OECD’s methods of legitimation and self-authorisation in water governance

Farhad Mukhtarov
Assistant Professor of Governance and Public Policy, International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Hague, Netherlands; mukhtarov@iss.nl

Des Gasper
Professor Emeritus, International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Hague, Netherlands; gasper@iss.nl

Michael Farrelly  
Independent researcher, Sheffield, United Kingdom; michaelfarrelly@discourseacademy.org

Malte Lüken
Research Software Engineer, Netherlands e-Science Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; m.luken@esciencecenter.nl

Kody Moodley
Senior Research Software Engineer, Netherlands e-Science Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; k.moodley@esciencecenter.nl

ABSTRACT: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has established itself since 2009 as an authority in water governance. This paper examines the strategies behind that emergence, applying quantitative and qualitative text analysis techniques to a corpus of 55 OECD documents produced between 2009 and 2022. We discern five legitimating strategies. First, the OECD followed a formula from its earlier engagement in other fields that had three components: 1) reframing existing knowledge and manufacturing a declared consensus in contentious areas, 2) formulating and disseminating blueprints for good governance, and 3) formulating and disseminating corresponding frameworks with which to evaluate performance. Its second strategy has been to stress topics and themes where it already had an established reputation, that is, 'good governance' and 'new public management'. The third strategy involved referencing a limited pool of external sources that were mostly from other international organisations and consultancy groups, and underutilising the academic literature on the subject. Fourth, it referenced itself extensively in both formal citations and frequent in-text references. Fifth and finally, it orchestrated temporary networks of actors to endorse its efforts and tools. Taken together, these strategies point to the self-referential nature of the OECD’s authority in this new field. We call attention to these legitimating strategies with the goal of challenging the OECD and other international organisations to adopt more adequate and inclusive knowledge bases.

KEYWORDS: OECD, water governance, authorisation, soft power, critical discourse analysis, Structural Topic Modelling

"With water we will wash away the past" – The elusive promise of redressing water inequalities in post-Apartheid South Africa

Magalie Bourblanc
CIRAD, UMR G-EAU, Université de Montpellier, France; and Extraordinary Lecturer, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Pretoria (South Africa); magalie.bourblanc@cirad.fr

ABSTRACT: Water issues in South Africa have been a subject of fascination for numerous scholars around the world. Its ground-breaking National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA), promulgated during the democratic political transition, was meant to introduce a complete overhaul of the water sector and ensure access to water for all. In a society haunted by a long legacy of racial discrimination and exploitation, water was deemed to bring about a process of reconciliation. The NWA quickly became one of the cardinal policy reforms of the newly elected African National Congress (ANC). Twenty-five years after its adoption, however, the results are disappointing. While access to drinking water for previously discriminated-against populations was dramatically improved (especially in urban areas), the same cannot be said of access to water for productive use. Indeed, regarding the water allocation reform in rural South Africa, 'water apartheid' is still alive and well. In their accounts of the failure of the reform, scholars often blame politicians and political elites for their supposed lack of willingness to follow up on the intentions of the progressive Act. In the tradition of public policy analysis, I concentrate on the policy side rather than on the politics to explain the failed promise of the water allocation reform. Reviewing the law implementation process, I analyse how policy objectives have been filtered through state departments’ organisational culture and professional routines and operationalised on the ground through technical policy instruments. Ultimately, I shed light on how, despite new political principles and dispensations that claim the contrary, it has been possible to reproduce racial inequality and to further entrench inequalities inherited from the past. I show that this has been done by concealing water grabs from political attention through resorting to discreet policy instruments and practices that obscure the critical question of water sharing.

KEYWORDS: South African National Water Act, implementation, policy review, policy instruments, water allocation redistribution, South Africa