Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social entrepreneurs as change agents: a case study on power and authority in the water sector

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In view of urgent social and environmental problems, it is important to understand the political dynamics that may promote sustainable development and to identify the agents that make changes in this direction happen. We examine the role and authority of a new type of actor that has recently emerged on the global stage—the social entrepreneur, who tackles social and ecological problems with entrepreneurial means. We consider them as agents that perform functions and provide services that have been considered to be the sole authority of states. For instance, the provision of water services has long been considered an exclusive task of the state. The water sector therefore serves as a good example to explore how these agents come up with their own missions and political agendas. Via an illustrative sample of social entrepreneurs from around the world, we explore their relation to water governance in general and the hydraulic mission in particular. We propose that their innovative potential serves as their main source of authority. Their local embeddedness along with their educational efforts, participatory goals, and accreditation as “social entrepreneur” provide additional sources of authority.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These are the fellows who describe their work as falling under “water management” (last accessed November 3, 2009). We have added three fellows (Bozek, Simao, and Sinkamba), who also belong to the water management category and whose non-inclusion is in our view simply an artifact of Ashoka’s classification system. As each of them falls into a different mission, these additions do not affect the distribution of fellows. Besides these profiles, we conducted further empirical research on Kravcik, including interviews and field trips.

  2. This information is available from the homepages of the respective foundations.

  3. See http://www.ashoka.org/social_entrepreneur, last accessed on October 15, 2009.

  4. See http://www.ashoka.org/support/criteria, last accessed on October 15, 2009.

  5. For comparison, see the definition of the Schwab Foundation (http://www.schwabfound.org/sf/SocialEntrepreneurs/Whatisasocialentrepreneur/index.htm, last accessed 28.10.2009). The Foundation states “innovation” as its first criterion when selecting fellows (followed by “sustainability,” “reach,” and “social impact”). For the Skoll Foundation, see http://www.skollfoundation.org/aboutsocialentrepreneurship/whatis.asp, last accessed 28.10.2009). Here too “innovation” is prominent from the first sentence: “Entrepreneurs are essential drivers of innovation and progress.”

  6. For a list of definitions, see Mair et al. (2006, 4f) for a discussion of the different uses of definitions of social entrepreneurship as a contested concept see Ziegler (2009).

  7. Allan (2005) uses a forth category of a fatalist civil society which he distinguishes from civil movements/NGOs (www.org, here “civil society”).

  8. See Meyer and Sanklecha (2009) for an overview of different perspectives on legitimacy in relation to normative conceptions.

  9. That innovation and the possibility to shape the perceptions of problems and potential solutions to them are sources of authority for agents is also emphasized by other contributions to this special issue.

  10. Ashoka slogan, see http://www.ashoka.org last accessed February 15, 2010.

  11. There is a tension, however, between this source of authority and the demand to scale up, replicate, and grow new ideas, which necessarily puts the idea into new contexts (Yunus 2006, Part 4).

  12. For a related account, see Allan 2005. Allan draws on the theory of modernity and the distinction of certainty and uncertainty for his proposal of stages of water governance.

  13. Wester (2009) argues that large-scale dams and irrigation systems were built to further exploit water, even though it was clear that the ecological limits of the basin had already been reached. Harmful ecological and social consequences must therefore not be considered as unforeseen side effects of the hydraulic mission, but as direct consequences of it.

  14. Three fellows could not be classified according to these missions (Karen Grover, Haider El Ali and K.A.V.R. Krishnamachari).

  15. The slogan could of course also be given an ecological meaning in the sense that water also counts for ecosystems independently of concerns with irrigation and hydropower (see the work of Kravcik et al. 2008).

  16. King Parakramabahu of Great Sri Lanka is commonly attributed a version of this claim.

  17. Interviews with People and Water staff were conducted 26–29 July 2010.

  18. Interview with Lubica Dzuganova, July 23, 2010.

  19. Notably, this transitional authority also creates a political gray zone. For example, the pilot projects mentioned above were built without permission and the organization was fined. Thus, we can argue that Kravcik is a social rather than a policy entrepreneur as he aims for social change (i.e. change in water management on the ground) in the first and change in water policy in the second place.

Abbreviations

IUCN:

International conservation union

IWRM:

Integrated water resources management

NGO:

Non-governmental organization

SE:

Social entrepreneurship

UNESCO:

United nations educational, scientific and cultural organization

References

  • Allan, J. A. (2005). Water in the environment/socio-economic development discourse: Sustainability, changing management paradigms and policy responses in a global system. Government and Opposition, 181–199.

  • Alvord, S. H., Brown, P. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation. An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 260–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashoka (2006). Measuring effectiveness. A six year summary of methodology and findings. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from http://www.ashoka.org/files/ME_Impact06.pdf.

  • Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 326–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H., Siebenhüner, B., (2009) with contributions from Conca, K., da Costa Ferreira, L., Desai, B., Tay, S. & Zondervan, R. (2009). Earth system governance: people, places and the planet. Science and implementation plan of the earth system governance project. Earth System Governance Report 1, IHDP Report 20. Bonn: IHDP.

  • Blackbourn, D. (2006). The conquest of nature. Water, landscape and the making of modern Germany. London: W. W. Norton & Company.

  • Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world. Social entrepreneurs and the power of new Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, A. H. (2006). Politics, values and social entrepreneurship: A critical appraisal. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 35–56). London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conca, K. (2006). Governing water. Contentious transnational politics and global institution-building. Cambridge, London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Working Paper, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2009). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Paper presented at the Second EMES International Conference on Social Enterprise, University of Trento, Italy, 1–4 July 2009.

