Research, part of a special feature on The Next Wave in Water Governance

INTRODUCTION

Water resources worldwide face critical challenges due to climate change, environmental degradation, competing human activities, and ongoing global trends such as urbanization and globalization (Cosgrove and Loucks 2015). Contrary to the perception that scarcity results from a physical lack of water (Biswas and Tortajada 2023), the global water crisis is increasingly recognized as a crisis of governance (Global Water Partnership 2000, Gupta et al. 2013b, Taylor and Sonnenfeld 2017, Katusiime and Schütt 2020). Understanding this crisis and designing effective management practices require deeper examination of the underlying paradigms shaping the governance of water resources. If the water crisis is indeed a governance crisis, then the paradigms underpinning water governance regimes warrant closer inspection and scrutiny.

We argue that paradigms play a crucial role as the source code of water governance systems. They serve as a foundation, shaping the rules, norms, values, and goals that underpin the entire system (Abson et al. 2017). In this sense, understanding paradigms is essential when considering systemic transformations for robust and effective water governance. Focusing on paradigms is likely to be a promising strategy for understanding how policy actions are structured or constrained, why certain actors are involved, and the strategies they pursue (Hogan and Howlett 2015).

Several publications have explicitly examined water governance paradigms (e.g., Molle et al. 2009, del Moral et al. 2014, Bréthaut and Schweizer 2018, Challies and Newig 2022) or empirically examined certain paradigms (e.g., Lopez-Gunn 2009, Chomba et al. 2017, Warner et al. 2017, Lebel et al. 2020). The findings indicate that paradigms play a significant role in water governance. However, the study of paradigms remains relatively fragmented, with scattered ideas about what paradigms are, which ones exist, and what functions they perform. To our knowledge, no systematic overview exists that provides a structured inventory of this literature, identifies patterns in how paradigms are studied, or synthesizes the key findings. As a result, there is considerable uncertainty about the relevance and impact of paradigms. We lack clarity on which paradigms are studied, how they are examined, and what specific aspects are explored. Additionally, little is known about who promotes particular paradigms and how, how contextual factors influence their application, and what effects are typically achieved, or not achieved, in practice.

Our primary objective is to take stock of what can be learned about water governance paradigms by exploring, through a systematic literature review, how they are analyzed in academic literature. In doing so, we aim to offer core insights that not only deepen our understanding of water governance paradigms but also provide a foundation for further scholarly advancement in this field.

WATER GOVERNANCE PARADIGMS

The term “paradigm” originates from Kuhn’s (1962) seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where it was used in the context of the development of scientific knowledge. Drawing on Kuhn‛s concept of scientific paradigms, Peter Hall introduced the notion of paradigms into the field of policy analysis in 1993, as he sought to explain the fundamental changes in British economic policy during the 1970s and 1980s. Introducing the concept of a “policy paradigm,” he argued that “...policymakers customarily work within a framework of ideas and standards that specifies not only the goals of policy and the kind of instruments that can be used to attain them but also the very nature of the problems they are meant to be addressing” (Hall 1993:279). In the context of water, Pahl-Wostl et al. (2006:6) introduced the concept of “water management paradigms,” defining them as “a set of basic assumptions about the nature of the system to be managed, the goals of management, and the ways in which these management goals can be achieved.”

Building on these works, we understand a “governance paradigm” as “a set of more or less coherent normative ideas, intersubjectively held by groups of actors, about the problématiques that require public intervention, the corresponding governance objectives, and the appropriate means to achieve them” (Bilalova et al. 2025). The literature on water governance has seen the emergence and implementation of numerous paradigms; integrated water resources management (IWRM; Benson et al. 2020), adaptive water governance (Chaffin et al. 2014), the hydraulic mission (Molle et al. 2009), river basin management (Molle 2009), and water security (Bakker and Morinville 2013) are among the most prominent. Whereas some of these paradigms, such as IWRM, the hydraulic mission, and river basin management, are specific to the water sector, others such as market-based approaches to water governance, adaptive water governance, and participatory approaches originate from broader governance discourses that extend beyond water.

Paradigms can be understood as part of the ideational turn that policy science has taken in recent decades, as they constitute a framework of normative-cognitive ideas that shape problem perception, policy goals related to these problems, and the set of instruments used to achieve results (Hall 1993, Challies and Newig 2022). As such, paradigms influence policy choices, ranging from the design of formal institutions to the mandates they pursue (Kern et al. 2014). For example, the paradigm of the hydraulic mission is said to focus the attention of policymakers and water managers on increasing supply and achieving full control over water resources. This often implies the development of large-scale water infrastructure, typically combined with a state-centric and technocratic approach to water management (Molle et al. 2009). Paradigms serve as significant agenda-setters for political action across scales and may better explain the enactment of certain policies than functional necessity or strategic actions by involved actors (Challies and Newig 2022). At the same time, paradigms are instrumental in determining which policy options are prioritized, overlooked, or dismissed, and in identifying which actors are empowered or marginalized (Molle 2008). The notion of “counter-paradigms” has also emerged, highlighting that paradigms often have limitations or inefficiencies, which can trigger the development of alternative approaches and narratives aimed at challenging them.

