THE CASE OF THE LESOTHO HIGHLANDS WATER PROJECT
1. Introduction
2. The River Basin
2.1. Utilisation of the Orange River
2.1.1. Importance of Inter-basin Transfers
2.1.2. The LHWP
2.2. The Rationale behind the LHWP
3. The Actors
4. The Hydropolitical History of the Orange River
4.1. The Start of WRMPs: 1867-1956
4.2. The LHWP: 1956-1986
4.2.1. A New Idea and Political Issues
4.2.2. Independence and Cooperation
4.2.3. Worsening Relations
4.2.4. The Feasibility Study
4.2.5. Macro Conflict and Micro Cooperation
4.2.6. Coup d’etat and the LHWP Treaty
4.3. Improved Relations and Implementation: 1986-2003
4.3.1. Operation Boleas
4.3.2. The World Bank Threatens to Withdraw Financial Support
4.3.3. The River Commission
4.3.4. Corruption
4.3.5. Completion of Mohale Dam
5. Interest Group Involvement: 1985-2003
5.1. Issue Areas
5.2. The Role and Involvement of Interest Groups
6. Actor Agential Power
6.1. Ideological Power
6.1.1. Lesotho
6.1.1.1. Independence from South Africa
6.1.1.2. Socio-economic Development
6.1.1.3. Level of National Loyalty
6.1.2. South Africa
6.1.2.1. Apartheid
6.1.2.2. The ANC
6.1.2.3. Nation-building
6.1.2.4. Economic Growth 237
6.1.2.5. Level of National Loyalty
6.1.3. Core Interest Groups
6.1.3.1. The Highlands Church Action Group (HCAG)
6.1.3.2. The Lesotho Council of NGOs (LCN) 239
6.1.3.3. The Transformation Resource Centre (TRC)
6.1.4. Inner Peripheral Interest Groups
6.1.4.1. The Alexandra Civics Organisation (ACO)
6.1.4.2. The Group for Environmental Monitoring (GEM)
6.1.5. Outer Peripheral Interest Groups 23
6.1.5.1. Christian Aid
6.1.5.2. Environmental Defence (ED)
6.1.5.3. The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC)
6.1.5.4. Oxfam
6.2. Economic Power
6.2.1. Lesotho
6.2.2. South Africa
6.3. Military Power
6.4. Political Power
7. Interaction between the Actors
8. Analysis
9. Conclusion
PART III: ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 7: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSNATIONAL ROLE OF INTEREST GROUPS IN THE KUNENE AND ORANGE RIVER BASINS
1. Introduction
2. A Comparison of Interest Groups as Transnational Agents
2.1. Interest Group Typology
2.2. Approaches
2.3. Interest Group Roles
2.4. The Success of the Interest Groups
3. A Comparative Map of the Case Studies
4. Reading and Interpreting the Comparative Map
4.1. Processes
4.1.1. Micro-macro Interactions
4.1.2. Organisational Explosion
4.1.3. Bifurcation of Global Structures
4.1.4. Weakening of States and Territoriality
4.1.5. Authority Crises
4.1.6. Subgroupism
4.2. Institutions
4.2.1. States
4.2.1.1. Structures of Authority
4.2.1.2. Types of Authority
4.2.1.3. Nature of Transnationalism
4.2.2. Interest Groups
4.2.2.1. Structures of Authority
4.2.2.2. Types of Authority 293
4.2.2.3. Nature of Transnationalism
5. Conclusion
CHAPTER 8: EVALUATION
1. Introduction
2. The Problem Statements
3. Findings
4. Critique
5. Recommendations
5.1. Theoretical Challenges
5.2. Towards a Research Agenda
5.3. Policy Recommendations
6. Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
THE TRANSNATIONAL ROLE AND INVOLVEMENT OF INTEREST GROUPS IN WATER POLITICS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SELECTED SOUTHERN AFRICAN CASE STUDIES