Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contesting power, trust and legitimacy in the South African e-waste transition

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Socio-technical transition theory is increasingly being used in research and practice to explain and guide transitions toward sustainability. Although recognizing the coevolution of technology and society, multi-scalar influences, and complex social processes, transition theory has thus far inadequately accounted for the role of power and in shaping transitions. This study uses the example of the transition-in-progress toward more sustainable e-waste practices in South Africa as one illustration of how power shapes the successes, failures, and direction of transitions. I look specifically at three transition arenas that are competing for legitimacy to guide the South African e-waste transition and show how their history, membership, and rules of participation shape the different pathways promoted by these organizations. In the South African case, vested interests and constraints on participation resulted in the splintering of original transition arena. While socio-technical transition theory suggests the importance of different competing niche experiments, in this case, different pathways are being promoted by different coalitions of actors through different arenas. The presence of multiple arenas and pathways has divided resources, created confusion, and arguably delayed the transition. Further, the scope for participation in these organizations differs, and this has implications for the redistribution of power. I suggest the need to more carefully consider the role of power, trust, and legitimacy within socio-technical transition theory and specifically within the transition arena. Importantly, analyzing the transition arena as a site of contestation over the distribution of costs and benefits of the particular pathway will enhance socio-technical transition theory’s explanatory power regarding how and why particular outcomes emerge.

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. I maintain a distinction between the study of transition dynamics (particularly where socio-technical transition scholars have not intervened) and the work of socio-technical transitions scholars who have sought to guide transitions based on normative guidelines of transition management.

  2. While the term “government” typically is applied to a specific set of formal institutions, “governance” is a looser term, referring to diffuse applications of power throughout society “to determine ‘who gets what?’ and ‘who decides?’” (Reed and Brunyl 2010, p. 646).

  3. Henceforth, I shorten this to just the term “transitions.” While there is a broader body of literature on general transitions (cf Pickles and Smith 1998) in this paper, I limit my use of the term of the body of literature succinctly captured in Grin et al. (2010).

  4. The Basel Convention ban on e-waste exports from OECD to non-OECD countries and the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances are exceptions to this, for they regulate industry through legislated rules rather than creating market pressures.

  5. Although reportedly, Anderson is also has related business interests, suggesting some conflation between the regulator who allocates tenders and the individual businesses.

  6. The perspective provided here is strongly shaped by my engagements with HP.

  7. See Courtnary-Hall and Rogers 2002; Njeru 2006 for critiques of this approach.

  8. According to Janse van Rensburg (personal communication, 2010), “HP’s calculations excluded setup, research, and all unnecessary expenses that were incurred during the pilot startup, thus calculating the income versus running expenses only and taking into account growth in local market conditions with correct standards to secure and improve more formal hardware collections.”.

  9. Anderson (personal communication, 2011) justifies this by suggesting that audits are necessary to enhance the integrity of businesses and reiterated that the eWASA audit costs less that US $500, far less than an estimated $7,000 for an ISO 14001 audit. eWASA reportedly does not make money out of the audits.

References

  • Avelino, F., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory, 12, 543–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, I., & Wilson, G. A. (2009). Theorising transitional pathways in response to climate change: Technocentrism, ecocentrism and the carbon economy. Environment and Planning A, 41, 2324–2341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, C., & Pogge, T. W. (2005). Global institutions and responsibilities: Achieving global justice. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2007). Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1, 347–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, P. (1985). The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. London and New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, P. (2000). The elite transition: From apartheid to neoliberalism in South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosius, J. P., Tsing, A., & Zerner, C. (2005). Communities and conservation: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheru, F. (2001). Overcoming apartheid’s legacy: The ascendancy of neoliberalism in South Africa’s anti-poverty strategy. Third World Quarterly, 22, 505–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtnary-Hall, P., & Rogers, L. (2002). Gaps in mind: Problems in environmental knowledge-behaviour modelling research. Environmental Education Research, 8, 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A. (2008). The geographies of garbage governance: Interventions, interactions and outcomes. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, J., & Rotmans, R. (2011). Patterns in transitions: Understanding complex chains of change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(1), 90–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, M., & McInryre, C. (2009). The role of collective versus individual producer responsibility in e-waste management: Key learnings from around the world. In R. E. Hester & R. M. Harrison (Eds.), Electronic waste management (pp. 212–235). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (2004). The green state: Rethinking democracy and sovereignty. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecrinogard, L. (2010). eWASA integrated industry waste management plan. http://www.ewasa.org/page48/assets/EWASA%20_iwmp%20draft%20v3.pdf.

