Skip to main content

Watered-down democratization: modernization versus social participation in water management in Northeast Brazil

Abstract

This article examines social participation in water management in the Jaguaribe Valley, state of Ceará, Northeast Brazil. It argues that participatory approaches are heavily influenced by the general ideological and symbolic contexts in which they occur, that is, by how participants understand (or misunderstand) what is taking place, and associate specific meanings to things and events. An analysis of these symbolic factors at work sheds light on the potentialities of and limitations on participatory experiences not accounted for in usual structural analyses. In the particular case of Ceará, this article describes how the idea of modernization, which is so pervasive in the ways economic development is presented in Brazil, provides a frame against which other meanings are constructed. In water management arenas, the presentation of participation as an aspect of the general modernization of the state has reorganized meanings and delegitimized some forms of knowledge and economic activities to the detriment of others. As a result, the promotion of equality through participation lost a great deal of efficacy, and this state of affairs provided some degree of social validation for asymmetries in participatory decision making processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. More critical texts on participation in Brazil and in Ceará have appeared in recent years, e.g. Abers and Keck 2006, 2007; Lemos and Oliveira 2004; Gutiérrez 2006.

  2. For a review of the process of water reforms in Ceará, see Abers and Keck 2006, 2007; Formiga Johnsson and Kemper 2005; Formiga Johnsson and Lopes 2003; Garjulli et al. 2002; Gutiérrez 2006; Lemos and Oliveira 2004; Taddei 2005.

  3. The Brazilian Northeast has what is considered to be the most populated semi-arid region in the world (around 20 inhabitants per square kilometer).

  4. Living with less than the local minimum wage (equivalent to less than US$1 per day per person).

  5. Large estates, with more than 10,000 ha, represent less than 0.01% of rural properties, while small holdings, with less than 10 ha, represent 70% of holdings and 5.4% of total area (Costa et al. 1997: 138).

  6. There is a water committee for the metropolitan region of Fortaleza, but this committee was not granted the power to allocate water by the state government—an interesting fact per se, since the levels of efficiency in water use in Fortaleza, as in other metropolitan areas in Brazil, are very low. The eleventh watershed crosses the state borders into the state of Piauí, and interstate water committees are the responsibility of the National Water Agency (ANA), and not of state governments.

  7. Many individuals were members of both the valley commission and of one of the water allocation committees, which facilitated the dissolution of the valley commission and its replacement by the committees. The valley commission only met twice a year to discuss water allocation, while the committees have a broader set of duties beyond water allocation, such as discussing and proposing actions regarding infrastructural development, pollution control, and ecological management.

  8. In smaller reservoirs, local commissions, composed of members of the local communities and representatives of the municipal and state governments, are also being created.

  9. Before 2005, the auditorium was divided into groups, one for each of the three large reservoirs of the valley, and discussions occurred independently in those groups. In 2005 some committee members requested that the larger group should not be divided, due to common interests of the Banabuiú and Castanhão basins (so decisions should be integrated). Since then, and also due to the reduced number of attendees, the larger group makes decisions for all three reservoirs.

  10. Gutiérrez (2006) rightly points to the rather ambiguous attitude of the World Bank towards participation throughout the history of water management in Ceará. The Bank interfered on many occasions in state government decisions regarding the use of the loan funds, but did not interfere in governmental actions that could be predicted to negatively affect social participation, as in the disestablishment of COGERH’s Organization of Users Department, in 2003 (2006: 21n27).

  11. Still, the concepts around which the Sourcebook text is structured are strongly marked by what Ferguson (1990) called the ideological fundaments, or theoretical premises of development discourse: (a) the representation of the local populations as far more indigenous and subsistence-oriented than it actually is; (b) the representation of local communities as fully integrated into a national economy, so that sector-based economic programs affect the whole population at once; and (c) the uncritical assumption of the existence of governmentality (Dean 1999; Foucault 1991), whereby the main features of economy and society are within the control of a neutral and unitary national government. The Sourcebook text also links poverty to civil strife and weak governments (1996: 4), and implicitly takes these as indicators of weak and unstable social structures (conflating social structures and institutions, a recurrent feature of development discourse—see Cleaver 2001). All these premises are problematic when confronted with local realities.

  12. Although my presentation of the facts is admittedly sketchy, it should not give the impression that it was an easy process. Since the introduction of the participatory process, and especially in the first years, COGERH technicians have had to deal with threats of physical violence and sabotage to the water infrastructure on many occasions.

  13. This does not mean that clientelism does not exist anymore; it is just not the main element in the relationship between state government and mayors with regard to the allocation of reservoir waters.

  14. These concepts act as summarizing symbols—see Ortner 1973.

  15. Temporal references in development discourses should not be taken at face value. As some have said (Evaluation Gap Working Group 2006; Glenzer, Peterson and Roncoli, this volume), the development world has rather been marked by a ‘presentist’ ethos, where forgetting exists as a fact and as an agenda. In such a context, past and future exist as expedient fictions in the political games created or taken over by the modernization projects.

