1 / 12

Interdependence between Technology and Governance: cases and theories

Interdependence between Technology and Governance: cases and theories. by Emanuele Lobina e.lobina@gre.ac.uk Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) University of Greenwich, UK www.psiru.org 21 March 2009.

kenneth-douglas
Download Presentation

Interdependence between Technology and Governance: cases and theories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Interdependence between Technology and Governance: cases and theories by Emanuele Lobina e.lobina@gre.ac.uk Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) University of Greenwich, UK www.psiru.org 21 March 2009 Sustainable Water management Improves Tomorrow’s Cities’ HealthSWITCH, European Commission, 6th Framework Programme, 2006-2010, Contract No. 018530 (GOCE), Integrated Project.The findings are the responsibility of the author and should not be construed as representing the views of the European Commission.

  2. Research questions and theoretical framework • Why have we not yet moved to an integrated approach to urban water management? • Is the limiting factor technology or institutional frameworks (or a combination of both)? • Theories applied to the case of sewerage: • Knowledge theory (technological change) • Governance theory • Network theory

  3. Characterisation of sewerage as technology Second generation technology Implications: perceived social necessity is key to decision making (e.g. Sabesp/COBES in 1980s São Paulo) Centralised system (“Victorian” technology) Implications: adverse impact of localised solutions on public health and environment (e.g. Peru, Pakistan, Jakarta) Highly capital intensive Implications: affordability, subsidies, timescale of universal coverage (e.g. history of OECD countries, MDGs, donors’ policies)

  4. Knowledge and decision making • Moriarty et al. (2005: 11) define knowledge as “the intrinsic ability of individuals or groups to carry out actions” • Knowledge defined as the “awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information, gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori)” • Knowledge is part of the governance “equation” and reminds us that governance is a resource-dependent process

  5. Government Management Labour Consumers Geodesic networks and inefficient knowledge transfer E.g. PPWSA prior to 1993

  6. Private Operator Monopolistic hubs and inefficient knowledge transfer E.g. Aguas Argentinas, 1993-2002

  7. Highly integrated networks and efficient knowledge transfer (e.g. DMAE, 1961-2001)

  8. Definitions: Governance • “Governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences, and exercise their legal rights and obligations” (UNDP, 1997) • In mainstream literature, governance is presented as the articulation of management regimes and their institutional frameworks: the State, Market and Civil Society (Castro, 2003) • Is governance just another byword for politics and decision making? (Green, 2007) • Knowledge as part of the governance “equation”

  9. The ideal-type model of governance … State (hierarchical order) State Adapted from Picciotto (1997), Castro (2003) Civil society Market Civil society (cooperation driven by voluntary association) Market (self-organization driven by competition)

  10. Policy networks and state autonomy • Looks at inter-actor relationships in light of relative interests/objectives, available resources, applicable rules and existing constraints (Hermans, 2005; Klijn, 1997) • State and different levels of government recognised as carrying own and distinct interests (Smith, 1993) • Relationships vary in type (confrontational and transactional) • Criticised for not representing a theory of power, but it is a valuable analytical framework for testing the cogency of other theories, e.g. property rights and public choice, as it addresses both resources- and context-dependence (Lobina and Hall, 2007)

  11. Implications for IUWM What generation is IUWM? What is the perceived social necessity of IUWM? Centralised vs. localised systems What is the impact of centralised/localised solutions in terms of PESTE sustainability? What are the financial implications of moving to IUWM? In terms of: affordability; trade offs between economic, social and environmental objectives; sources of funding

  12. Selected References Hall, D., Lobina, E. (2008) Sewerage Works – Public investment in sewers saves lives. PSIRU Reports, commissioned by UNISON and PSI, March 2008 (http://www.psiru.org/reports/2008-03-W-sewers.pdf). Lobina, E., Hall, D. (2008) The comparative advantage of the public sector in the development of urban water supply, in Progress in Development Studies, 8(1), pp. 85-101. Hall, D., Lobina, E. (2007) Profitability and the poor: Corporate strategies, innovation and sustainability, in Geoforum, 38(5), pp. 772-785. Lobina, E., Hall, D. (2007) Experience with private sector participation in Grenoble, France and lessons on strengthening public water operations, in Utilities Policy, 15, pp. 93-109.

More Related