nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Understanding the Politics of Watershed Development

verfasst von : Saurabh Gupta

Erschienen in: Politics of Water Conservation

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter provides a critical analysis of the mainstream theoretical tradition (new-institutionalism and its offshoots—social capital, participatory and ‘synergy’ approaches) and the main alternative theoretical traditions (new-traditionalist, and anti/post-development positions) to understand issues related to use of, and access to natural resources in particular and the power of development in general. It discusses the mainstream approaches to the management and development of natural resources and common property resources in rural areas. These approaches based on collective action by resource users, ‘participation’ of rural communities in development projects, enhancement of ‘social capital’ within a group of resource users, and partnership between the state and civil society organisations, the author contends, conceal relations of power and inequality. Furthermore, it discusses the main alternative theoretical traditions to understanding and analysing issues related to rural development and natural resources development. It presents the main propositions of ‘new-traditionalism’ (or neo-populist ideas) and argues that they also neglect conflicts within a given community over governance of local natural resources. In the end, this chapter refers to some recent studies on power relations in rural development interventions (or ‘new directions’ in post-development), which take us beyond discursive determinism, and present a more nuanced understanding on the nature and power of development regimes.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction

Nächstes Kapitel Rajasthan: The Land of Rajas (Kings) and Droughts

To avoid a long discussion of the meaning of ‘discourse’, I will consider it as ‘practice and theory’ (Moore and Schmitz 1995). I borrow their idea of ‘discourse’ as concrete or material activity which transforms the real world and the modes of thought that inform this action at the same time as they arise out of it.

Development apparatus can be described as an ensemble of discursive and material elements. Brigg (2002: 427) describes dispositif as discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions and so on—and the system of relations established between these elements.

A detailed discussion on NIE is beyond the scope of this research. See North (1990); for a comprehensive critique of NIE, see Harriss et al. (1995).

The expression ‘tragedy of the commons’ used by Garrett Hardin (1968) symbolises the fate of all scarce common property resources used by many individuals.

This view was put forward by Mancur Olson (1965). Olson (ibid: 2) writes, ‘unless the number of individuals is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests’.

Game theory is based on applied mathematics. It could be best described as study of the ways in which strategic interactions (linked to certain structures of positive and negative incentives) among rational players produce outcomes with respect to the preferences or utilities of those players (see Ostrom 1990).

On the basis of a set of studies of successful long-term use of commons, Ostrom (1990: 90) lists eight design principles for successful management of natural resources. Several international development agencies (most notably, the World Bank) have tried to create these design principles in their rural development projects in the 1990s.

Arun Agrawal (1999), in his study of a migrant pastoral community in western Rajasthan argues that politics is ubiquitous in the interactions of shepherds with the neighbouring landowners in the villages and with state officials (which determines their access to fodder) in their exchanges in markets and with farmers. Institutions developed by shepherds to solve livelihood problems are part of these larger spheres of their economic survival. Axelby (2007) makes a similar observation in the case of Gaddi shepherds in Himachal Pradesh.

Mehta’s point is more relevant in the light of floods in Rajasthan in 2006, especially in the desert areas. This draws our attention to the requirement of institutional arrangements not just to tackle the scarcity of water but its abundance too. New-institutional perspective to study natural resources management does not take into account the ‘ad hoc’ arrangements in the time of uncertainty (Mehta 2000; also see Mehta et al. 1999).

There is an underlying similarity between the mainstream participatory approaches and alternative approaches with regard to people’s participation in the use and management of natural resources (neo-populist/neo-Gandhian and communitarian). However, there is an important point of departure between the two. While new-institutionalists propose ‘community based natural resource management’ as the most efficient system of resource management, for neo-populists, efficiency is not the primary concern but people’s right over the use of their local natural resources. To put it succinctly, the difference between the two is their focus on ‘efficient management’ and ‘local control’, respectively.

PRA is a technique for shared learning between ‘outsiders’ (development practitioners, NGO workers or government officials) and local people. It basically involves enabling villagers to make their own appraisals and plans for development. The most influential work on participatory techniques in rural development is by Robert Chambers (1994a, b, c).

For a comprehensive critique of participatory approaches, see Cooke and Kothari (eds.), 2001. For a critical appreciation of the notion of ‘tyranny’, see Williams (2004).

The Sukhomajri experiment in Himalayan foothills stresses that the poor wanted the rich to be included in the programmes; otherwise, they feel that rich farmers will oppose it (Chopra et al. 1990).

Recommended by Hanaumantha Rao Committee in 1995, and later modified in the ‘Common Principles for Watershed Development’ adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Rural Development in 1999.

These changes cannot be captured within the life period of a project (two or three years), and therefore watershed project evaluation studies (mentioned above) cannot shed much light on these subtle changes taking place in the ‘field’ or terrain of development.

For the notion of ‘social capital’ and its linkages with better developmental outcomes, see Putnam (1993, 1995).

Mosse (2003: 17) describes Putnam’s idea of social capital as a hybrid model emerging from ‘rational choice’ and ‘moral economy’ (following Scott 1976) schools. He remarks that despite deep-rooted differences between these two schools, they construct strikingly similar images of community, and indigenous collective action.

Baumann and Sinha (2000) argue that power relations can be treated as ‘political capital’, which is an asset on which people draw (or cannot draw) to pursue a range of livelihood outcomes. For a comprehensive critique of ‘social capital’, see Fine (2000).

Krishna’s notion of ‘new political entrepreneurs’ matches closely with Ostrom’s (1990) notion of ‘political entrepreneurs’ that facilitate collective action and aim to gain directly in the process. However, and as I will demonstrate in the book, there is a whole range of other leaders (volunteers or activist of grassroots organisation) who play a crucial role in organising rural social groups but do not have any overt political ambitions.

The number of development NGOs registered in the OECD countries grew from 1,600 in 1980 to 2,970 in 1993 (Edwards and Hulme 1995: 3).

Most influential works include Schumacher’s (1973) Small is beautiful (his notion of ‘appropriate technology’) and Lipton’s (1977) Why poor people stay poor: a study of urban bias in world development. Another important work, which brought normative roots of peasant politics as the centre of study, is James Scott’s (1976) The Moral Economy of the Peasants. ‘Moral economy’, according to Scott (ibid: 3) is peasants’ notion of economic justice and their working definition of exploitation. In India, grassroots movements for local control of natural resources led by neo-Gandhians in different parts of the country (e.g. Chipko movement in Uttaranchal) played a key role in the resurgence of agrarian populism.

Note that watershed development projects are not simply restricted to issues related to management of natural resources, but these projects are also one of the largest rural development projects in the rain-fed areas of India, and thus important determinants of the politics of development in the countryside.

Chhotray (2007: 1053) argues that depoliticisation in watershed projects involves the prevalence of ‘technocratic strategies’ to curtail the use of project spaces for subaltern politics. She rightly notes that ‘it is useful to remember that the eventual success of pro-poor policies must be considered not only over a single project cycle, nor even a single generation, but over several generations.’

Brigg (2002: 423) writes that ‘Foucault draws a heuristic distinction between sovereign power and a new form of power, which he terms ‘bio-power’. The former which is associated with the reign of the king or monarch (and in our times with the judiciary and the rule of law), operates by ‘deduction’, by taking away and appropriation, by ‘seizure: of things, time, bodies and ultimately life itself’ (Foucault: 1981: 136). […] Bio-power is ‘a power bent on generating forces, making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impending them, making them submit, or destroying them’ (ibid).

Implicit within her argument is that the ‘social class which is active at the grassroots is not the same as the social class which is active at the state policy and planning; nevertheless, they constitute a relatively unified social bloc in the reproduction of dominant ideologies’ (Kamat 2002: 3).

Baviskar (2007) describes the way in which the state in Madhya Pradesh reinvents itself as social movement to gain legitimacy for its acts of subversion and projects an environment-friendly image of the government in front of donor agencies and metropolitan audience. She claims that watershed mission is an avenue for senior bureaucrats to rise to prominence and accuses the metropolitan NGOs like the CSE to collaborate with the chief minister of MP in constructing ‘environmental utopias’. She maintains that the need to show ‘success’ and offer prescriptions ‘is a pressure often felt by NGOs whose funding is linked to their ability to produce narratives of progress’.

Further, we need to remember that within Foucault’s own writing, systems of power/knowledge are not abstract and all-encompassing, but ‘grounded and evolving, thus providing space within themselves for alternative discourses and knowledge to emerge’ (Williams 2004: 566).

Agrawal, A. (1999). Greener pastures: Politics, markets and community among a migrant pastoral people. Durham: Duke University Press.

Agarwal, A., & Narayan, S. (Eds.). (1997). Dying wisdom: Rise, fall and potential of India’s traditional water harvesting systems (Fourth citizen’s report on the State of India’s environment). New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.

Appadurai, A. (1990). Technology and the reproduction of values in Rural Western India. In F. Marglin & S. Marglin (Eds.), Dominating knowledge: Development, culture and resistance (pp. 185–216). Oxford: Claredon.CrossRef

Axelby, R. (2007). It takes two hands to clap: How Gaddi shepherds in the Indian Himalayas negotiate access to grazing. Journal of Agrarian Change, 7(1), 35–75.CrossRef

Baumann, P., & Sinha, S. (2000). Sustainable livelihoods and political capital (Natural resource perspectives 68). London: Overseas Development Institute.

Baviskar, A. (2007). The dream machine: The model development project and the remaking of the state. In A. Baviskar (Ed.), Waterscapes: The cultural politics of a natural resource. New Delhi: Permanent Black.

Brigg, M. (2002). Post-development, Foucault and the Colonisation Metaphor. Third World Quarterly, 23(3), 421–436.CrossRef

Bromley, D. W. (1992). Making the commons work: Theory, practice and policy. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Bromley, D. W., & Cernea, M. (1989). The management of common property natural resources: Some conceptual and operational fallacies. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Carney, D., & Farrington, J. (1998). Natural resource management and institutional change. London/New York: Routledge.

Chakravarty, B. (1999). Watershed approach to wasteland development. Journal of Rural Development, 18(4), 577–589.

Chambers, R. (1994a). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969.CrossRef

Chambers, R. (1994b). Participatory rural appraisal: Analysis of experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253–1268.CrossRef

Chambers, R. (1994c). Paradigm shift and the practice of participatory research and development (IDS Working Paper 2). Brighton: IDS.

Chhotray, V. (2004). Decentralised development: State practices from India’s watershed development programme. Unpublished PhD thesis. SOAS, University of London.

Chhotray, V. (2007). The anti-politics machine in India: Depoliticisation through local institutional building for participatory watershed development. Journal of Development Studies, 43(6), 1037–1056.CrossRef

Chopra, K. (2005). Social capital and development processes: The role of formal and informal institutions. In K. G. Iyer & U. N. Roy (Eds.), Watershed management and sustainable development (pp. 68–84). New Delhi: Kanishka.

Chopra, K., Kadekodi, G. K., & Murty, M. N. (1990). Participatory development: People and common property resources. New Delhi: Sage.

Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development Studies, 11, 597–612.CrossRef

Cleaver, F. (2002). Reinventing institutions: Bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. The European Journal of Development Research, 14(2), 11–30.CrossRef

Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny. London/New York: Zed books.

Corbridge, S., Wiliams, G., Srivastava, M., & Veron, R. (2005). Seeing the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and participation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). Non-governmental organisations: Performance and accountability. London: Earthscan.

Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Esteva, G. (1991). Preventing green re-development. Journal of SID, 2, 74–78 (cited in Ziai 2004).

Esteva, G., & Prakash, M. S. (1998). Grassroots post modernism: Remaking the soil of cultures. London: Zed books.

Evans, P. (1996). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development, 24(6), 1119–1132.CrossRef

Farrington, J., & Bebbington, A. (Eds.). (1993). Reluctant partners? Non-governmental organisations, the state and sustainable agricultural development. London: Routledge.

Farrington, J., Turton, C., & James, A. (1999). Participatory watershed development: Challenges for the 21st century. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Ferguson, J. (1990). The anti-politics machine: Development, depoliticisation and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fine, B. (2000). Social capital versus social theory: Political economy and social science at the turn of millennium. London: Routledge.CrossRef

Foucault, M. (1981). The history of sexuality: An introduction. London: Penguin.

Gold, A. G., & Gujar, B. R. (2002). In the time of trees and sorrows. Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Grillo, R., & Stirrat, R. (Eds.). (1997). Discourses of development. Oxford: Berg.

Gupta, S., & Sinha, S. (2008). Beyond ‘dispositif’ and ‘depoliticisation’: Spaces of civil society in water conservation in rural Rajasthan. In K. Lahiri-Dutt & R. J. Wasson (Eds.), Water first: Issues and challenges for nations and communities in South Asia (pp. 271–294). New Delhi: Sage.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.CrossRef

Harriss, J. (2002). Depoliticising development: The World Bank and social capital. New Delhi: LeftWord.

Harriss, J., Hunter, J., & Lewis, C. M. (Eds.). (1995). The new institutional economics and third world development. London: Routledge.

Hinchcliffe, F., Guijt, I., Pretty, J., & Shah, P. (1998). New horizons: The economic, social and environmental impacts of participatory watershed development (Gatekeeper Series No. 50). London: IIED.

Jackson, C. (1993). Doing what comes naturally? Women and environment in development. World Development, 21(12), 1947–1963.CrossRef

Kamat, S. (2002). Development hegemony: NGOs and the state in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Krishna, A. (2002). Active social capital: Tracing the roots of development and democracy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Li, T. M. (1999). Compromising power: Development, culture and rule in Indonesia. Cultural Anthropology, 14(3), 1–28.CrossRef

Lipton, M. (1977). Why poor people stay poor: A study of urban bias in World Development. London: Temple Smith.

Long, N. (Ed.). (1989). Encounters at the Interface: A perspective on social discontinuities in rural development. Wageningen: Agricultural University.

Mehta, L. (2000). Rethinking key assumptions in natural resources management: Drawing lessons from the case of water. Paper for the panel on Institutions and Uncertainty at the 8th Biennial conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property. Bloomington: Indiana.

Mehta, L., Leach, M., Newell, P., Scoones, I., Sivaramakrishnan, K., & Way, S. A. (1999). Exploring understandings of institutions and uncertainty: New directions in natural resources management (IDS Discussion Paper 372). Brighton: University of Sussex.

Moore, D. S. (1999). The crucible of cultural politics: Reworking “development” in Zimbabwe’s Eastern Highlands. American Ethnologist, 26(3), 654–689.CrossRef

Moore, D., & Schmitz, G. J. (Eds.). (1995). Debating development discourse: Institutional and popular perspectives. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Mosse, D. (1995). People’s knowledge in project planning: The limits and social conditions of participation in agricultural development (ODI Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper, 58). London: ODI.

Mosse, D. (2003). The rule of water. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid, policy and practice. London: Pluto Press.

North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.CrossRef

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games and common pool resources. Ann Arbor: Michigan Press.

Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.CrossRef

Roseberry, W. (1994). Hegemony and the language of contention. In G. Joseph & D. Nugent (Eds.), Everyday forms of state formation (pp. 355–366). Durham: Duke University Press.

Rossi, B. (2004). Revisiting Foucauldian approaches: Power dynamics in development projects. Journal of development studies, 40(6), 1–29.CrossRef

Sachs, W. (Ed.). (1992). The development dictionary (pp. 1–5). London: Zed Books.

Salskov-Iversen, D., Hansen, H., & Bislev, S. (2000). Governmentality, globalisation and local practice: Transformations of a hegemonic discourse. Alternatives, 25(2), 183–222.

Samara, J. S. (1999). People’s participation and community organisation in the management of watersheds. Journal of Rural Development, 18(3), 421–437.

Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Blond and Briggs.

Scott, J. (1976). The moral economy of the peasant: Subsistence and rebellion in South- east Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Shah, A. (1999). Unique strengths and mutilating flaws in watershed development. Journal of Rural Development, 18(4), 613–620.

Shah, A. (2000). Natural resource management and gender: Reflections from watershed programmes in India. Indian Journal of Gender studies, 7(1), 83–91.CrossRef

Shah, A. (2001). Who benefits from participatory watershed development (Gatekeeper Series No. SA 97). London: IIED.

Shiva, V. (1992). Resources. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power (pp. 206–218). London: Zed Books.

Sinha, S. (1995). Unpublished PhD thesis. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208.

Sinha, S. (2003). Development counter-narratives: Taking social movements seriously. In K. Sivaramakrishnan & A. Agrawal (Eds.), Regional modernities: The cultural politics of development in India (pp. 286–312). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Sinha, S., Gururani, S., & Greenberg, B. (1998). The new traditionalist discourse of Indian environmentalism. Journal of Peasant Studies, 24(3), 65–99.CrossRef

Sivaramakrishnan, K. S., & Agrawal, A. (2003). Regional modernities in stories and practices of development. In K. Sivaramakrishnan & A. Agrawal (Eds.), Regional modernities: The cultural politics of development in India (pp. 1–62). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Thakur, M., & Pattnaik, P. (2002). How effective are Pani-Panchayats? A field-view from Maharashtra. Sociological Bulletin, 51(2), 243–268.

Toye, J. (1995). The new institutional economics and its implications for development theory. In J. Harriss, J. Hunter, & C. M. Lewis (Eds.), The new institutional economics and third World development (pp. 49–70). London: Routledge.

Uphoff, N. (2005). Social capital and irrigation management bringing rigour and evidence to the relationship. In P. Ganesh & P. Shivkoti (Eds.), Asian irrigation in transition (pp. 79–98). New Delhi: Sage.

Wade, R. (1994). Village republics. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Williams, G. (2004). Evaluating participatory development: Tyranny, power and (re) politicisation. Third World Quarterly, 25(3), 557–578.CrossRef

Ziai, A. (2004). The ambivalence of post-development: Between reactionary populism and radical democracy. Third World Quarterly, 25(6), 1045–1060.CrossRef

Titel: Understanding the Politics of Watershed Development
verfasst von: Saurabh Gupta
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Politics of Water Conservation
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21391-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-21392-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21392-7_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"