81
notion of “environment” to describe the fact that systems have borders and (usually)
interact with and are infl uenced by their surroundings. Obvious differences between
mice and men, organisms and organizations are deliberately neglected for the benefi t of discovering general laws, abstract similarities, and analytical analogies.
System theory thus considers a country as a system as well as a large dam, or any
other kind of MWEP. They are embedded in a specifi c environment, e.g. neighboring countries or the political and geographical circumstances they are placed in. By
applying this general analytic framework on all kinds of objects, the theory claims
that irrespective of their nature, systems are characterised by common features:
foremost, the systemic view is fuelled by the conviction that “the operation of no
one part can be fully understood without reference to the way in which the whole
itself operates” (Easton 1957 ; see Easton 1965 ) and that, vice versa, the system in
general depends on the interaction of all its parts. This view of a system and its elements is substantiated by further ideas about the ways the elements and the system
are connected with each other and how they are embedded in their environment.
Attention is directed to the complexity , i.e. the number of relations between the elements of a system as well as to its relations to its environment (Hill et al 1994 ,
p. 22f.). The dynamic of a system is expressed as the intensity of changes the system
undergoes in a certain amount of time. By stressing the complexity and dynamics of
both the system and its environment, system theory also rejects simplifi ed ideas
about causes and effects and enhances the idea of multiple interdependencies
instead. Advocates of system theory also point out the fact that isomorphic laws –
such as the law of exponential growth – operate in as differing fi elds as e.g. biology
and sociology. System theory should therefore enable methodological advancements throughout different scientifi c fi elds as “an important means of controlling
and instigating the transfer of principles from one fi eld to another” (von Bertalanffy
1950 , p. 142).
With its core concern of understanding the wholeness of something (i.e. any
“system”) in terms of the interaction, interrelatedness, and interdependence of all
its components within a changing environment, system theory seems to be well
capable of addressing generally acknowledged growing complexities; something
which holds true in the fi eld of water in general, and MWEPs in particular.
Nonetheless, system theory fi ndings cannot be easily applied to them: fi rstly, system theory itself provides a major obstacle by employing relatively idiosyncratic
terminology and alienating concepts such as “autopoiesis” (Varela et al. 1974 ),
“recursivity,” or “emergence.” While system theory has spread some marks throughout scientifi c terminology, e.g. we refer to ecological or political “systems,” this
often does not go beyond the mere usage of the term “system” without further
acknowledging the ambitious theoretical programme associated with it. Secondly, a
systemic approach is inevitably complex and, therefore, naturally adverse to specialization and expertise in a distinct fi eld. Thirdly, system theory’s critics complain
about the vagueness of the concept; the uncertainty, or arbitrariness in defi ning the
line between system and environment, and the inherent conservatism of a theory
dealing with structures and patterns, thus not leaving much room for action, active
revolution, or at least change.
6 Water Governance: A Systemic Approach
notion of “environment” to describe the fact that systems have borders and (usually)
interact with and are infl uenced by their surroundings. Obvious differences between
mice and men, organisms and organizations are deliberately neglected for the benefi t of discovering general laws, abstract similarities, and analytical analogies.
System theory thus considers a country as a system as well as a large dam, or any
other kind of MWEP. They are embedded in a specifi c environment, e.g. neighboring countries or the political and geographical circumstances they are placed in. By
applying this general analytic framework on all kinds of objects, the theory claims
that irrespective of their nature, systems are characterised by common features:
foremost, the systemic view is fuelled by the conviction that “the operation of no
one part can be fully understood without reference to the way in which the whole
itself operates” (Easton 1957 ; see Easton 1965 ) and that, vice versa, the system in
general depends on the interaction of all its parts. This view of a system and its elements is substantiated by further ideas about the ways the elements and the system
are connected with each other and how they are embedded in their environment.
Attention is directed to the complexity , i.e. the number of relations between the elements of a system as well as to its relations to its environment (Hill et al 1994 ,
p. 22f.). The dynamic of a system is expressed as the intensity of changes the system
undergoes in a certain amount of time. By stressing the complexity and dynamics of
both the system and its environment, system theory also rejects simplifi ed ideas
about causes and effects and enhances the idea of multiple interdependencies
instead. Advocates of system theory also point out the fact that isomorphic laws –
such as the law of exponential growth – operate in as differing fi elds as e.g. biology
and sociology. System theory should therefore enable methodological advancements throughout different scientifi c fi elds as “an important means of controlling
and instigating the transfer of principles from one fi eld to another” (von Bertalanffy
1950 , p. 142).
With its core concern of understanding the wholeness of something (i.e. any
“system”) in terms of the interaction, interrelatedness, and interdependence of all
its components within a changing environment, system theory seems to be well
capable of addressing generally acknowledged growing complexities; something
which holds true in the fi eld of water in general, and MWEPs in particular.
Nonetheless, system theory fi ndings cannot be easily applied to them: fi rstly, system theory itself provides a major obstacle by employing relatively idiosyncratic
terminology and alienating concepts such as “autopoiesis” (Varela et al. 1974 ),
“recursivity,” or “emergence.” While system theory has spread some marks throughout scientifi c terminology, e.g. we refer to ecological or political “systems,” this
often does not go beyond the mere usage of the term “system” without further
acknowledging the ambitious theoretical programme associated with it. Secondly, a
systemic approach is inevitably complex and, therefore, naturally adverse to specialization and expertise in a distinct fi eld. Thirdly, system theory’s critics complain
about the vagueness of the concept; the uncertainty, or arbitrariness in defi ning the
line between system and environment, and the inherent conservatism of a theory
dealing with structures and patterns, thus not leaving much room for action, active
revolution, or at least change.
6 Water Governance: A Systemic Approach