Water reform governmentality in Ecuador: neoliberalism, centralization, and the restraining of polycentric authority and community rule-making
Water reform governmentality in Ecuador: neoliberalism, centralization, and the restraining of polycentric authority and community rule-making
复制标题
厄瓜多尔的水务改革治理：新自由主义、集权以及多中心权威和社区规则制定的限制
DOI：
10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.07.005
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
M. Baud
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Boelens;Jaime Hoogesteger;M. Baud
在大多数拉丁美洲国家，有关水治理和控制的问题也反映了国家和民间社会之间在权威和合法性方面更广泛的冲突。在多样化的水政策改革背后，不仅仅是管理水事务的问题，也是控制或拉拢用水群体的动力。本文考察了厄瓜多尔现政府通过新形式的“治理”来“控制用水者”的努力(福柯，1991)。我们用“大教堂和集市”这个比喻(兰克福德和赫普沃思，2010)来说明政府在过去几十年里在水资源治理转变中的理论基础和实践。我们分析了拉斐尔·科雷亚政府是如何着手重塑国家、市场和社会关系的。在其“21世纪社会主义”项目中，以所谓的“公民革命”为基础，实际的政策改革并没有逆转而是改变了新自由主义水治理的进程--创造了一种混合的集市-大教堂模式。我们认为，目前的水政府项目实施的改革不会挑战现有的以市场为基础的水治理基础。相反，它的目的是遏制和破坏社区的自治和“不守规矩的”多中心规则制定，这些都是历史和当今变革进程的结果。有趣的是，在过去二十年的新自由主义浪潮中出现的水用户联合会现在声称拥有水控制空间，并寻求民主化水治理的新形式。他们充当代理人，强烈反对以国家为中心(大教堂)和以市场为基础(集市)的水治理模式的要素，但有选择性和战略性地反对。
In most Latin American countries, issues concerning water governance and control also reflect broader conflicts over authority and legitimacy between the state and civil society. What lies behind the diverse water policy reforms is not simply a question of governing water affairs but also a drive to control or co-opt water user groups. This paper examines the efforts by the present Ecuadorian government to ‘control water users’ through new forms of ‘governmentality’ (Foucault, 1991). We use the ‘cathedral and bazaar’ metaphor (Lankford and Hepworth, 2010) to illustrate government rationale and practices in water governance shifts in the last decades. We analyze how Rafael Correa’s government sets out to reshape the relations between state, market and society. In its ‘Twenty-first Century Socialism’ project, based on a proclaimed ‘Citizen Revolution’, actual policy reform does not reverse but rather transforms the process of neoliberalizing water governance – creating a hybrid bazaar-cathedral model. We argue that the current water govermentality project implements reforms that do not challenge established market-based water governance foundations. Rather it aims to contain and undermine communities’ autonomy and ‘unruly’ polycentric rule-making, which are the result of both historical and present-day processes of change. Interestingly, water user federations that emerged during the neoliberal wave of the last two decades now claim water control space and search for new forms of democratizing water governance. They act as agents who fiercely – yet selectively and strategically – oppose both elements of the State-centered (cathedral) and market-based (bazaar) water governance models.