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

Original Paper


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.


Social entrepreneurship Legitimacy Authority Agency Social accountability Innovation Water governance 



International conservation union


Integrated water resources management


Non-governmental organization


Social entrepreneurship


United nations educational, scientific and cultural organization


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashoka (2006). Measuring effectiveness. A six year summary of methodology and findings. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from
  4. Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Blackbourn, D. (2006). The conquest of nature. Water, landscape and the making of modern Germany. London: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  7. Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world. Social entrepreneurs and the power of new Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Conca, K. (2006). Governing water. Contentious transnational politics and global institution-building. Cambridge, London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Working Paper, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52, 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuchs, D. (2005). Understanding business power in global governance. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, M. (1999). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity (pp. 21–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Kingdon, J. (2003). Agenda, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Kravcik, M., Pokorny, J., Kohutiar, J., Kovac, M., & Tóth, E. (2008). Water for the recovery of the climate. Kosice: A New Paradigm.Google Scholar
  26. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Mair, J., Robinson, J., & Hockerts, K. (Eds.). (2006). Social entrepreneurship. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mintron, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 738–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Molle, F., Mollinga, P. P., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2008). Water, politics and development: Introducing water alternatives. Water Alternatives, 1, 1–6.Google Scholar
  32. Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship. New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ott, K., & Döring, R. (2004). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit (2nd ed.). Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Partzsch, L. (2007). Global Governance in Partnerschaft. Die EU-initiative water for life. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Perrini, F. (Ed.). (2006). The new social entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Reisner, M. (1986). Cadillac desert. The American west and its disappearing water. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  39. Robinson, J., Mair, J., & Hockerts, K. (Eds.). (2009). International perspectives on social entrepreneurship. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  40. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schmitter, P. C. (2001). What is there to legitimize the European Union …and how might this be accomplished. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from
  42. Schumpeter, J. (1934/1997). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. 9th edn. Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt.Google Scholar
  43. Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state. How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. UN (2010). Millennium development goals: 2010 progress chart. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from
  49. UNESCO (2009). Water in a changing world. The UN World Water Development Report 3, World Water Assessment Programme. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
  50. Wester, P. (2009). Capturing the waters: The hydraulic mission in the Lerma–Chapala Basin, Mexico (1876–1976). Water History, 1, 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Witte, M., & Reinicke, W. (2005). Business as unusual. Facilitating United Nations reform through partnerships. New York: United Nations Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Yunus, M. (2006). Für eine Welt ohne Armut (H. Mennicken, Trans.). Bergisch Gladbach: Bastei Lübbe.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GETIDOS, Universität GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations