82
For all the above reasons, system theory has never succeeded as a widely accepted
theoretical framework for the analysis of complex realities. Regardless of the correctness of these denouncements, there are two good reasons for a renewed interest
in systemic thinking with respect to water issues: their complexity is undebatable
and despite great efforts utilizing single disciplines, political and technical
approaches, water related problems are persistent and will probably grow into one
of the most challenging problems for the third millennium without coming close to
any substantial and sustainable solution. Both reasons render it worthwhile to test
the application of system theory’s fi ndings on the subject matter.
6.3 The Governance Approach
Governance has advanced to be one of the most popular concepts in the last two
decades and thus the utilization of the governance discourse has also ousted the
concept of water management (e.g. GWP 2003 ; Lebel et al. 2007 ; Bakker 2010 ;
OECD 2011 ; Anne 2012 ; Perkins 2013 ). On the one hand, the popularity of the
concept can well be explained by the widely shared expectation that governance
enhances civil society’s participation in making decisions and is more effi cient at
solving problems than governmental approaches. On the other hand, “governance”
remains a highly amorphous notion and its promises still await empirical proof.
Despite its widespread use, there is neither a shared defi nition of governance nor
solid evaluations of governance practices.
1 There is some agreement though that
governance involves all sorts of regulations irrespective of whether they have been
created intentionally or not, of their source, and of their success. The governance
discourse thus shifts the perspective from deliberate, hierarchical, and goal-oriented
exercise of political control by a government to the far more ambiguous processes
of regulatory and evolutionary (self-) governing. Leaving aside the conceptual and
normative defi cits of the concept,
2 governance may serve as a rough pattern for a
new assessment of water issues, pointing “on the one hand […] to the complex setting of water management in wider governance structures that have to be accounted
when assessing water usage. On the other hand, it points to the necessity of good
governance – rule of law, stakeholder participation, transparency, accountability,
etc. – in the water sector” (Sehring 2009 , p. 17f.) Summed up, water governance
encompasses all the actions, regulations, subjects, objects, and goals, which are
involved in order to guarantee sustainable access to water for everyone and for all
purposes (see Huitema et al. 2009 ). It also points out the impact and relevance of
institutions , i.e. explicit and implicit norms and rules, which shape patterns of
behavior and often severely infl uence how apparently just technical or ecological
realities are dealt with by humans.
1 As examples of positive expectations see Hauff ( 1987 ), Deutscher Bundestag ( 2002 ), for critique
see e.g. Dingwerth ( 2003 ), Brand et al. ( 2000 ), Brand and Scherrer ( 2003 ).
2 See out of innumerous: Benz ( 2004 ), Dobner ( 2010 ), Mayntz ( 2005 ), Folke-Schuppert ( 2006 ).
P. Dobner and H.-G. Frede
For all the above reasons, system theory has never succeeded as a widely accepted
theoretical framework for the analysis of complex realities. Regardless of the correctness of these denouncements, there are two good reasons for a renewed interest
in systemic thinking with respect to water issues: their complexity is undebatable
and despite great efforts utilizing single disciplines, political and technical
approaches, water related problems are persistent and will probably grow into one
of the most challenging problems for the third millennium without coming close to
any substantial and sustainable solution. Both reasons render it worthwhile to test
the application of system theory’s fi ndings on the subject matter.
6.3 The Governance Approach
Governance has advanced to be one of the most popular concepts in the last two
decades and thus the utilization of the governance discourse has also ousted the
concept of water management (e.g. GWP 2003 ; Lebel et al. 2007 ; Bakker 2010 ;
OECD 2011 ; Anne 2012 ; Perkins 2013 ). On the one hand, the popularity of the
concept can well be explained by the widely shared expectation that governance
enhances civil society’s participation in making decisions and is more effi cient at
solving problems than governmental approaches. On the other hand, “governance”
remains a highly amorphous notion and its promises still await empirical proof.
Despite its widespread use, there is neither a shared defi nition of governance nor
solid evaluations of governance practices.
1 There is some agreement though that
governance involves all sorts of regulations irrespective of whether they have been
created intentionally or not, of their source, and of their success. The governance
discourse thus shifts the perspective from deliberate, hierarchical, and goal-oriented
exercise of political control by a government to the far more ambiguous processes
of regulatory and evolutionary (self-) governing. Leaving aside the conceptual and
normative defi cits of the concept,
2 governance may serve as a rough pattern for a
new assessment of water issues, pointing “on the one hand […] to the complex setting of water management in wider governance structures that have to be accounted
when assessing water usage. On the other hand, it points to the necessity of good
governance – rule of law, stakeholder participation, transparency, accountability,
etc. – in the water sector” (Sehring 2009 , p. 17f.) Summed up, water governance
encompasses all the actions, regulations, subjects, objects, and goals, which are
involved in order to guarantee sustainable access to water for everyone and for all
purposes (see Huitema et al. 2009 ). It also points out the impact and relevance of
institutions , i.e. explicit and implicit norms and rules, which shape patterns of
behavior and often severely infl uence how apparently just technical or ecological
realities are dealt with by humans.
1 As examples of positive expectations see Hauff ( 1987 ), Deutscher Bundestag ( 2002 ), for critique
see e.g. Dingwerth ( 2003 ), Brand et al. ( 2000 ), Brand and Scherrer ( 2003 ).
2 See out of innumerous: Benz ( 2004 ), Dobner ( 2010 ), Mayntz ( 2005 ), Folke-Schuppert ( 2006 ).
P. Dobner and H.-G. Frede