This article analyzes the “politics of experts”—or the struggle between scientific advisers to gain visibility and influence—in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and the UK. Modifying classic studies of policy communities of interest groups and civil servants, we classify relevant policy experts in the two countries into the following categories: “core insiders,” “specialist insiders,” “peripheral insiders,” and “outsiders.” Within these categories, we distinguish between “high-profile” and “low-profile” experts, depending on media exposure. The comparison between the UK and Italian cases helps to identify how actors interpret and follow formal and informal “rules of the game.” We identify a contest between experts to influence policy with reference to two competing “rules of the game.” The first set of rules comes from government, while the second comes from science advice principles. These rules collide, such as when governments require secrecy and nonconfrontation and scientists expect transparency and independent criticism. Therefore, experts face dilemmas regarding which rules to favor: some accept the limits to their behavior to ensure insider access; others are free to criticize the policies that they struggle to influence.
{"title":"The politics of COVID-19 experts: comparing winners and losers in Italy and the UK","authors":"Paul Cairney, Federico Toth","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad011","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the “politics of experts”—or the struggle between scientific advisers to gain visibility and influence—in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and the UK. Modifying classic studies of policy communities of interest groups and civil servants, we classify relevant policy experts in the two countries into the following categories: “core insiders,” “specialist insiders,” “peripheral insiders,” and “outsiders.” Within these categories, we distinguish between “high-profile” and “low-profile” experts, depending on media exposure. The comparison between the UK and Italian cases helps to identify how actors interpret and follow formal and informal “rules of the game.” We identify a contest between experts to influence policy with reference to two competing “rules of the game.” The first set of rules comes from government, while the second comes from science advice principles. These rules collide, such as when governments require secrecy and nonconfrontation and scientists expect transparency and independent criticism. Therefore, experts face dilemmas regarding which rules to favor: some accept the limits to their behavior to ensure insider access; others are free to criticize the policies that they struggle to influence.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"54 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The worldwide explosion of social welfare has been described as the “quiet revolution” of our time. This paper analyses the expansion of social welfare in India during the early part of the 2000s. What explains this expansion of encompassing social welfare in India, following a history of disparate and fragmented social policies? The answer, I argue, lies in recognizing the importance of the “politics of the poor,” the ensemble of negotiations that encompass both electoral participation and contentious politics vis-à-vis the political institutions in India. The paper develops this argument by drawing together insights from discursive institutionalism, Indian politics, and the politics of welfare literature. Doing so enables me to examine the ways in which poor people’s political practices were interpreted by India’s parliamentarians to justify the legislation of India’s flagship social welfare program the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. I analyze the discourses communicated through 78 parliamentary debates in English and Hindi to enact the law. I blend this analysis with process tracing of electoral behavior of India’s poor and the Maoist insurrection that exploded in the country’s poorest districts at the turn of the century.
{"title":"How welfare wins: Discursive institutionalism, the politics of the poor, and the expansion of social welfare in India during the early 21st century","authors":"I. Roy","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The worldwide explosion of social welfare has been described as the “quiet revolution” of our time. This paper analyses the expansion of social welfare in India during the early part of the 2000s. What explains this expansion of encompassing social welfare in India, following a history of disparate and fragmented social policies? The answer, I argue, lies in recognizing the importance of the “politics of the poor,” the ensemble of negotiations that encompass both electoral participation and contentious politics vis-à-vis the political institutions in India. The paper develops this argument by drawing together insights from discursive institutionalism, Indian politics, and the politics of welfare literature. Doing so enables me to examine the ways in which poor people’s political practices were interpreted by India’s parliamentarians to justify the legislation of India’s flagship social welfare program the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. I analyze the discourses communicated through 78 parliamentary debates in English and Hindi to enact the law. I blend this analysis with process tracing of electoral behavior of India’s poor and the Maoist insurrection that exploded in the country’s poorest districts at the turn of the century.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82673148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The 2021 American Rescue Plan included the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC)—the largest individual income tax credit program in the United States—for most families with children. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, how did the public perceive this social policy benefit for families, especially in relation to other traditional social programs? By focusing on the CTC, an understudied policy area, and presenting original survey data, this paper first shows that, while the majority of respondents favored the CTC, levels of support for these benefits were lower than support for other social programs. Second, the paper suggests that, compared to older people and people with disabilities, Americans view families as part of the “undeserving” population. Third, by presenting panel data, we show that there is no change in levels of CTC support even among recipients of these benefits. Overall, these findings shed light on important challenges to the development and implementation of family policy in the USA, as well as the possibility of recalibrating the US liberal welfare state.
{"title":"Assessing public support for social policy in times of crisis: evidence from the Child Tax Credit during the COVID-19 era in the United States","authors":"Mariely López-Santana, Lucas Núñez, Daniel Béland","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad009","url":null,"abstract":"The 2021 American Rescue Plan included the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC)—the largest individual income tax credit program in the United States—for most families with children. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, how did the public perceive this social policy benefit for families, especially in relation to other traditional social programs? By focusing on the CTC, an understudied policy area, and presenting original survey data, this paper first shows that, while the majority of respondents favored the CTC, levels of support for these benefits were lower than support for other social programs. Second, the paper suggests that, compared to older people and people with disabilities, Americans view families as part of the “undeserving” population. Third, by presenting panel data, we show that there is no change in levels of CTC support even among recipients of these benefits. Overall, these findings shed light on important challenges to the development and implementation of family policy in the USA, as well as the possibility of recalibrating the US liberal welfare state.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper aims to add to the debate on the varieties of neoliberalism and the homogenizing effects of megaproject-based urban development. It examines the acculturation of the growth imperative as the master discourse that supports the development and implementation of two projects aimed at transforming the centers of Tampere, Finland, and Łódź, Poland. The selected cities shared similar traits as industrial centers in the past, but their current socioeconomic situation is entirely different. Tampere holds the title of “Finland’s most likeable city,” while rapidly depopulating Łódź was labeled the “Polish Detroit.” Nevertheless, both municipalities became attracted by the idea of boosting their development through implementing large-scale infrastructural investments to reshape their centers. Inspired by discursive institutionalism, which defines discourse as a set of policy ideas and values, and interactive policy communication and formulation processes, the paper reconstructs and compares the strategic visions of Tampere’s “Five Star City Centre” and “The New Centre of Łódź.” It demonstrates how the proponents of the projects discursively forced consent around proposed ideas. Namely, it shows how the issues of complexity, risk, and potential conflict of the two megaprojects have been addressed. On a conceptual level, the paper shows how policy convergence can be discursively facilitated in different socioeconomic, cultural, and political circumstances.
{"title":"Discourses of growth in megaproject-based urban development: a comparative study of Poland and Finland","authors":"Magdalena Rek-Woźniak","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The paper aims to add to the debate on the varieties of neoliberalism and the homogenizing effects of megaproject-based urban development. It examines the acculturation of the growth imperative as the master discourse that supports the development and implementation of two projects aimed at transforming the centers of Tampere, Finland, and Łódź, Poland. The selected cities shared similar traits as industrial centers in the past, but their current socioeconomic situation is entirely different. Tampere holds the title of “Finland’s most likeable city,” while rapidly depopulating Łódź was labeled the “Polish Detroit.” Nevertheless, both municipalities became attracted by the idea of boosting their development through implementing large-scale infrastructural investments to reshape their centers. Inspired by discursive institutionalism, which defines discourse as a set of policy ideas and values, and interactive policy communication and formulation processes, the paper reconstructs and compares the strategic visions of Tampere’s “Five Star City Centre” and “The New Centre of Łódź.” It demonstrates how the proponents of the projects discursively forced consent around proposed ideas. Namely, it shows how the issues of complexity, risk, and potential conflict of the two megaprojects have been addressed. On a conceptual level, the paper shows how policy convergence can be discursively facilitated in different socioeconomic, cultural, and political circumstances.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91020569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the recent debate on megaprojects (MPs), greater attention is devoted to the functioning of the interorganizational and multiactor networks that are one of the most innovative features in recent years. The complexity of these structures brings out governability issues for an MP’s management. Mutual recognition and consent become elements capable of inaugurating more collaborative processes and practices to reduce organizational and management criticalities in MPs. This paper focuses on a neglected relational dimension, namely legitimacy. We argue that legitimacy is instead the central dimension that attributes effectiveness and capacity for action to the organizations involved. Legitimacy regulates the relationship between various organizations—and especially—between organizations and the public sphere. Institutionalist theory assigns a central role to legitimacy in the construction of social processes, defining it as a generalized form of social acceptance toward an actor, an idea, or a project. In this paper, we hypothesize that the legitimacy attributed and “held” by the stakeholders is a crucial element in countering three critical aspects of MPs, namely the uncertainty, complexity, and conflict acting on the construction of public consensus and the quality of relationships between the participating stakeholders. We verify our hypothesis by analyzing a cross-border MP, the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link between Germany and Denmark. The paper concentrates on the mechanisms with which stakeholders can acquire legitimacy using the Eriksen discursive legitimation scheme. These mechanisms are different (evidence-based, public participation, and legislators’ command) and produce different outcomes in terms of increasing or containing these three criticalities.
