Graduate school approval record northeastern university

Government v Governance

Kooiman argues that it is important to understand that “much of what is sold as deregulation or advertised as self-regulation is better seen as forms of re-regulation or altering traditional forms of public control into “steering at a distance” as post independence Figuig illustrates. For many years the question has been “can the State steer society?” Governance in the past dealt with how the State steered society and the economy through political brokerage (often determined by economic power), defining goals, fiscal measures, and setting priorities. In most developed countries, which typically have a strong society and a weak State, this remains the dominant model, increasing the risk of “resource mismanagement and financial bad practice.”(Rogers, Hall, 2003:10) Imposed authority of the State, as the case of Figuig, within the context of heavy handed policy reform, cannot effectively broker support and effectively appreciate how local realities support or detract from the national policy agenda. Rigid controls, from sociologic theory, do not encourage the development of a supportive relationship, but rather, an environment of fear and distrust. Both society and government could prove much more efficient in achieving their relative goals if there was an established respect for important values.

This case study of Figuig provides an important example of the limits of the State to support effective governance from a distance. An imposed agenda support a cooperative system that engages local communities and their corresponding values to incorporate the foundations of a balanced system of institutions. A careful balance of support and guidance enhances a community’s ability to develop and sustain a functional system that engages society and meets the needs of a community and polity and consequently the national policy establishment.

Decentralized networks, according to Mark Bevir and R.A.W. Rhodes, develop informal authority that supplements and supplants the more formal authority of government. However, it does not trump central authority and formal governing structures. Rather, it should inform and incorporate national policy. Perhaps we can consider governance as a “diverse interaction of state authority in its relationship with civil society.”(Bevir, 2004)

Integrated Water Resources Management and cases whereby these systems were developed and sustained through a process of local stake holder involvement in the context of a system of good governance are not new. In fact, a rich history of sustainable water resources management systems exists, but few have survived generations and been analyzed in the context of modern water resources management. The in depth study of Spanish water systems, by Maass and Anderson, is perhaps the most referenced, but others exist and perhaps offer valuable additional lessons to broaden our understanding of what makes a system sustainable.(Maass, Anderson, 1978) The Case of Figuig is compelling in that its success through centuries despite natural, social, and political crisis is important, but perhaps the contrast in its ability to cope with today’s crisis since its independence in 1956, offers a comparative look at how change eroded the foundations of a successful system rendering it unable to support its long-term needs.

History reveals much about how societies endure and how they falter, only by looking back can we look forward. The rise and fall of the Sumerians and other ancient civilizations illustrate a pattern that modern States have found themselves in today. Changes in policy and politics, and subsequent changes in society and the economy that impacted local communities are important to understand. Perhaps more importantly, as the case of Figuig will later illustrate, the success of local communities in establishing and maintaining sustainable systems can effectively support a national government’s ability to achieve both short-, and long-term policy objectives.

From the first water wars fought in the “fertile crescent”, now Iraq, by the Sumerians more than 7500 years ago, central planning and narrowly focused policy resulted in unanticipated consequences. As the Sumerians diverted water from the Euphrates and Tigris rivers through long canals great cities were born. The ability of the city to grow and flourish with an intricate water management system and advance technologies offers a wealth of knowledge. In combination with many other examples of large scale development in areas with limited natural resources it provides valuable insight into effective water resources management systems and the relevance of Integrated Water Resources Management policy. Moreover, it has implications for legal and political institutional development to support or detracts from a community’s long-term survival.

In the case of the Sumerians the impact of a monopolistic, unilateral policy of centralized decision –making without consideration or cooperation with other water users beyond their boarders brought about the city’s demise. A dependence on technology and rigid controls established a system that could not adapt to change and encouraged competition rather than cooperation establishing a zero sum relationship with other users, and established a culture of competition for the resource rather than reasonable use. As a result the need to respect the limits of the resources and its effective allocation system were underappreciated. Similarly, the current state of Middle Eastern water management policy is typically state-centered offensive posturing. The act of restricting water resources downstream as a means of gaining political control has created an environment of perpetual competition at the expense of the environment and long-term sustainability, thus security.

In the Sumerians case water diversions became the weapon of choice in bringing about the demise of others while supporting their short term prosperity.( Pearse, 2006) Eventually, however, the Sumerian civilization eventually foundered and the fertile lands turned to desert. The migration away from this desertified region eventually resulted in societies culminating into the Persian Empire which developed an irrigation system that reshaped the region.(Pearse, 2006) The system, however, could not be sustained.

While it is generally accepted that nature played an important role in the demise of the Empire, there is further evidence that suggests that its collapse was the result of a tightly controlled centralized system that resulted in a rigid hierarchical governance structure. Consequently, the lack of local diversity and natural balances that defined capacity was overlooked.

In looking at this example of water governance we can appreciate how such grand water systems, that changed landscapes, were vulnerable to environmental devastation as it could not rely on an effective balance of nature and human activity. The unnatural system relied on rigid controls to survive and lacked a robust system of institutions and decentralized processes to withstand change.

As this case suggests, and the international community, through water forums has begun to assert in the new millennium, effective water governance must be developed locally to appreciate the environmental limits of each water source.(Global Water Forum, United Nations Development Organization) Again, imposed agendas that fail to consider stake holder input are generally unable to develop a respect for the nuances of nature and society to support long-term survival. The success of small communities that established themselves relative to a vulnerable water system is perhaps the most compelling illustration of how good governance develops to support local, regional, and national policy objectives.(Pearse, 2006:190)

Again, Maas and Anderson’s case study of Spanish water systems supports this argument.(Maass, Anderson, 1978) As there study reveals, well-established water courts were able to enforce water laws that evolved, relative to society’s social, political, and legal needs gradually over time to support widespread acceptance and institutional development. The higher levels of government effectively complimented the local systems by creating a robust enabling environment that supported the important needs and values of the local community. In keeping with this example of a system that has endured modern influences, widespread experience supports relying on user groups or local institutions for irrigation management and technical and financial resources provided by a government support network (Uphoff, 1986:39)

Such an observation suggests that local technical and organizational capacity is significant. There are many different ways of organizing decision-making, resource mobilization, communication, and conflict management at the local level. “National governments, would do well to accept and work with such diversity, including granting the necessary legal recognition for such local organizations if it wants to capitalize on indigenous social infrastructure, argues Uphoff.(Uphoff, 1986:271)