Bridging the Theoretical Gap: Beyond the Borders of Discourse

The theoretical significance of this investigation stems from the need for more nuanced theorisation in transboundary water governance analyses, including more water literature explicitly conceptualised in non-Realist or critical theory approaches of IR. Since Du Plessis made this claim in 2000, little progress has been made that goes beyond Realist theoretical frameworks or implicit adoptions of this, with few exceptions (Furlong, 2006, 2008). Even Warner and Zeitoun (responding to Furlong’s 2008 article), who provide a compelling argument of the significance of IR frameworks to understanding transboundary water issues, concede that “…the number of serious studies applying IR frameworks to transboundary water issues remains limited” (Warner and Zeitoun, 2008: 803).

Allan refers to the evolution of almost identical concepts in different academic disciplines, all of which are relevant to hydropolitics, but none of which have been integrated or harmonised in any useful way (Allan, 2001: 191-192). Scholars of hydropolitics have, however, used the two rival theoretical traditions i.e. the dominant school of rationalism vs. the marginal school of reflectivism to argue for or against the existence of water conflict (Du Plessis, 2000: 11-22; Meissner, 2000; 2004; Turton, 2000a), albeit concealed under policy analysis and issues of security. Moreover, the hydropolitical discourse has been reactionary and has therefore, developed in parallel lineage with the great debates of International Relations (IR) (Du Plessis, 2000: 16).

Contemporary hydropolitical discourse is predominantly situated within the mainstream (and particularly Realist), rationalism of IR theory, in as Du Plessis cites, a “subliminal” and “axiomatic” fashion (ibid: 10). Since these theories demarcate the discursive parameters, many scholars, writing from a mainstream perspective, have thereby subconsciously defined what can and cannot be talked about in hydropolitical discourse (ibid: 24-25). Thus, a discursive elite and hegemonic theories or perspectives are produced (Du Plessis, 2000; Meissner, 2004: 24). Other hydropolitical analysts have referred to this phenomenon as ‘sanctioned discourse,’ that is, hegemonic discourse which delegitimises other types of discourse (Allan, 2001: 182). This implicit theorisation as Furlong describes it, in turn, has influenced the subject matter that is researched e.g. a state-centric approach

with, as Meissner elaborates, a focus on agential-power with little priority given to the role of non-state actors and transnational/regional initiatives as well as the significant role that norms play in determining state behaviours and thus transforming political landscapes (Furlong, 2006, 2008; Meissner, 2004). Similarly, Agnew (1994: 53-80), refers to this prioritisation of the state or state as actor model, as the ‘territorial trap,’ based on three theoretical pillars: the reification of sovereignty as complete state control over a fixed unit of territorial space; the severing of domestic and foreign politics; and the state as prior to and a container of society.

Warner and Zeitoun, in response to these claims (as put forth by Furlong’s [re]- assertion of the implicit theorisation problematique and the unfortunate situation in which hydro-IR finds itself - stuck in the territoriality trap) argue that despite the fact that there are relatively few studies that use critical perspectives, a notable body of critical and Constructivist scholarship has been overlooked in her analysis (Warner and Zeitoun, 2008: 803). Warner and Zeitoun cite several examples including discussions by critical water academics at Bradford University, such as Berkoff (2003) on imputed ‘water consensus,’ and the development of a ‘Framework of Hydro-hegemony’ by Zeitoun and Warner at the loosely constituted London Water Research Group that applies critical and Realist IR theory to hydropolitics by unravelling the layered nature of hegemonic struggles.

Warner and Zeitoun, do however, agree that Furlong’s criticism of hydro-IR being stuck in a ‘territoriality trap’ has justification when referring to the analysis of regional hydrosecurity complexes, such as the HPC, which tend to over-emphasise the role of the state, and focus on sovereignty as complete control of a state over territory (Warner and Zeitoun, 2008: 805). This investigation uses this assertion as a primary theoretical basis, and questions the degree to which the HPC is useful in addressing regional water security issues and multi-level normative frameworks in water governance within or beyond the state level.

The type of Constructivism employed in this study belongs to the modernist grouping where scholars combine an ontological position critical of methodological individualism with a loosely causal epistemology (Checkel, 2001: 554). Analytically, they prioritise the role of norms in social life, demonstrating that norms matter in a constitutive, interest-shaping way.

It is important to emphasise, however, that while this study will use Constructivism as its broad theoretical umbrella, an attempt is made to root it in research on social construction processes and norm influences in transboundary governance in Africa. As such, components of mid-level theories will also be used. Two key points are noteworthy here to justify this multi-theoretical approach. Firstly, macro-level theorising has provided good explanations of the way norms produce social order and facilitate stability (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998: 894). According to Katzenstein (1996: 3), norms channel and regularise behaviour by limiting the range of choice. Similarly, as Wendt (1995) argues, international structure is determined by the international distribution of ideas since shared ideas, expectations and beliefs about appropriate behaviour are what give the world structure, order and stability. The problem for Constructivists, however, is much the same as other theoretical frameworks in IR, that is, the macrotheoretical equipment of Constructivism is better at explaining stability than change (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998: 888). According to Finnemore and Sikkink, claims that actors conform to “logics of appropriateness” do not say much about how standards of appropriateness might change. This static approach to international politics becomes problematic particularly due to the era of global transformation in which we find ourselves today (ibid.). Moreover, since norms are not static and rigid entities but rather dynamic social phenomena, the global norm set of transboundary co-operation has also seen great change and flexibility over time. As a result, its impact has varied.

Additionally, the extensive body of research on norms shows a close relationship between norms and rationality, however, theoretical treatment of this relationship has been vague because scholars (up until the revolutionary research conducted by Finnemore and Sikkink) tended to polarise the two. Finnemore and Sikkink argue that the opposition of norms and rationality is not useful in explaining many of the most politically salient processes evident in empirical research i.e. strategic social construction, in which actors strategise rationally to reconfigure preferences, identities or social contexts. This is particularly relevant in norm emergence affecting regional water resource management and state behaviour, when international interest groups i.e. environmental NGO’s, driven by an environmental-conservationist bias impose international environmental norms upon regimes, involving costs that are incurred by one set of (relatively poor) national actors,

while the rules are set – and the benefits enjoyed – by other (often, relatively rich) extra- national groups. “Rationality cannot be separated from any politically significant episode of normative influence or normative change, just as the normative context conditions any episode of rational choice” (ibid, 1998: 888). Norms and rationality are therefore inextricably interconnected and it is with this view in mind that this study critically engages with Neo-Realist theories i.e. Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT), and the HPC, in an attempt to situate Constructivist threads. These theories will later be described in greater detail in the theoretical framework and where relevant, several of their components will be adapted to this study when plotting the normative framework of case studies. However, it is also illustrated that these Neo-Realist perspectives are limited in their ability to provide an integrated understanding of normative frameworks due to their focus on state-centric notions of sovereignty with less emphasis placed on the increasingly important role of non- state actors within and beyond the state and the influence they have on state policy, normative frameworks and therefore, behaviour.