Transfer, Diffusion, Adaptation, and Translation of Water Policy Models

Abstract

Intensive cross-border movement of policy models is ubiquitous in the water sector. Examples include Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), Water User Associations (WUAs), and River Basin Organizations (RBOs), which have traveled around the world. However, despite the spread of global water policy models and their potential importance for sustainable development, scholars have struggled to develop adequate accounts of this process. To bridge this gap, we examine the extant analytical and methodological tools to study the movement of water policy models. We focus on the fit between a policy model and the context, the micro-politics of knowledge translation, and the inherent contingencies involved in water policy. Having recognized these obstacles, we offer some ways of conceptualizing the movement of water policy models. We illustrate each approach with vignettes from around the world.

Multi-level Governance: An Introduction

“…However, as the concept expands its ambit to include international and global arenas (see, for example, McNaughton and Lockie), or to look at the potential for policy transfer, translation and learning across jurisdictions and cultures (e.g. Evans and Davies 1999;Mukhtarov and Daniell 2017;Ross), there is likely to be an ongoing theoretical and practical question to investigate in future MLG studies on the interplay of global governance institutions and extant domestic policymaking processes in Australia. On top of issues of accountability, this could also include novel investigations of sovereignty, as suggested by Kerr.…”

Multi-level Governance: Conceptual challenges and case studies from Australia

“…However, as the concept expands its ambit to include international and global arenas (see, for example, McNaughton and Lockie), or to look at the potential for policy transfer, translation and learning across jurisdictions and cultures (e.g. Evans and Davies 1999;Mukhtarov and Daniell 2017;Ross), there is likely to be an ongoing theoretical and practical question to investigate in future MLG studies on the interplay of global governance institutions and extant domestic policymaking processes in Australia. On top of issues of accountability, this could also include novel investigations of sovereignty, as suggested by Kerr.…”

What Remains Unwritten? Developing a Critical Evaluation of Multi-level Governance and its Futures in Australian Public Policy and Politics

“…In particular, and as with the study of policy translation (Mukhtarov and Daniell 2017), MLG analysis could benefit from greater use of 'engaged' research approaches and associated methods. Specifically, methods where researchers are embedded close to, or participating in, the negotiating action will be vital to understanding MLG processes better.…”

“…For others to emulate such studies, however, it is important to discuss the kinds of research methods that were used with varying degrees of rigour in these studies, which could be applied to the study of similar MLG processes in the future. Although MLG has been conceptualised largely through the political science literature, its emphasis on actors and the processes of interaction and collective construction of policy between them across scales and levels means that it is well placed to profit from the use of actor-and process-focused research methods from not only the political sciences, but also disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, linguistics, psychology and the management sciences (see also Fawcett and Marsh).In particular, and as with the study of policy translation (Mukhtarov and Daniell 2017), MLG analysis could benefit from greater use of 'engaged' research approaches and associated methods. Specifically, methods where researchers are embedded close to, or participating in, the negotiating action will be vital to understanding MLG processes better.…”