{"title":"Bridging the “consent gap”: mechanisms of legitimization in a cross-border megaproject","authors":"Silvia Lucciarini, Rossana Galdini","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad007","url":null,"abstract":"In the recent debate on megaprojects (MPs), greater attention is devoted to the functioning of the interorganizational and multiactor networks that are one of the most innovative features in recent years. The complexity of these structures brings out governability issues for an MP’s management. Mutual recognition and consent become elements capable of inaugurating more collaborative processes and practices to reduce organizational and management criticalities in MPs. This paper focuses on a neglected relational dimension, namely legitimacy. We argue that legitimacy is instead the central dimension that attributes effectiveness and capacity for action to the organizations involved. Legitimacy regulates the relationship between various organizations—and especially—between organizations and the public sphere. Institutionalist theory assigns a central role to legitimacy in the construction of social processes, defining it as a generalized form of social acceptance toward an actor, an idea, or a project. In this paper, we hypothesize that the legitimacy attributed and “held” by the stakeholders is a crucial element in countering three critical aspects of MPs, namely the uncertainty, complexity, and conflict acting on the construction of public consensus and the quality of relationships between the participating stakeholders. We verify our hypothesis by analyzing a cross-border MP, the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link between Germany and Denmark. The paper concentrates on the mechanisms with which stakeholders can acquire legitimacy using the Eriksen discursive legitimation scheme. These mechanisms are different (evidence-based, public participation, and legislators’ command) and produce different outcomes in terms of increasing or containing these three criticalities.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"59 13","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The mobilization of narratives is essential in integrating people and constructing identities that help in navigating complexity, uncertainty, and conflictuality. This paper explores how comparisons are used as a discursive tool to shape narratives and bring about changes in policy and society, using the High Speed Two megaproject in the UK as a case study. We examine the comparisons that promoters and protesters employ in an organizational setting. In particular, we explore how the narratives that result from these comparisons—on questions including the need for the megaproject, the benefits of the megaproject, alternatives to the megaproject, and issues of noise, sustainability, compensation, and branding—help their efforts to organize. The research highlights how comparisons serve as an important cue in discourse and how different forms of comparison can help to create narratives and shape policy outcomes.
{"title":"Comparisons as a discursive tool: shaping megaproject narratives in the United Kingdom","authors":"N. Sergeeva, Johan Ninan","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The mobilization of narratives is essential in integrating people and constructing identities that help in navigating complexity, uncertainty, and conflictuality. This paper explores how comparisons are used as a discursive tool to shape narratives and bring about changes in policy and society, using the High Speed Two megaproject in the UK as a case study. We examine the comparisons that promoters and protesters employ in an organizational setting. In particular, we explore how the narratives that result from these comparisons—on questions including the need for the megaproject, the benefits of the megaproject, alternatives to the megaproject, and issues of noise, sustainability, compensation, and branding—help their efforts to organize. The research highlights how comparisons serve as an important cue in discourse and how different forms of comparison can help to create narratives and shape policy outcomes.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75125453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Project management theory often reduces development to a simplistic and smooth process of consultation leading to a consensual set of requirements. However, in large public infrastructure projects, this is rarely the case as development is often subject to major power struggles. This article shows that public policy theory has an excellent potential to shed a fresh light on project development. An integrated model combining the theoretical insights from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and project development studies is presented and illustrated using the case of a major Canadian city streetcar network megaproject. The implications of the model for understanding “wicked problems” are discussed.
{"title":"The development of large public infrastructure projects: integrating policy and project studies models","authors":"Pierre-André Hudon, Serghei Floricel","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad004","url":null,"abstract":"Project management theory often reduces development to a simplistic and smooth process of consultation leading to a consensual set of requirements. However, in large public infrastructure projects, this is rarely the case as development is often subject to major power struggles. This article shows that public policy theory has an excellent potential to shed a fresh light on project development. An integrated model combining the theoretical insights from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and project development studies is presented and illustrated using the case of a major Canadian city streetcar network megaproject. The implications of the model for understanding “wicked problems” are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"58 41","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since megaprojects are costly, impactful, and often contentious policymaking processes, scholars have started to look at policy narratives as instruments that actors use strategically to justify their preferences and achieve their goals. But is this really the case? Do actors always adopt a narrative to support their goals? Do they develop arguments that are consistent with their official goals and in a timely manner? This paper suggests that, when megaprojects are not salient, narratives are likely to be strategically nonused or used in a hypocritical way, as such strategies better fit the process-related goals of significant actors. Such a claim is illustrated by a case study on the construction of a new high-speed railway line and station in the city of Florence (Italy). Relying on content and discourse analysis of official documents, and experts’ interviews, the paper shows that, despite favorable premises for the emergence of a battle of narratives, this never took place, as some of the proponents choose to nonuse a strategic narrative, while others occasionally publicly used arguments to jeopardize the whole project. In turn, opponents effectively developed a strategic narrative that, differently from other similar cases, mostly relied on technical arguments and emplotment. Hence, the case study generates hypotheses that could be tested in further studies on the conditions under which a coalitional dynamic emerges and the role played by policy narratives in the process.
{"title":"Nonuse and hypocritical use of strategic narratives in Megaprojects: The case of the Florence high-speed railway","authors":"Fabrizio Coticchia, Marco Di Giulio","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad006","url":null,"abstract":"Since megaprojects are costly, impactful, and often contentious policymaking processes, scholars have started to look at policy narratives as instruments that actors use strategically to justify their preferences and achieve their goals. But is this really the case? Do actors always adopt a narrative to support their goals? Do they develop arguments that are consistent with their official goals and in a timely manner? This paper suggests that, when megaprojects are not salient, narratives are likely to be strategically nonused or used in a hypocritical way, as such strategies better fit the process-related goals of significant actors. Such a claim is illustrated by a case study on the construction of a new high-speed railway line and station in the city of Florence (Italy). Relying on content and discourse analysis of official documents, and experts’ interviews, the paper shows that, despite favorable premises for the emergence of a battle of narratives, this never took place, as some of the proponents choose to nonuse a strategic narrative, while others occasionally publicly used arguments to jeopardize the whole project. In turn, opponents effectively developed a strategic narrative that, differently from other similar cases, mostly relied on technical arguments and emplotment. Hence, the case study generates hypotheses that could be tested in further studies on the conditions under which a coalitional dynamic emerges and the role played by policy narratives in the process.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Megaprojects are now as important as ever. As a response to the pandemic, the European Union has put forward the Next Generation EU policy, making available a 2021–2027 long-term budget of €1.8 trillion to fund projects with ecological and digital applications in the field of telecommunication, transportation, and energy infrastructures. Similarly, in the United States a $1.9 trillion Covid relief plan is on the way. Also, China has planned to expedite the rollout of 102 infrastructure megaprojects earmarked for the 2021–25 development plan. Despite their importance to policy-makers, megaprojects are often met with criticism and opposition by citizens, and often go off the rails—either with regard to budget or time, or both. This introductory article presents the aim and scope of the themed issue. It positions the problem areas beyond technical issues and connects them to the social and institutional environment within which megaprojects are planned and implemented. Moreover, the article makes the case for conceptualizing megaprojects as wicked policy fields. In doing so, we specify the three defining elements of megaprojects, namely, complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. The article argues that megaproject development cannot be seen as a rational, straightforward process. It is often a non-linear, conflictual process shaped by the collective action of different stakeholder groups (e.g., project managers, policy-makers, and citizens). Driven by divergent interests, sociotechnical imaginaries, as well as behavioral and discursive logics, groups of actors construct and mobilize narratives to influence final decision-making while interacting with the institutional context.
