1.1 Water Security, Governance or Management
3
about learning the complex nature of water systems in space-time continuum. It is
important to keep the focus on water and its purpose while changing things, i.e., being
water centric. We should know that although a water system had mostly one purpose,
nowadays, they should have at least two purposes or objectives, such as irrigation
and groundwater recharge. In other words, we should understand that management is
about output in relation to input with learning and capacity development in its centre.
Transparency should primarily relate to capacity building of both water suppliers and
users.
Governance is an issue many people, with proper water background or not, with
proper governance background or not, feel entitled to talk and to write. The greatest
problem is the lack of a generally accepted definition of governance hence it can easily
get confused with management or be anything that anyone wants (Tortajada 2010).
However, the word governance, in general, has some specific meaning that can be
applied in the domain of water. For example, “In a broad sense, governance is about
the culture and institutional environment in which citizens and stakeholders interact
among themselves and participate in public affairs. It is more than the organs of
the government” (UNESCO-IBE 2019). In this regard, Francis Fukuyama explains
that this type of definition of governance is primarily about state capacity that is
weak and corrupt, which promotes (water) poverty: “Interest in this topic was driven
by awareness that global poverty was rooted in corruption and weak state capacity”
(Fukuyama 2016). Therefore, it may be confusing if water governance is about water
delivery, allocation, efficiency, etc. So, let us mention few brief reflections on the
concept of good governance in general, which can help in advancing good water
governance. In doing so, our intention is also to sharpen the distinctions between
management and governance, while seemingly presenting some interesting ideas.
Hence, it is useful to consider four approaches to evaluate the quality of governance,
namely, procedural measures, capacity measures, output measures, and autonomy
measures (Fukuyama 2013). In analysing these approaches, Fukuyama rejects output
approaches and proposes the combination of capacity and autonomy measures as
the best apparent solution. The following summary explanations are from the 2013
Fukuyama’s paper, unless stated otherwise.
On procedural measures, he discusses the inadequacies of the 10 conditions of
the Weberian bureaucracy and states “The idea of bureaucratic autonomy–the notion
that bureaucrats themselves can shape goals and define tasks independently of the
wishes of the principals–is not possible under the Weberian definition.” Then goes
on to add “Nonetheless, certain procedural measures would remain at the core of any
measure of quality of governance. One would want to know whether bureaucrats are
recruited and promoted on the basis of merit or political patronage, what level of
technical expertise they are required to possess, and the overall level of formality in
bureaucratic procedure.”
Capacity measures, according to Fukuyama, include “both resources and the
degree of professionalization of bureaucratic staff.” He questions possible proxies
for aggregate capacity, and differences between potential and actual capacity. Even
without corruption, he goes on to state that “a bureaucrat is selected on the basis of
3
about learning the complex nature of water systems in space-time continuum. It is
important to keep the focus on water and its purpose while changing things, i.e., being
water centric. We should know that although a water system had mostly one purpose,
nowadays, they should have at least two purposes or objectives, such as irrigation
and groundwater recharge. In other words, we should understand that management is
about output in relation to input with learning and capacity development in its centre.
Transparency should primarily relate to capacity building of both water suppliers and
users.
Governance is an issue many people, with proper water background or not, with
proper governance background or not, feel entitled to talk and to write. The greatest
problem is the lack of a generally accepted definition of governance hence it can easily
get confused with management or be anything that anyone wants (Tortajada 2010).
However, the word governance, in general, has some specific meaning that can be
applied in the domain of water. For example, “In a broad sense, governance is about
the culture and institutional environment in which citizens and stakeholders interact
among themselves and participate in public affairs. It is more than the organs of
the government” (UNESCO-IBE 2019). In this regard, Francis Fukuyama explains
that this type of definition of governance is primarily about state capacity that is
weak and corrupt, which promotes (water) poverty: “Interest in this topic was driven
by awareness that global poverty was rooted in corruption and weak state capacity”
(Fukuyama 2016). Therefore, it may be confusing if water governance is about water
delivery, allocation, efficiency, etc. So, let us mention few brief reflections on the
concept of good governance in general, which can help in advancing good water
governance. In doing so, our intention is also to sharpen the distinctions between
management and governance, while seemingly presenting some interesting ideas.
Hence, it is useful to consider four approaches to evaluate the quality of governance,
namely, procedural measures, capacity measures, output measures, and autonomy
measures (Fukuyama 2013). In analysing these approaches, Fukuyama rejects output
approaches and proposes the combination of capacity and autonomy measures as
the best apparent solution. The following summary explanations are from the 2013
Fukuyama’s paper, unless stated otherwise.
On procedural measures, he discusses the inadequacies of the 10 conditions of
the Weberian bureaucracy and states “The idea of bureaucratic autonomy–the notion
that bureaucrats themselves can shape goals and define tasks independently of the
wishes of the principals–is not possible under the Weberian definition.” Then goes
on to add “Nonetheless, certain procedural measures would remain at the core of any
measure of quality of governance. One would want to know whether bureaucrats are
recruited and promoted on the basis of merit or political patronage, what level of
technical expertise they are required to possess, and the overall level of formality in
bureaucratic procedure.”
Capacity measures, according to Fukuyama, include “both resources and the
degree of professionalization of bureaucratic staff.” He questions possible proxies
for aggregate capacity, and differences between potential and actual capacity. Even
without corruption, he goes on to state that “a bureaucrat is selected on the basis of