  16. Irrigated rice was introduced by the military government in the 1970s, due to the soil types found in the region.

  17. One paradigmatic example, which I witnessed during fieldwork, is that of the situation in which someone, in a participatory meeting about water management, makes a proposition based on religious beliefs, only to be tacitly ignored by the technician controlling the activities of the meeting, with the activities then going on as if the proposal had never been put. The power to ignore a proposition and not be questioned about the fact is an indicator that participation takes place inside of strict symbolic limits, where there are implicit and at the same time more or less clear rules about which arguments are valid and which are not.

  18. Of course the symbolic organization of the meeting regiments the actions and words of the powerful too, especially as concerns the explicit values of the meetings, i.e. their democratic character. As Glenzer et al. (this volume) remind us, in many situations this may be positive in itself.

  19. On the other hand, due to the metasemiotic capacities of language, these processes of symbolic regimentation and semiotic manipulations can become the object of attention and contestation (Gal 1998: 329).

References

  • Abers, R.N., and M.E. Keck. 2006. Muddy waters: The political construction of deliberative river Basin Governance in Brazil. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(3): 601–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abers, Rebecca Neaera, and Margarete E. Keck. 2007. Mobilizing the state: The erratic partner in Brazil′s Participatory Water Policy. Paper presented at the Environmental Politics Colloquium, University of California at Berkeley, December 7, 2007.

  • Abu-El-Haj, Jawdat. 2002. Classe, poder e administração pública no Ceará. In A Era Jereissati: Modernidade e Mito, eds. Parente, Francisco Josênio C., and José Maria Arruda (orgs.). Fortaleza: Edições Demócrito Rocha.

  • Agência Nacional de Águas. 2002. A Evolução da Gestão dos Recursos Hídricos no Brasil. Brasília: ANA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreira, C. 1992. Trilhas e Atalhos do Poder: Conflitos Sociais no Sertão. Rio de Janeiro: Rio Fundo Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besteman, C. 1999. Unraveling Somalia: Race, violence and the legacy of slavery. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1989. Le pouvoir symbolique. Paris: Arthème Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broad, Kenneth, Alexander Pfaff, Renzo Taddei, A. Sankarasubramanian, Upmanu Lall, and Franciso de Assis de Souza Filho. 2007. Climate, stream flow prediction and water management in northeast Brazil: Societal trends and forecast value. Climatic Change 84:217–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalcante, P. 2003. Como se fabrica um pistoleiro. São Paulo: A Girafa Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver, Frances. 2001. Institutions, agency and the limitations of the participatory approaches to development. In Participation: The new tyranny? eds. Bill Cooke, and Uma Kothari, London: Zed Books.

  • Cooke, Bill, and Uma Kothari. 2001. The case for participation as tyranny. In Participation: The New Tyranny? eds. Bill Cooke, and Uma Kothari, London: Zed Books.

  • Costa, Alberto C.G., Conrad P. Kottak, and Rosane M. Prado. 1997. The sociopolitical context of participatory development in Northeastern Brazil. Human Organization, Vol. 56, No. 2, 1997.

  • Cunha, Euclides da. 2002 [1902]. Os Sertões. São Paulo: Martin Claret.

  • Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinar, Ariel, Karin Kemper, William Blomquist, Michele Diez, Gisele Sine, and William Fru. 2005. Decentralization of river basin management: a Global analysis. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 3637, June 2005, Washington, DC.

  • Evaluation Gap Working Group. 2006. When will we ever learn: Improving lives through impact evaluation. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faoro, R. 1984. Os donos do poder: formação do patronato politico brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: Globo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. 1990. The anti-politics machine: “Development”, depoliticization and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Formiga Johnsson, Rosa Maria, and Karin Erika Kemper. 2005. Institutional and policy analysis of river basin management—the Jaguaribe River Basin, Ceará, Brazil. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 3649, June 2005, Washington, DC.

  • Formiga Johnsson, Rosa Maria, and Paula Duarte Lopes. (eds.). 2003. Projeto Marca d′Água: Seguindo as Mudanças na Gestão das Bacias Hidrográficas do Brasil: Caderno 1: Retratos 3X 4 Das Bacias Pesquisadas. Brasília: FINATEC.

  • Foucault, M. 1991. Governmentality. In The foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, ed. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gal, S. 1998. Multiplicity and contention among language ideologies. In Language ideologies: Practice and theory, ed. B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard, and P.V. Kroskrity. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garjulli, Rosana João Lúcio Farias de Oliveira, Marcos André Lima da Cunha, Edcarlos Rulim de Souza, and Marcelo Theófilo Folhes. 2002. Projeto Marca D’Água, Relatórios Preliminares. A Bacia do Rio Jaguaribe, Ceará—2001. Brasília: Núcleo de Pesquisa em Políticas Públicas/Projeto Marca D’Água.