{"title":"Governing wickedness in megaprojects: discursive and institutional perspectives","authors":"Giovanni Esposito, Andrea Terlizzi","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Megaprojects are now as important as ever. As a response to the pandemic, the European Union has put forward the Next Generation EU policy, making available a 2021–2027 long-term budget of €1.8 trillion to fund projects with ecological and digital applications in the field of telecommunication, transportation, and energy infrastructures. Similarly, in the United States a $1.9 trillion Covid relief plan is on the way. Also, China has planned to expedite the rollout of 102 infrastructure megaprojects earmarked for the 2021–25 development plan. Despite their importance to policy-makers, megaprojects are often met with criticism and opposition by citizens, and often go off the rails—either with regard to budget or time, or both. This introductory article presents the aim and scope of the themed issue. It positions the problem areas beyond technical issues and connects them to the social and institutional environment within which megaprojects are planned and implemented. Moreover, the article makes the case for conceptualizing megaprojects as wicked policy fields. In doing so, we specify the three defining elements of megaprojects, namely, complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. The article argues that megaproject development cannot be seen as a rational, straightforward process. It is often a non-linear, conflictual process shaped by the collective action of different stakeholder groups (e.g., project managers, policy-makers, and citizens). Driven by divergent interests, sociotechnical imaginaries, as well as behavioral and discursive logics, groups of actors construct and mobilize narratives to influence final decision-making while interacting with the institutional context.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81408014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper explores the politics of scale associated with the top-down planning of large hydraulic infrastructures in the Tigris–Euphrates basin. Against the backdrop of a worsening water crisis and the lack of cooperation between riparian countries, dams and reservoirs across the transboundary river system are sites of contestation between competing claims over dwindling and disputed resources. Drawing on post-structuralist insights from human geography on the politics of scale and the literature on megaprojects, it is argued here that hydraulic infrastructures are materially and discursively implicated in the construction of waterscapes at different scales to sustain broader political imaginaries. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and with a focus on the autonomous Region of Kurdistan in Iraq, the analysis juxtaposes the narratives deployed by state- and non-state actors to support or counter the development of additional dams. While, on the one hand, the Kurdistan Regional Government portrays hydraulic infrastructures as a vital source of security and well-being within the overarching nationalist narrative of Kurdish self-determination, on the other hand, transnational civil society groups under the umbrella of the Save the Tigris and Iraqi Marshes Campaign have mobilized against the adverse impact of megaprojects and appealed to the common Mesopotamian heritage in order to de-escalate political tensions within the transboundary river basin. In both cases, hydraulic infrastructures provide a framework for political action to secure recognition of rights and assert the appropriate scale of governance. Furthermore, bottom-up resistance is accompanied by the promotion of a participatory and inclusive approach to shared waters. From this perspective, the spatial politics of megaprojects intersect with issues of identity, equity, and sustainability.
{"title":"“Scales of justice. Large dams and water rights in the Tigris–Euphrates basin”","authors":"Alessandro Tinti","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The paper explores the politics of scale associated with the top-down planning of large hydraulic infrastructures in the Tigris–Euphrates basin. Against the backdrop of a worsening water crisis and the lack of cooperation between riparian countries, dams and reservoirs across the transboundary river system are sites of contestation between competing claims over dwindling and disputed resources. Drawing on post-structuralist insights from human geography on the politics of scale and the literature on megaprojects, it is argued here that hydraulic infrastructures are materially and discursively implicated in the construction of waterscapes at different scales to sustain broader political imaginaries. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and with a focus on the autonomous Region of Kurdistan in Iraq, the analysis juxtaposes the narratives deployed by state- and non-state actors to support or counter the development of additional dams. While, on the one hand, the Kurdistan Regional Government portrays hydraulic infrastructures as a vital source of security and well-being within the overarching nationalist narrative of Kurdish self-determination, on the other hand, transnational civil society groups under the umbrella of the Save the Tigris and Iraqi Marshes Campaign have mobilized against the adverse impact of megaprojects and appealed to the common Mesopotamian heritage in order to de-escalate political tensions within the transboundary river basin. In both cases, hydraulic infrastructures provide a framework for political action to secure recognition of rights and assert the appropriate scale of governance. Furthermore, bottom-up resistance is accompanied by the promotion of a participatory and inclusive approach to shared waters. From this perspective, the spatial politics of megaprojects intersect with issues of identity, equity, and sustainability.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86807881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：