2.4 Pulse 3
43
have been either overlooked—and so they appear to be “new” to many observers—
or unanticipated’. As I have already explained, theory influences how practitioners
see the world, their place in the world, as well as the possibilities for changing the
world. Nevertheless, not all theories are good at everything. Realism, an IR theory,
emphasises states and their leaders. It can be employed in explaining a problem, like
recurring violent inter-state conflict. However, when it needs to present solutions for
the problems, it might not be up to the task (Hayes and James 2014), because one
of its limitations is that it ignores, to a large extent, the non-state actors in world
politics, like humanitarian organisations.
Practitioners are influenced by generalised empirical observations, as well as
tentative or firm deductions and explanations that bring about a theoretical perspective. It is easy to see theory at work in the policy process (Morgan 2003); one just
needs to look for those familiar definitions or conceptualisations that describe the
structures of rule and the political behaviour of the actors (Meissner 2017). By way
of example, in the past, researchers in water governance and politics have used
concepts like a ‘pivotal state’ (Ashton and Turton 2009; Sebastian and Warner 2014)
and ‘hydro-hegemony’ (Turton 2005; Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Zeitoun 2007) to
describe inter-state relations in transboundary river basins. The researchers derived
these concepts from the realist and neo-realist concept of ‘hegemon’. Using the
‘hegemon’ concept to model inter-state relations within a transboundary river basin
could paint a picture that such relationships are only composed of, and driven by,
state actors (Meissner and Jacobs 2016). This would also imply that practitioners
subliminally ignore other relevant actors as constituting actors in transboundary water
politics (Meissner 2016a). The explanation of the role of theory in policy processes
indicates what we might be ‘missing’ vital actors and, by default, relationships, by
taking a particular (realist) theoretical stance (Meissner 2004, 2005).
Practitioners will not always follow a theory to the letter in their interpretation of
situations and relations; however, a certain theoretical way of thinking could play an
overbearing role in governing systems (Morgan 2003). In this sense, PULSE
3 is not
only a philosophical exercise; it highlights which substantive issues are absent when
researchers formulate recommended practices that influence policy and political
decisions.
Take, for instance, a scenario where two countries want to construct a large dam on
a transboundary river that is shared by both. From a liberal institutionalist perspective, what would be necessary for them both would be a cooperative agreement,
the necessary finances, expertise that could be sourced internally or internationally,
policy mechanisms, such as environmental impact assessments, and a process of relocating people from the reservoir basin, with the necessary compensation. By looking
at the situation from this perspective, one could miss the nuances that might derail
the planned dam. By combining this theoretical perspective with an interest group
pluralism outlook, researchers could be forced to ask which non-state actors might
become involved in the construction of the dam? Asking such a question from the
latter theory could open an alternative view of the interest group’s practices relating
to the dam. This could raise further questions that are more ethical, such as, ‘How
might these non-state actors influence the transboundary politics of the large dam’?
43
have been either overlooked—and so they appear to be “new” to many observers—
or unanticipated’. As I have already explained, theory influences how practitioners
see the world, their place in the world, as well as the possibilities for changing the
world. Nevertheless, not all theories are good at everything. Realism, an IR theory,
emphasises states and their leaders. It can be employed in explaining a problem, like
recurring violent inter-state conflict. However, when it needs to present solutions for
the problems, it might not be up to the task (Hayes and James 2014), because one
of its limitations is that it ignores, to a large extent, the non-state actors in world
politics, like humanitarian organisations.
Practitioners are influenced by generalised empirical observations, as well as
tentative or firm deductions and explanations that bring about a theoretical perspective. It is easy to see theory at work in the policy process (Morgan 2003); one just
needs to look for those familiar definitions or conceptualisations that describe the
structures of rule and the political behaviour of the actors (Meissner 2017). By way
of example, in the past, researchers in water governance and politics have used
concepts like a ‘pivotal state’ (Ashton and Turton 2009; Sebastian and Warner 2014)
and ‘hydro-hegemony’ (Turton 2005; Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Zeitoun 2007) to
describe inter-state relations in transboundary river basins. The researchers derived
these concepts from the realist and neo-realist concept of ‘hegemon’. Using the
‘hegemon’ concept to model inter-state relations within a transboundary river basin
could paint a picture that such relationships are only composed of, and driven by,
state actors (Meissner and Jacobs 2016). This would also imply that practitioners
subliminally ignore other relevant actors as constituting actors in transboundary water
politics (Meissner 2016a). The explanation of the role of theory in policy processes
indicates what we might be ‘missing’ vital actors and, by default, relationships, by
taking a particular (realist) theoretical stance (Meissner 2004, 2005).
Practitioners will not always follow a theory to the letter in their interpretation of
situations and relations; however, a certain theoretical way of thinking could play an
overbearing role in governing systems (Morgan 2003). In this sense, PULSE
3 is not
only a philosophical exercise; it highlights which substantive issues are absent when
researchers formulate recommended practices that influence policy and political
decisions.
Take, for instance, a scenario where two countries want to construct a large dam on
a transboundary river that is shared by both. From a liberal institutionalist perspective, what would be necessary for them both would be a cooperative agreement,
the necessary finances, expertise that could be sourced internally or internationally,
policy mechanisms, such as environmental impact assessments, and a process of relocating people from the reservoir basin, with the necessary compensation. By looking
at the situation from this perspective, one could miss the nuances that might derail
the planned dam. By combining this theoretical perspective with an interest group
pluralism outlook, researchers could be forced to ask which non-state actors might
become involved in the construction of the dam? Asking such a question from the
latter theory could open an alternative view of the interest group’s practices relating
to the dam. This could raise further questions that are more ethical, such as, ‘How
might these non-state actors influence the transboundary politics of the large dam’?