Trust, hope, and collective action in fragile political settings: A qualitative comparative analysis of water user groups in Tunisia

IF 5.4 1区 经济学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Sophie Bhalla , Dustin Garrick , Constance L. McDermott
{"title":"Trust, hope, and collective action in fragile political settings: A qualitative comparative analysis of water user groups in Tunisia","authors":"Sophie Bhalla ,&nbsp;Dustin Garrick ,&nbsp;Constance L. McDermott","doi":"10.1016/j.worlddev.2025.106928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Collective action theory acknowledges that self-governing institutional arrangements, such as water user groups, can successfully develop strategies to address natural resource problems. However, studies of collective action have largely neglected the role of social, political and/or ecological fragility, where institutional trust and hope may have been eroded over time, and where natural resources are severely depleted. This paper uses Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to examine the pathways that mediate the multi-faceted relationship between trust, hope, and collective action in the context of water user groups, addressing resource scarcity challenges in post-authoritarian Tunisia. The analyses are based on data from archival sources, key informant interviews, hydrogeological models, local inventories, and semi-structured interviews with members of 15 local water user groups in the Tunisian governorate of Kairouan. Results from Qualitative Comparative Analyses shed light on dynamics of trust and hope as well as the substitutability of shared norms under given ecological conditions. Results demonstrate that water users see social trust-based systems as an alternative to the coercive power of the state. Specifically we find that: (1) social cohesion and the expectation that other water users stick to local, often informal, rules were found to increase collective action, i.e. fee recovery, under systemic fragility; (2) resource scarcity, i.e. aquifer depletion, can serve as a driver of both conflict as well as cooperation, depending on conjoint social-ecological interactions; and, finally, (3) conflict is more frequently associated with low-hope environments, where users are unable to perceive the possibility of positive system change. These insights seek to inform more realistic policy reforms that are sensitive to a fragile water governance system prone to social unrest.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48463,"journal":{"name":"World Development","volume":"189 ","pages":"Article 106928"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Development","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X25000117","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Collective action theory acknowledges that self-governing institutional arrangements, such as water user groups, can successfully develop strategies to address natural resource problems. However, studies of collective action have largely neglected the role of social, political and/or ecological fragility, where institutional trust and hope may have been eroded over time, and where natural resources are severely depleted. This paper uses Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to examine the pathways that mediate the multi-faceted relationship between trust, hope, and collective action in the context of water user groups, addressing resource scarcity challenges in post-authoritarian Tunisia. The analyses are based on data from archival sources, key informant interviews, hydrogeological models, local inventories, and semi-structured interviews with members of 15 local water user groups in the Tunisian governorate of Kairouan. Results from Qualitative Comparative Analyses shed light on dynamics of trust and hope as well as the substitutability of shared norms under given ecological conditions. Results demonstrate that water users see social trust-based systems as an alternative to the coercive power of the state. Specifically we find that: (1) social cohesion and the expectation that other water users stick to local, often informal, rules were found to increase collective action, i.e. fee recovery, under systemic fragility; (2) resource scarcity, i.e. aquifer depletion, can serve as a driver of both conflict as well as cooperation, depending on conjoint social-ecological interactions; and, finally, (3) conflict is more frequently associated with low-hope environments, where users are unable to perceive the possibility of positive system change. These insights seek to inform more realistic policy reforms that are sensitive to a fragile water governance system prone to social unrest.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Development
World Development Multiple-
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
5.80%
发文量
320
期刊介绍: World Development is a multi-disciplinary monthly journal of development studies. It seeks to explore ways of improving standards of living, and the human condition generally, by examining potential solutions to problems such as: poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, disease, lack of shelter, environmental degradation, inadequate scientific and technological resources, trade and payments imbalances, international debt, gender and ethnic discrimination, militarism and civil conflict, and lack of popular participation in economic and political life. Contributions offer constructive ideas and analysis, and highlight the lessons to be learned from the experiences of different nations, societies, and economies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信