  • Gutiérrez, Ricardo A. 2006. Participatory Water Policy in Ceará, Brazil: Approaches and Political Viability. Proceedings of the XI Congreso Internacional Del CLAD/Centro Latinoamericano de Administración para el Desarrollo: Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala, 7–10 November 2006.

  • Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2006. Síntese de Indicadores Sociais 2005. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institutos de Pesquisas e Estratégia Econômica do Ceará (IPECE). 2005. Ceará em Números 2005. Fortaleza: IPECE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, Karin, Ariel Dinar, and William Blomquist. 2005. Institutional and policy analysis of river basin decentralization. The principle of managing water resources at the lowest appropriate level—when and why does it (not) work in practice? Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  • Kenny, Mary Lorena. 2002. Drought, clientalism, fatalism and fear in Northeast Brazil. Ethics, place and environment, Vol. 5, No. 2, 123–134.

  • Kothari, Uma. 2001. Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In Participation: The new tyranny? eds. Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari, London: Zed Books.

  • Lemenhe, M.A. 1995. Família, Tradição e Poder: O(caso) dos Coronéis. São Paulo: Annablume/Edições UFC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, Maria Carmen, and João Lúcio Farias de Oliveira. 2004. Can water reform survive politics? Institutional change and River Basin Management in Ceará, Brazil. World Development 32(12):2121–2137.

  • Lemos, Maria Carmen, and Lisa Dilling. 2007. Equity in forecasting climate: Can science save the world’s poor? Science and Public Policy 34(2): 109–116.

  • Lipton, M. 1977. Why poor people stay poor: Urban bias in world development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, José de Souza. 1999. O Poder do Atraso: Ensaios de Sociologia da História Lenta. São Paulo: Editora Hucitec.

  • Mesquita, Erle Cavalcante. 2007. Participação, atores políticos e transformação institucional no Ceará. In A participação social no Nordeste, ed. Avitzer, Leonardo (org.), Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG.

  • Mohan, Giles. 2001. Beyond Participation: Strategies for Deeper Empowerment. In Participation: The new tyranny? eds. Bill Cooke, and Uma Kothari, London: Zed Books.

  • Ortner, S.B. 1973. On key symbols. American Anthropologist 75: 1338–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Nicole, Kenneth Broad, Ben Orlove, Carla Roncoli, Renzo Taddei, and Maria Alejandra Velez. Forthcoming. Participatory processes and climate forecast use: Sociocultural context, discussion, and consensus. Climate and Development.

  • Tacoli, Cecilia. 1998. Rural-urban interactions: A guide to the literature. Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 10, No. 1, April 1998, 147–166.

  • Taddei, Renzo. 2004. Os usos da lei e a vida social da legislação hídrica. Notas e reflexões sobre o caso do Ceará. Teoria e Pesquisa, No. 45, Ago.-Dez. 2004.

  • Taddei, Renzo. 2005. Of clouds and streams, prophets and profits: The political semiotics of climate and water in the Brazilian Northeast. PhD dissertation, School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York, 2005.

  • Taddei, Renzo, and Ana Laura Gamboggi. 2009. Gender and the semiotics of political visibility in the Brazilian northeast. Social Semiotics, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2009, 149–164.

  • Tendler, J. 1997. Good government in the tropics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2006. Human Development Report 2006. Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, E.R., and E.C. Hansen. 1972. The human condition in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 1996. World bank participation sourcebook. Washington: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2000. Brazil poverty reduction, growth, and fiscal stability in the State of Ceara. A State Economic Memorandum. Vol 1. Report No. 19217-BR, August 21, 2000.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research involved intense conversation with members of diverse social and economic groups in the state of Ceará, of which perhaps government technicians were the most central of all. I hope my interlocutors (many of whom are now good friends) understand this text not as criticism of their work, but rather as a description of the general context in which (and against which) they had to develop their activities, and how this context affected and has been affecting the results of their efforts. I take sole responsibility for the ideas expressed in this article. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Anthropology Program Colloquium at Teachers College, Columbia University, and at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. I thank those who offered me their comments in those meetings, and additionally Kent Glenzer, Carla Roncoli, and two anonymous reviewers for their detailed fruitful critical comments. This research has been carried out since 2002, with four years of continuous residence in the state of Ceará (from 2003 to 2006). It was funded at different times by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq), the São Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP), the Wenner-Gren Foundation, the International Research Institute for Climate and Society, the Ruth Landes Memorial Fund, the Comitas Institute for Anthropological Study, the National Science Foundation, and the Tinker Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renzo Taddei.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taddei, R. Watered-down democratization: modernization versus social participation in water management in Northeast Brazil. Agric Hum Values 28, 109–121 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9259-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9259-9

Keywords

  • Participation
  • Water management
  • Modernization
  • Northeast Brazil
  • Ceará