3.4 Analysis
131
consciousness relates to the use of the ‘green infrastructure’ concept. An epistemological awareness usually comes through reflection when we communicate with
others on a matter (Huber 2010). Respondent 11 has interacted with Dr. Sutherland
from UKZN, as well as with municipal officials working on green and ecological
infrastructures, and it is within this context that Respondent 11 questions the legitimacy of using the concept ‘green infrastructure’ to gain access to funding, instead
of solving the myriad of problems that the environment is facing.
Respondent 12 made a similar argument with regard to the capex investments of
the municipality (p. 100). For Respondent 12, therefore, the concept does not live
up to its instrumental purpose of mitigating environmental degradation, but it has
a more ‘sinister usage’, namely, to access financial resources. Because of this, he
proposes that a grey epistemology and ontology be incorporated, in order to realise
the aspirations of a green infrastructure and its positive effect on an ecological infrastructure. The consciousness of Respondent 12 plays a systemic constructivist role
(Finnemore and Sikkink 2001) in eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure
policy landscape.
Whereas the hydrosocial contract theory focuses its attention on the structural and
normative elements of water, liberal institutionalism emphasises the actors and their
organisational and non-structured relationships. It is to this theory that I will now
turn.
3.4.2.4 Liberal Institutionalism
Although I refer to neo-liberalism in Fig. 3.16, in the following text I will use
the concept of ‘liberal institutionalism’. Neo-liberalism has many labels, since it
is a wide-ranging theoretical perspective of politics and international relations that
highlights states and organs of state, such as local and national governments, as
well as non-state entities and the structural relations between, and within, these
actors. Observers of the IR theory also label neo-liberalism as ‘liberal pluralism’.
The theory embraces several perspectives, such as complex interdependence, regime
theory, liberal internationalism, idealism, liberal institutionalism, neo-liberal institutionalism, neo-idealism, functionalism, neo-functionalism, interest group liberalism, transnationalism, interactive governance, integration theory and sociological
liberalism. On these varying perspectives, Jessop (2002) noted that:
Liberalism rarely, if ever, exists in pure form; it typically coexists with elements from other
discourses, strategies and organizational patterns. Thus, it is better seen as one set of elements
in the repertoire of Western economic, political and ideological discourse than as a singular,
univocal and internally coherent discourse… Likewise, it is better seen as a…significant
principle of economic, political and social organization, in a broader institutional configuration, than as a self-consistent, self-sufficient and eternally reproducible organizational
principle. Thus, the meaning and import of liberalism can vary considerably.
Because of varying and complex forms of liberalism, it is not a straightforward
exercise to define this perspective (McCarthy and Prudham 2004). I will use the
concept ‘liberal institutionalism’ because my research investigates individuals who
131
consciousness relates to the use of the ‘green infrastructure’ concept. An epistemological awareness usually comes through reflection when we communicate with
others on a matter (Huber 2010). Respondent 11 has interacted with Dr. Sutherland
from UKZN, as well as with municipal officials working on green and ecological
infrastructures, and it is within this context that Respondent 11 questions the legitimacy of using the concept ‘green infrastructure’ to gain access to funding, instead
of solving the myriad of problems that the environment is facing.
Respondent 12 made a similar argument with regard to the capex investments of
the municipality (p. 100). For Respondent 12, therefore, the concept does not live
up to its instrumental purpose of mitigating environmental degradation, but it has
a more ‘sinister usage’, namely, to access financial resources. Because of this, he
proposes that a grey epistemology and ontology be incorporated, in order to realise
the aspirations of a green infrastructure and its positive effect on an ecological infrastructure. The consciousness of Respondent 12 plays a systemic constructivist role
(Finnemore and Sikkink 2001) in eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure
policy landscape.
Whereas the hydrosocial contract theory focuses its attention on the structural and
normative elements of water, liberal institutionalism emphasises the actors and their
organisational and non-structured relationships. It is to this theory that I will now
turn.
3.4.2.4 Liberal Institutionalism
Although I refer to neo-liberalism in Fig. 3.16, in the following text I will use
the concept of ‘liberal institutionalism’. Neo-liberalism has many labels, since it
is a wide-ranging theoretical perspective of politics and international relations that
highlights states and organs of state, such as local and national governments, as
well as non-state entities and the structural relations between, and within, these
actors. Observers of the IR theory also label neo-liberalism as ‘liberal pluralism’.
The theory embraces several perspectives, such as complex interdependence, regime
theory, liberal internationalism, idealism, liberal institutionalism, neo-liberal institutionalism, neo-idealism, functionalism, neo-functionalism, interest group liberalism, transnationalism, interactive governance, integration theory and sociological
liberalism. On these varying perspectives, Jessop (2002) noted that:
Liberalism rarely, if ever, exists in pure form; it typically coexists with elements from other
discourses, strategies and organizational patterns. Thus, it is better seen as one set of elements
in the repertoire of Western economic, political and ideological discourse than as a singular,
univocal and internally coherent discourse… Likewise, it is better seen as a…significant
principle of economic, political and social organization, in a broader institutional configuration, than as a self-consistent, self-sufficient and eternally reproducible organizational
principle. Thus, the meaning and import of liberalism can vary considerably.
Because of varying and complex forms of liberalism, it is not a straightforward
exercise to define this perspective (McCarthy and Prudham 2004). I will use the
concept ‘liberal institutionalism’ because my research investigates individuals who