Comparison of Water Management Institutions and Approaches in the United States and Europe—What Can We Learn From Each Other?

Author(s):  
M. Pulido-Velazquez ◽  
F.A. Ward
2021 ◽  

Water has always been culturally significant. Throughout history, humans have shaped rivers for navigation, irrigation, and flood protection. In turn, the relationships people have maintained with rivers and other waters have shaped societies. How people relate to and through water is a topic of growing interest to researchers, particularly as threats to rivers and pressures on water supplies increase. Freshwater and its essential and multifaceted role in social and cultural life is now a focus of considerable scholarship in the social sciences, yielding rich insights into norms that shape how water is known, used, and valued, the meaning of water to diverse sociocultural groups, and the role of water in societal power structures and material cultures. Ethnographic studies of customary hydraulic systems and their communal water management institutions have, for instance, contributed to an understanding that departs from the bifurcated concept of nature and culture so prevalent in Western thought. Recent scientific efforts to identify water requirements (of human groups and/or features of the environment) have emerged as a response to the regulation and degradation of rivers, and these efforts form an important focus of this entry. Research has advanced our understanding of the diversity of human relationships with rivers and ways in which water management institutions and scientific practices, such as environmental flow assessments, can satisfy the flow needs of human populations dependent on rivers and connected watersheds for their livelihood and well-being. This article serves as an introductory guide for scholars and students with an interest in understanding how researchers from the social sciences and humanities have researched rivers, the role of water in sustaining diverse forms of social and cultural life, and the varied ways of valuing, managing, and using rivers. It focuses on the conservation paradigm of environmental flows that grew out of efforts in the United States to allocate water to instream uses threatened by dams, thereby conserving culturally embedded relations that the settler society had with its western rivers. Until recently, this approach to the allocation of water and protection of unregulated river flows had not explicitly acknowledged its cultural roots, though many of the early studies revealed the importance of recreational activities (fishing, boating, canoeing) and aesthetic values to the conservation agenda. New categories of cultural “use” have since emerged in response to widespread social changes (Indigenous rights and resistance to dams, for example). These challenge the conception of environmental flows as a technical, apolitical process reliant on Western scientific knowledge alone and the authority of the state to allocate water. A deeper appreciation of the cultural significance of rivers and cultural interpretations of water governance arrangements will enable appreciation of the diversity of ways of knowing, relating, and utilizing rivers and local solutions to water problems.


Author(s):  
N.N. Ravochkin ◽  
◽  

The author examines the ideological foundations of political and legal institutional architectonics in Western Europe and the United States and presents its structure. Close attention is paid to the role of social ideas and the development of these issues in modern scientific directions. The author clarifies the principles of synthesis of ideal and institutional and shows three ways of ideological determination of political and legal institutional settings. The mutually conditioned nature of functioning of the system of ideological frameworks and management institutions is substantiated.


Author(s):  
Scott M. Moore

The Republic of France is in many ways the archetype of the centralized, unitary state, and its political institutions contrast sharply with those of the federations of India and the United States. Following the Revolution of 1789, the new republic undertook a series of political reforms intended to strip power from the landed nobility and vest it instead with a new set of egalitarian institutions, the basis of which was both centralization and uniformity. The revolutionaries believed that “justice requires the republic to be one and indivisible” (Berger 1974, 8). Inherent to this new model was a concentration of political authority, as well as political, legislative, and judicial powers, in the hands of the central government. In contrast to more decentralized and federal political systems, the French system is intended to tightly bind officials at both central and local levels and to minimize conflicts between them. Consequently, a defining feature of French political institutions is the relative cohesion of elite decision-making. According to one prominent observer, France “provides the prime example of a highly coherent administration, whereas the United States and Switzerland constitute the typical cases of lack of such coherence” (Kriesi 1995, 171). However, during the past thirty years even the French state has become more decentralized, and powers and responsibilities for some policy areas, including water resource management, have been devolved to regional governments. In comparative perspective, the outstanding feature of the French political system is in fact the presence of strong regional governance organizations, including several organized around river basin boundaries, that are among the world’s most successful interjurisdictional management institutions. France’s system of river basin governance organizations, called “water agencies” (agences de l’eau), is by many accounts the most collaborative and participatory in the world. A global survey of river basin governance institutions concludes, for example, that the French system “is remarkable for its longevity, in how it tries to formalize representation . . . and perhaps most important, how it has attempted local and decentralized water management within the centralist state tradition in France” (Delli Priscoli 2007, 17).


2010 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiuqiong Huang ◽  
Jinxia Wang ◽  
K. William Easter ◽  
Scott Rozelle

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. S259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric T. Sundquist ◽  
Katherine Visser Ackerman ◽  
Robert F. Stallard ◽  
Norman B. Bliss

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document