  • Elzen, B., Geels, F. W., & Green, K. (2004). System innovation and the transition to sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erasmus, J. (2009). “E-waste pilot project delivers” BizCommunity 2 March. http://retail.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/16/33301.html.

  • Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. New Jersey: Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, R. (2003). Private environmental governance and international relations: Exploring the links. Global Environmental Politics, 3, 72–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fall, J. (2005). Drawing the line: Nature, hybridity and politics in transboundary spaces. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. (1990). The anti-politics machine: ‘Development’, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, A., Liechti, D. (2008). e-Waste assessment South Africa. e-Waste Association of South Africa. http://www.ewasa.org/downloads.html.

  • Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredholm, S. A., Gregory, J. R., & Kirchain, R. E. (2008). Characterizing architectural options for electronic waste recycling systems. http://msl.mit.edu/pubs/docs/FredholmISEE2008CharacterizingOptionsEwaste-IEEE2008.pdf.

  • Geels, F. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33, 897–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. W. (2007). Typology of socio-technical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2010). The dynamics of transitions: A socio-technical perspective. In J. Grin, J. Rotmans, & J. Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change (pp. 11–104). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genus, A., & Coles, A. M. (2008). Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy, 37, 1436–1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, R. (2003). State, civil society and the reconfiguration of power in post apartheid South Africa. Durban: Occasional paper, Centre for Civil Society, University of Natal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grin, J. (2010). Understanding transitions from a governance perspective. In J. Grin, J. Rotmans, & J. Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change (pp. 223–319). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, G. (2008). The provocations of neoliberalism: Contesting the nation and liberation after Apartheid. Antipode, 40, 678–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haufler, V. (2001). A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a global economy. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen, E., Kivisaari, S., Lovio, R., & Mickwitz, P. (2009). Designed to travel? Transition management encounters environmental and innovation policy histories in Finland. Policy Science, 42, 409–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. (2009). Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management. Policy Sciences, 42, 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iannuzzi, A. (2002). Industry self regulation and voluntary environmental compliance. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katto-Andrighetto, J., Auerbach, R. (2009). Participatory guarantee systems in Africa. Ecology and Farming, August 48–51.

  • Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, J. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10, 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khetriwal, D. S., Kraeuchi, P., & Widmer, R. (2009). Producer responsibility for e-waste management: Key issues for consideration- Learning from the Swiss experience. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauridsen, E. H., & Jorgensen, U. (2010). Sustainable transition of electronic products through waste policy. Research Policy, 39(4), 486–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawhon, M. (forthcoming). Relational power in the governance of a South African e-waste transition. Environment and Planning A.

  • Lawhon, M., & Murphy, J. T. (in press). Transforming transition management through political ecology. Progress in Human Geography.

  • Leach, M., & Mearns, R. (1996). The lie of the land: Challenging received wisdom on the African environment. London: James Currey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindhqvist, T. (2000). Extended producer responsibility in cleaner production. IIIEE dissertations, Lund University.

  • Liverman, D. M. (2004). Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental governance and the commodification of nature. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94, 734–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach, D. A. (2007). Transition management: New mode of governance for sustainable development. PhD dissertation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

  • Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive. Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance, 23(1), 161–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2010). The practice of transition management: Examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures, 42, 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manomaivibool, P. (2009). Making sense of extended producer responsibility: Towards a framework for policy transfer. IIIEE dissertations, Lund University.

