2.4 Pulse 3
63
deeper sense and level of causation in the social world than what we often recognise
to be the case (e.g. observable patterns of behaviour) (Kurki 2006). By focusing on
them as such, we broaden our notion of cause. In other words, by studying paradigms
and theories, our ontological horizons are widened with respect to what constitutes
cause, and we recognise the agential power of paradigms and theories.
Paradigms and theories also contain and explain the intentions and reasons for
actors behaving in a certain way. Because paradigms and theories are causal, intentions and reasons are, by default, also causal ‘…in the sense that they signify a
contributory cause that “for the sake of which” something is done’ (Kurki 2006:
209). By focusing on the role and intention of paradigms and theories, it is possible
that intentions and reasons are the wellspring of practices (i.e. daily actions) as well
as policy actions, be it in the public or private sector (Meissner 2017).
Broadening the types of causes could help us to understand the various assumptions contained in theories in a more nuanced manner. For example, where a theoretical assumption gives a Humean explanation of something that causes another thing,
another theoretical assumption could explain, in an Aristotelian way, the reason for
the primary cause taking place in the first place.
For instance, in the South African water sector, water managers and researchers
place much faith in Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) to bring about a
more sustainable way of managing the country’s water (Stuart-Hill 2015; Meissner
et al. 2017; Stuart-Hill and Meissner 2017). The argument behind this is that CMAs,
as structures of rule, are less restrictive because they are a decentralised way of
managing water resources, as opposed to the ‘command and control’ way of doing
things under the old (Apartheid) dispensation. Catchment management agencies are
closer to the public, are established in a more participatory manner, and therefore,
they rely on a more inclusive governing model than the previous system (Rogers
et al. 2000; Meissner et al. 2014, 2017; Meissner and Funke 2014).
Based on this description, it therefore follows that CMAs will be more effective, as
structures of rule (Hobson and Seabrooke 2007), in governing water in their respective water management areas (Rogers et al. 2000; Stuart-Hill 2015). The restrictive
Humean notion of cause is evident in that a move from the old command and control
system to a more inclusive and participatory way of governing will be good, in terms
of supplying more, and a better quality of, water for the people, the environment and
future generations. If one brings in Lebow’s (2014) notion of inefficient cause, then
the narrative changes. The South African government plans to establish nine CMAs
(Stuart-Hill 2015). Each CMA will be a singular cause event, in that it will differ in its
demographic, economic, financial (material), management (structural), ideology and
values (ideational), geographic, hydrological, climatological (material) and societal
actor (agential) profile. Their establishment and functioning could therefore differ
and there will be no generalisations or predictions on how efficient they will be in
bringing about the possible sustainable management of water resources. We just do
not know how successful they will be at managing water in a sustainable way, under
certain circumstances.
63
deeper sense and level of causation in the social world than what we often recognise
to be the case (e.g. observable patterns of behaviour) (Kurki 2006). By focusing on
them as such, we broaden our notion of cause. In other words, by studying paradigms
and theories, our ontological horizons are widened with respect to what constitutes
cause, and we recognise the agential power of paradigms and theories.
Paradigms and theories also contain and explain the intentions and reasons for
actors behaving in a certain way. Because paradigms and theories are causal, intentions and reasons are, by default, also causal ‘…in the sense that they signify a
contributory cause that “for the sake of which” something is done’ (Kurki 2006:
209). By focusing on the role and intention of paradigms and theories, it is possible
that intentions and reasons are the wellspring of practices (i.e. daily actions) as well
as policy actions, be it in the public or private sector (Meissner 2017).
Broadening the types of causes could help us to understand the various assumptions contained in theories in a more nuanced manner. For example, where a theoretical assumption gives a Humean explanation of something that causes another thing,
another theoretical assumption could explain, in an Aristotelian way, the reason for
the primary cause taking place in the first place.
For instance, in the South African water sector, water managers and researchers
place much faith in Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) to bring about a
more sustainable way of managing the country’s water (Stuart-Hill 2015; Meissner
et al. 2017; Stuart-Hill and Meissner 2017). The argument behind this is that CMAs,
as structures of rule, are less restrictive because they are a decentralised way of
managing water resources, as opposed to the ‘command and control’ way of doing
things under the old (Apartheid) dispensation. Catchment management agencies are
closer to the public, are established in a more participatory manner, and therefore,
they rely on a more inclusive governing model than the previous system (Rogers
et al. 2000; Meissner et al. 2014, 2017; Meissner and Funke 2014).
Based on this description, it therefore follows that CMAs will be more effective, as
structures of rule (Hobson and Seabrooke 2007), in governing water in their respective water management areas (Rogers et al. 2000; Stuart-Hill 2015). The restrictive
Humean notion of cause is evident in that a move from the old command and control
system to a more inclusive and participatory way of governing will be good, in terms
of supplying more, and a better quality of, water for the people, the environment and
future generations. If one brings in Lebow’s (2014) notion of inefficient cause, then
the narrative changes. The South African government plans to establish nine CMAs
(Stuart-Hill 2015). Each CMA will be a singular cause event, in that it will differ in its
demographic, economic, financial (material), management (structural), ideology and
values (ideational), geographic, hydrological, climatological (material) and societal
actor (agential) profile. Their establishment and functioning could therefore differ
and there will be no generalisations or predictions on how efficient they will be in
bringing about the possible sustainable management of water resources. We just do
not know how successful they will be at managing water in a sustainable way, under
certain circumstances.