  • Dingwerth, K. (2005). The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the World Commission on Dams? Global Governance, 11, 65–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, H.‐D., & Benedikter, S. (2009). Hydraulic bureaucracy in a modern hydraulic society—Strategic group formation in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Water Alternatives, 3, 416–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52, 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D. (2005). Understanding business power in global governance. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenier, P. (2009). Social entrepreneurship in the UK: From rhetoric to reality? In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 174–206). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. (2006). The NYC Watershed agreement: Sustainable development and social entrepreneurship. In F. Perrini (Ed.), The new social entrepreneurship. What awaits social entrepreneurial ventures? (pp. 260–271). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (2009). Water policy entrepreneurs. A research companion to water transitions around the globe. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, H. (2001). Die Privatisierung der Weltpolitik. Tendenzen, Spielräume und Alternativen. In T. Brühl et al. (Eds.) Die Privatisierung der Weltpolitik. Entstaatlichung und Kommerzialisierung im Globalisierungsprozess (pp. 22–56). Bonn: Dietz.

  • Jacobs, M. (1999). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity (pp. 21–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Khagram, S. (2004). Beyond temples and tombs. Towards effective governance for sustainable development through the World Commission on Dams. Case study for the UN Vision Project on Global Public Policy Networks. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from www.gppi.net/fileadmin/gppi/Khagram_WCD.pdf.

  • Kingdon, J. (2003). Agenda, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korn, J. (2009). Taking responsibility: Breaking away from hate and violence. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 33–52). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravcik, M. (2009). Return the lost water back to the continents. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 21–32). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravcik, M., Pokorny, J., Kohutiar, J., Kovac, M., & Tóth, E. (2008). Water for the recovery of the climate. Kosice: A New Paradigm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder, S. H., & Vaillancourt Rosenau, P. (2002). Mapping the terrain of the public-private partnership. In P. Vaillancourt Rosenau (Ed.), Public-private policy partnerships (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., Robinson, J., & Hockerts, K. (Eds.). (2006). Social entrepreneurship. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, L. H., & Sanklecha, P. (2009). Legitimacy, justice, and public international law. Three perspectives on the debate. In L. H. Meyer (Ed.), Essays on legitimacy, justice and public international law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mintron, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 738–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molle, F., Mollinga, P. P., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2008). Water, politics and development: Introducing water alternatives. Water Alternatives, 1, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship. New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, K., & Döring, R. (2004). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit (2nd ed.). Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partzsch, L. (2007). Global Governance in Partnerschaft. Die EU-initiative water for life. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partzsch, L., & Ziegler, R. (2009). The political biography of water and the people’s biography. A case study of social entrepreneurship in the water sector. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F. (Ed.). (2006). The new social entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postel, S. (2006). Safeguarding freshwater ecosystems. In Worldwatch. Institute (Ed.), State of the World 2006: Special focus: China and India (pp. 41–76). New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisner, M. (1986). Cadillac desert. The American west and its disappearing water. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J., Mair, J., & Hockerts, K. (Eds.). (2009). International perspectives on social entrepreneurship. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Schmitter, P. C. (2001). What is there to legitimize the European Union …and how might this be accomplished. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from www.iue.it/SPS/People/Faculty/CurrentProfessors/PDFFiles/SchmitterPDFfiles/LegitimizeEU.pdf.

  • Schumpeter, J. (1934/1997). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. 9th edn. Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt.

  • Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state. How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M., MacLean, S. J., & Nzomo, M. (2000). Going beyond states and markets to civil societies. In T. C. Lawton, J. N. Rosenau, & A. C. Verdun (Eds.), Strange power. Shaping the parameters of international relations and international political economy (pp. 391–406). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, R. (2009). Schumpeter’s full model of entrepreneurship: Economic, non-economic and social entrepreneurship. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 77–106). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw, E. (1999). Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89, 443–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turton, A. (2001). The Construction of knowledge and implications for the climate change debate: A Perspective from the developing South. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from www.isodarco.it/courses/candriai01/paper/candriai01turton.html.

  • UN (2010). Millennium development goals: 2010 progress chart. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2010/MDG_Report_2010_Progress_Chart_En.pdf.

  • UNESCO (2009). Water in a changing world. The UN World Water Development Report 3, World Water Assessment Programme. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/pdf/WWDR3_Water_in_a_Changing_World.pdf.

  • Wester, P. (2009). Capturing the waters: The hydraulic mission in the Lerma–Chapala Basin, Mexico (1876–1976). Water History, 1, 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte, M., & Reinicke, W. (2005). Business as unusual. Facilitating United Nations reform through partnerships. New York: United Nations Global Compact Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, K. D. (2002). Contextualizing normative standards for legitimate governance beyond the state. In R. J. Grote & B. Gbiki (Eds.), Participatory governance. Political and societal implications (pp. 35–48), Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

  • Young, R. (2006). For what it is worth: Social value and the future of social entrepreneurship. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp. 56–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, M. (2006). Für eine Welt ohne Armut (H. Mennicken, Trans.). Bergisch Gladbach: Bastei Lübbe.

  • Ziegler, R. (2009). Introduction: Voices, preconditions, contexts. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 1–18). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, R. (2010). Innovations in doing and being–capability innovations at the intersection of Schumpeterian political economy and human development. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GETIDOS, Universität Greifswald, Soldmannstr. 23, 17487, Greifswald, Germany

    Lena Partzsch & Rafael Ziegler

Authors
  1. Lena Partzsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rafael Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lena Partzsch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Partzsch, L., Ziegler, R. Social entrepreneurs as change agents: a case study on power and authority in the water sector. Int Environ Agreements 11, 63–83 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-011-9150-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-011-9150-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation