Why Invisible Power and Structural Violence Persist in the Water Domain

Mehta, Lyla

doi:10.19088/1968-2016.165

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also negatively affect the social inclusiveness of the communicative planning process (Howard and Vajda, 2016). It is enabled by cultural values (Chouinard and Milley, 2016; Pickering-Saqqa, 2019) and internalized in social norms, relationships (Gaventa and Martorano, 2016; Pettit and Mejía Acosta, 2014), patriarchy (Pettit, 2016: 95), and structural violence (Mehta, 2016). Even though living standards have improved significantly, the power dynamics leading to poverty and inequality still prevail (Rowlands, 2016: 129) by invisible power mechanisms that perpetuate injustice and increase inequality (Scott-Villiers and Oosterom, 2016) through regulatory failure (Chisholm et al, 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power dynamics in collaborative rural planning: The case of Pematang Tengah, Indonesia

Taufiq

Suhirman

Sofhani

et al. 2022

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Starting from the notion that collaborative rural planning focuses on policymaking through authentic dialogue, this article discusses the power dynamics that influence the planning process and product. It was motivated by the presumption that the understanding of collaborative policymaking is not adequate if it only concerns formal deliberation without considering other power dynamics. Booher and Innes’s model of network power in collaborative policymaking (DIAD–Diversity, Interdependence, Authentic Dialogue) and the power cube model of Gaventa were used to analyze the power mechanisms in the formal as well as in the informal arenas. They were applied to the process of village planning in Pematang Tengah, Indonesia, where the agrarian village community, deliberative bureaucrats, and other stakeholders are involved in formulating development rural planning projects. From the analysis a new model was derived, revealing three power mechanisms that are active in three different phases of the collaborative planning process: (I) Figuring out in openness, (II) Herding of public desire, and (III) Forcing of direction. The findings show that power mechanism (II) in the informal arena plays an important role by steering the course of policymaking in the formal arena (I). Power mechanism (III) is active when invisible actors illegitimately change the planning product that the formal deliberation has produced, acting out of self-interest. The analysis of power mechanisms that are active in the whole planning process can help planners in dealing with formal and informal power when developing appropriate planning strategies through a deliberative process.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power dynamics in collaborative rural planning: The case of Pematang Tengah, Indonesia

Taufiq

Suhirman

Sofhani

et al. 2022

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Irrigation bureaucracy and local kin and land-based powerful elite have an invisible power (Jacoby et al 2021;Mehta 2016) in which only patrons and clients benefited. Disrupting this structure is not part of the typical IMT/PIM reform package.…”

Section: Towards Hydro-solidarity and A Politicized Theory Of Change ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Civic Habitus and the Challenges of Depoliticized Participatory Irrigation Management Reforms: Insights from Pakistan

Arfan

Ward

Ali

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1980, the World Bank began to promote Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) reforms to overcome disparities in the distribution of public irrigation water for agricultural uses. Yet, in Pakistan as in other countries, PIM was unable to achieve its objectives of equitable resource distribution and financial sustainability. This paper examines how the neoliberal understanding of citizens’ participation/participatory development as demonstrated in PIM fails because its underlying theory of change overlooks power asymmetry issues, institutional politics, and farmers’ engagement processes. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative data collected through structured and semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation in Pakistan’s agrarian heartlands of Punjab and Sindh, we argue that traditional irrigation bureaucracy, donor agency technocrats, and depoliticized participatory development approach intentionally or unintentionally ignore the muted voices of small and landless peasants in the reform process. Under such circumstances, reform cannot generate hydro-solidarity, trust, and collective action from below. Moreover, the irrigation bureaucracy only mimics the institutions of participation under an externally assisted push because the PIM model was never adequately tested and implemented. We argue that without active farmers’ agency—small and landless peasants, these paper organizations cannot create multi-level accountability in irrigation management. We elucidate an important but under-theorized factor contributing to these failures: depoliticized irrigation management transfer processes that fail to redistribute social power. Donor articulations of the PIM “theory of change” do not make explicit that a shift in social power – not just management authority and responsibility – is necessary.

show abstract

“…Literature on socioeconomic and political inequalities elucidates the dynamics which shape how individuals and communities interact with and respond to the state, with implications for state legitimacy during crises (Galtung 1969 ; Lukes 2005 ; Gaventa 2006 ; Mehta 2016 ). Lukes ( 2005 ) explores how powerful actors secure willing compliance from those whom they dominate.…”

Section: Structural Violence and Invisible Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike personal violence -which is self-evident through actions in much the same way that the explicit exercise of Lukes' "first face of power" refers tostructural violence is pervasive and invisible (Galtung 1969). In her work on inequalities in access to water in Ethiopia, Mehta (2016) draws on work by Lukes (2005) and Gaventa (2006) to explore how power operates in a context of structural violence. Mehta argues that the "normalisation" of certain hegemonic arrangements around resource allocation is problematic because it reframes development challenges as technical issues that can be resolved through universalisable solutions, rather than "the specific outcome of particular forms of structure and power" in a given context.…”

Section: Structural Violence and Invisible Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID‐19, state (in)visibility and structural violence in low‐ and middle‐income countries

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The socioeconomic impact of COVID‐19 on adolescents and youth in lower‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) who have migrated for work, are among the urban poor, or have been forcibly displaced is not well understood. To address this knowledge gap, this article draws on in‐depth qualitative interviews undertaken between April and July 2020 with 249 adolescent girls and boys and 24 community key informants in Bangladesh and Ethiopia. These two countries have divergent social protection systems and thus provide a useful comparative lens to understand state provisioning for the most disadvantaged, including vulnerable young people, in crisis contexts. Despite rapid implementation of restrictions to halt viral spread, the mobilisation of social protection in response to the pandemic's socioeconomic effects has lagged. Using a lens of structural violence, findings underscore that socially marginalised young people are the most disadvantaged by state failures to deliver essential services or protection. There has also been insufficient support from humanitarian and development actors in responding to the challenges of the pandemic. The article concludes that identifying and addressing how structural inequalities shape access to and inclusion in social protection mechanisms can contribute to more effectively targeted measures to support the most disadvantaged, especially during crises.

show abstract

Why Invisible Power and Structural Violence Persist in the Water Domain

Cited by 14 publications

References 5 publications

Power dynamics in collaborative rural planning: The case of Pematang Tengah, Indonesia

Power dynamics in collaborative rural planning: The case of Pematang Tengah, Indonesia

Civic Habitus and the Challenges of Depoliticized Participatory Irrigation Management Reforms: Insights from Pakistan

COVID‐19, state (in)visibility and structural violence in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About