  • McCarthy, J. (2005). Scale, sovereignty, and strategy in environmental governance. Antipode, 37, 731–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft, J. (2005). Environmental political economy, technological transitions and the state. New Political Economy, 10, 479–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42, 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. T. (2006). Building trust in economic space. Progress in Human Geography, 30(4), 427–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. (2005). Disposable cities: Garbage, governance and sustainable development in urban Africa. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

  • Newson, G., & Dittke, S. (2009). Establishment of a Cape Town based processing facility for electrical and electronic equipment. Report prepared for Hewlett-Packard.

  • Njeru, J. (2006). The urban political ecology of plastic bag waste problem in Nairobi, Kenya. Geoforum, 37, 1046–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, R. B. (1984). Coevolutionary development potential. Land Economics, 60, 160–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattberg, P. (2004). The institutionalisation of private governance: Conceptualising an emerging trend in global environmental politics. Global governance working paper no 9, Amsterdam: The Global Governance Project.

  • Pattberg, P. (2005). The Forest Stewardship Council: Risk and potential of private forest governance. The Journal of Environment Development, 14, 356–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peet, R. (2003). Ideology, discourse and the geography of hegemony: From socialist to neoliberal development in post-apartheid South Africa. Antipode, 34, 54–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickles, J., & Smith, A. (1998). Theorising transition: The political economy of post-communist transformations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieterse, E. (2008). City futures: Confronting the crisis of urban development. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. G., & Brunyl, S. (2010). Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: A three-dimensional review. Progress in Human Geography, 34, 646–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribot, J. C. (1999). Decentralization, participation and accountability in Sahelian forestry: Legal instruments of political-administrative control. Africa, 69, 23–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B., & Wangari, E. (1996). Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experience. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, M., Murphy, J. T., Rasiah, R., van Seters, P., & Managi, S. (2009). A hard slog, not a leap frog: Globalization and sustainability transitions in developing Asia. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(2), 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronit, K., & Schneider, V. (1999). Global governance through private organizations. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 12(3), 243–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance: A systemic and reflexive approach. In J. Grin, J. Rotmans, & J. Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change (pp. 105–222). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schepel, H. (2005). The constitution of private governance: Product standards in the regulation of integrating markets. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39, 763–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., Voß, J. P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39, 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snider, L. (2010). Framing e-waste regulation. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 569–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tukker, A., & Butter, M. (2007). Governance of sustainable transitions: About the 4(0) ways to change the world. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Poel, I. (2000). On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 12(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2005). The transition in Dutch water management. Regional Environmental Change, 5, 164–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Brugge, R., & Van Raak, R. (2007). Facing the adaptive management challenge: insights from transition management. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veit, R. (2005). How do WEEE get it right? http://www.emsnow.com/npps/story.cfm?ID=15184.

  • Voß, J. P., Newig, J., Kastens, B., Monstadt, J., & Nölting, B. (2007). Steering for sustainable development: A typology of problems and strategies with respect to ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9, 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wester, P., Merrey, D. J., & de Lange, M. (2003). Boundaries of consent: Stakeholder representation in river basin management in Mexico and South Africa. World Development, 31, 797–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, R., & Lombard, R. (2005). e-Waste assessment in South Africa: A case study of the Gauteng Province. Swiss knowledge partnerships in e-Waste recycling, Swiss federal laboratories for materials testing and research. St. Gallen, Switzerland.

  • Widmer, R., Osward-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., & Boni, H. (2005). Global perspectives on e-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 436–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. African Centre for Cities, Environmental and Geographical Science Building, Upper Campus, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa

    Mary Lawhon

Authors
  1. Mary Lawhon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Lawhon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lawhon, M. Contesting power, trust and legitimacy in the South African e-waste transition. Policy Sci 45, 69–86 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9146-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9146-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation