Theoretical analysis demonstrates interactions between power and institutional dynamics across transboundary river basins, highlighting a middle ground between realism and institutionalism.
This article discusses power and institutional theory with a (neo-) realist and institutionalist lenses regarding water governance. The main question is: how do power and institutions interact in the regulation of transboundary waters across many geographic scales? The sub-questions provide insights into the differing roles of realist and institutionalist perspectives in international relations (IR) and transboundary water governance, as well as the combined effects of power and institutions. This article discusses key approaches in IR (realism, neo-realism, institutionalism and neo-institutionalism). It then discusses concepts of hydro-hegemony, water governance and institutions. Lastly, institutions and power are demonstrated using a mixed methodology. By moulding relevant features of both perspectives into a middle ground, followed by a conclusion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hayat et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: