Emulating the “Capillary Action”: What does water teach us about the role of Epistemic Communities in Norm “Infusion”?

Water, more than most of other liquids, has an intriguing ability which is called the “capillary action”. In essence, capillary action is defined as the ability of water to flow in narrow spaces without the assistance of, or even against, external forces such as gravity. A piece of paper towel put on a water droplet may illustrate this phenomenon. The water will climb the paper, contrary to fundamental physical rule about gravitational forces. There is a perfect potential for an analogy in this experiment.

As summarized concisely by Anne L. Clunan, an epistemic community is “a network of professionals with recognized expertise and authoritative claims to policy-relevant knowledge in a particular issue area. Such professionals may have different backgrounds and may be located in different countries, but they share a set of norms that motivate their common action, a set of beliefs about central problems in their area of expertise, shared criteria for evaluating knowledge, and a common policy enterprise. The concept of epistemic community was first introduced by John Ruggie and then refined by Peter M. Haas.” Although scholarly works on the role of epistemic communities abound in the last several decades, water management policies represent an island in the ocean of literatureon epistemic communities.

Metaphorically, capillary action symbolizes the capability of epistemic communities in defying the limitations related to decision-making structures characterized by rigid hierarchies (e.g. governments). Norm “infusion” in water management, as I would call it, can be better achieved through utilization and enhancement of “adhesiveness” of the epistemic communities’ and also of “permeability” of the hierarchical structures. Norm infusion, in this sense, differs from the norm diffusion which generally occurs through processes of coercion, competition, learning, and emulation and means “spread of norms” usually from a central point. Infusion means “teaching and impressing by frequent repetitions or admonitions”. This is what epistemic communities can do when suitable conditions permit. In other words, when epistemic communities are enabled to go beyond their role of “provision of knowledge”, norm infusion may occur. Norm infusion thus represents the “esse quam videri point” for epistemic communities.

The strength of epistemic communities’ ability to infuse norms into a system depends on a number of factors. These factors can be divided into two broad categories. While some of the factors are linked to the nature of and limits to the “adhesiveness” of epistemic communities themselves, i.e. their power to have “potential for impact”; remaining factors are related more with the “permeability” of the hierarchical system where norms will be infused. Therefore, in determining the basics of norm-infusion, both agency-level and system-level factors are at work.

Adhesiveness of the epistemic community is not sufficient for norm infusion. We also need some degree of permeability of the system. Nevertheless, adhesiveness of an epistemic community should be in place for the process to be initiated. Epistemic communities can be “national” (with most of its members coming from a single country) or a transnational one, with more diversified membership.  It is difficult to identify whether national or transnational networks are generally better at influencing government decisions. Sometimes, transnational networks of scientists might be perceived as more powerful actors than national networks, implying a greater consensus on certain scientific findings. It is also possible for some governments to develop a perceptional mechanism which result in favoring of national epistemic communities at the expense of transnational others. The tendency of choosing interlocutors is a very widely shared attribute across different type of governments.

Adhesiveness of an epistemic community is a function of sets of material and ideational factors. An example of a material factor of adhesiveness can be the lobbying power of a given epistemic community. An epistemic community with strong budgets will have more power than those without. On the other hand, ideational factors of adhesiveness can be related, inter alia, with the perceived consistency or of arguments of epistemic community.

Permeability of the system matters a lot, since, in most cases, it is the main determinant of the realization and/or level of norm infusion. Here, again, both material and ideational criteria are effective in a simultaneous fashion. As to material factors, existence of direct and/or organic contacts between some members of epistemic community and members of hierarchical system is a case in point.  On the ideational side, for instance, existence or lack of neutrality (e.g. biases) is important. Perceptions about epistemic communities might be created or altered by negative or positive feedbacks from existing contacts. Therefore, material factors may easily have an effect (generally a reinforcing one) on ideational factors.

In short, capillary action is an inspirational natural property of water which stimulate creative thinking on better methods of water management. Studying the potential that epistemic communities epitomize for an enhanced water management is promising, particularly in Middle Eastern settings where decision-making procedures are frequently confined to small groups of technocrats, representative of outdated approaches; or politicians who are commonly preoccupied with rather short-sighted priorities.