Actors play an important role in the emergence, promotion, and implementation of paradigms. The role of government actors in advocating and implementing various paradigms is widely recognized in the water governance literature (e.g., Allouche 2017, Mancilla García et al. 2019). Additionally, international organizations (e.g., Allouche 2017), funding agencies (e.g., Meijerink and Huitema 2010), experts (e.g., Valin and Huitema 2023), private actors (e.g., Vatn 2018), and nongovernmental organizations (e.g., Tyagi 2019) are acknowledged as significant players.

Although paradigms have the potential to transform governance structures toward realizing a collective vision (Molle 2008), new policies do not always replace existing ones or get fully implemented, as many adoptions of new paradigms fail to reach that stage (Meijerink and Huitema 2010). Symbolic implementation of paradigms is also common; for example, Biswas (2008) argues that IWRM has been implemented in a symbolic manner by actors in several contexts to secure funding and enhance acceptability and visibility.

METHODS

Search and study selection

We conducted our systematic review following the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Moher et al. 2009; Fig. 1). We developed our search string through an iterative process involving discussions with water governance scholars and a review of key papers on water governance paradigms (e.g., Molle 2008, Gerlak and Mukhtarov 2015, Franco-Torres 2021). The search string consists of two main components. The first component targets literature on water policy and governance while the second component includes terms related to paradigms. This design aimed to retrieve publications discussing paradigms specifically within the context of water policy and governance: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((water* W/3 (polic* OR govern*)) AND (paradigm* OR idea* OR discourse* OR discursi* OR narrative* OR imaginar*)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE , “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE , “cp”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE , “ed”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE ,“English”)).

Our search was conducted across titles, abstracts, and keywords of documents and was limited to journal articles, editorials, and conference proceedings available on Scopus, with the last search run in May 2022. Although Scopus does not cover all publications, it is widely regarded as one of the most suitable databases for systematic reviews (Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020) and offers comprehensive coverage across environmental and social sciences (Frohlich et al. 2018). We limited our search to English-language journal articles, conference proceedings, and editorials. To capture the full scope of the literature, from its inception to the most recent contributions, we deliberately avoided restricting the search to any specific time period.

Our search string yielded 1261 results after removing duplicates. The resulting publication records (including titles, abstracts, and keywords) were then manually screened for suitability. To be included in the data set, the use of the paradigm(s) had to align with the concept of a water governance paradigm, and the (empirical) analysis had to focus on water governance paradigm(s). Records were excluded when “paradigm” or related terms were used solely as a scholarly analytical framework (e.g., Whaley and Weatherhead [2014] analyze the relationship of farmer irrigation groups in England to water resource management through the lens of co-management) or when “paradigm” or related terms referred to a different context or meaning than water governance paradigms (e.g., scientific paradigms, academic discourses, stakeholder narratives). Studies that mentioned paradigms but did not treat them as the object of analysis were also excluded. Following this screening process, we retained 100 articles spanning the years 1997–2022 for subsequent coding and analysis (see Appendix 1).

Coding process and data analysis

To retrieve information from the publications systematically, we developed a structured coding scheme (see Appendix 2). The coding scheme comprised three main sections: bibliographic information, general characteristics of the publication, and the treatment of water governance paradigms. Although some elements were text fields, many were measured on a three-point scale, where 0 indicated the absence of a factor, 1 denoted its presence, and 0.5 represented partial presence.

We conducted two rounds of test coding involving all coauthors. This testing phase was essential to resolve minor differences in interpreting coding items, thereby ensuring consistency and reliability in the coding process. Subsequently, each publication was independently coded by two coders, resulting in overall high intercoder reliability. We assessed intercoder reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), calculated on the 93 double-coded papers. The overall ICC was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89”0.90), indicating very high agreement. ICC values for individual variables ranged from 0.59 to 1.0, with only 3 of 54 scoring below 0.75. An additional seven eligible papers were identified post hoc and coded by a single coder; these were not included in the ICC calculation but were incorporated into the final data set.

RESULTS

Socio-bibliometric analysis

Within the broad field of water governance, the number of papers addressing paradigms remains relatively small. When applying our search string without restricting it to paradigm-related terms, we identified 17,872 papers. Of these, the 1261 paradigm-related papers accounted for just 7% of the larger water governance literature. We observed a gradual increase over time, with fluctuations in the number of publications, and notable peaks in 2016 (10%; N = 10), 2017 (10%; N = 10), and 2019 (15%; N = 15), alongside considerable year-to-year variability (Fig. 2). As our last search was conducted in May 2022, it is important to note that publications from that year do not represent a comprehensive overview of the entire year.

The studies included in the review were published across 51 different outlets, 4 of which were conference proceedings. Thirty-eight percent of these outlets (N = 18) were directly related to water and accounted for more than half of the publications (51%; N = 51). The four most frequent sources were International Journal of Water Resources Development (9%; N = 9), Water Alternatives (9%; N = 9), Water Policy (8%; N = 8), and Water (8%; N = 8). Environmental Science and Policy (6%; N = 6), Ecology and Society (4%; N = 4), and Global Environmental Change (3%; N = 3) were the most common outlets with a stronger focus on environmental issues.

We observed a slight dominance of male first authors, who constituted 61% (N = 61) of the studies, whereas female authors accounted for 39% (N = 39). The majority of studies were led by authors from the Global North, with 74 of 100 cases (74%). Author locations were assigned based on their primary affiliated institutions. This trend persisted when considering all authors’ institutions, with 135 of 204 institutions (66%) situated in the Global North.

Nature of the research

In terms of research methodology, our analysis revealed a predominance of empirical research. Specifically, 69% of the publications were classified as at least partially empirical, with 19% of these (N = 13) considered partially empirical, i.e., primarily conceptual but including some empirical illustration. Additionally, notable numbers of publications were classified as at least partially reviews (40%, N = 40) or theory development and operationalization (23%, N = 23). Conversely, fewer studies were identified as at least partially critiques (16%, N = 16) or theory testing/confirmation/disconfirmation (10%, N = 10; Table 1). In terms of epistemology, 89% of all included studies were classified as adopting a positivist approach (N = 89), whereas only 11% (N = 11) were identified as adopting at least a partially constructivist approach.

The included studies covered a variety of research topics. The majority examined the implementation of paradigms and their implications within one or more cases. For example, Tantoh and Simatele (2017) discussed community-based water management in Cameroon, highlighting how such processes were sustained by specific actors but challenged by centralized decision-making and cooptation by local elites, thereby exploring the fit of this paradigm within the local institutional and cultural context. Several other studies investigated specific paradigms in relation to the contexts in which they were implemented, focusing on applicability, enabling or hindering factors, and interactions with existing paradigms. For instance, Harsha (2012) studied Indian water policy and the challenges in successfully implementing IWRM and integrated river basin management principles. We also observed a considerable number of studies focusing on the political aspects of paradigms. One example is Molle (2009), who examined the concept of a river basin and how it was used by certain actors to legitimize their agenda. Finally, several papers explored paradigmatic transitions (e.g., Shapiro and Summers 2015, Lee et al. 2022), examined paradigms on a conceptual level (e.g., Mukhtarov and Gerlak 2014, Woodhouse and Muller 2017), or discussed the transformative power of paradigms (e.g., Muskatirovic 1997, Furlong et al. 2016).

Treatment of water governance paradigms in the literature

Our search string included paradigm-related terms such as “paradigm,” “discourse,” “idea,” “narrative,” “discursive,” and “imaginary.” Additionally, a variety of other descriptors were identified in the literature. While nearly 20 different terms were used to denote paradigms in the examined literature, the most frequently used term was “paradigm” itself (78%; N = 78). Other common terms included “approach” (50%; N = 50) and “concept” (and its derivatives; 40%; N = 40). Terms such as “process,” “framework,” “model,” “discourse,” “idea,” and “tool” were also used in multiple studies to discuss paradigms.

In examining the paradigms discussed in the publications we analyzed, it became evident that certain paradigms have been studied more extensively than others. The results indicate that the “integrated approach to governing/managing water”, including integrated water resources management (IWRM), integrated river basin management, integrated lake basin management, integrated coastal zone management, integrated flood management, and others, received the greatest attention, appearing in 75% of all studies (N = 75). This was followed by publications on the “state-centric/command-and-control approach” (33%; N = 33) and “adaptive governance/management” (24%; n = 24; Fig. 3).

Across all publications, we observed that most studies (71%; N = 71) addressed more than one paradigm. For example, 23 of the 75 papers discussing the integrated approach also addressed the state-centric/command-and-control paradigm. While the paradigms were initially coded based on how the authors identified them, we subsequently grouped them according to their conceptual similarities.

Of the publications examined, 22% (N = 22) considered “counter-paradigms,” at least to some extent. Examples of counter-paradigms identified in the reviewed literature include the rise of “buen vivir” as a counter-paradigm in Ecuador, emphasizing respect for Mother Earth as an alternative to exploitative Western practices (Warner et al. 2017); the emergence of integrated and collaborative approaches to traditional natural resource management (Harrington 2017); and the proposal of an environmental stewardship model as an alternative to the market failure paradigm in the western United States (Supalla 2003).

Furthermore, 82% of the studies adopted an empirical focus, with geographically diverse cases. However, the number of cases from the Global South was almost twice that from the Global North (59 compared to 35). This contrasts intriguingly with the origin of the studies, most of which were led by authors from the Global North (74 compared to 26). Among the cases, the United States (N = 10) was the most studied, followed by South Africa (N = 6) and Australia (N = 5). Geographically, cases were diverse, with the majority addressing sub-national (40%, N = 33), local (37%, N = 30), and national (18%, N = 15) levels. Higher geographical scales, such as transboundary (12%; N = 10), global (9%; N = 7), international (7%; N = 6), and continental (1%; N = 1) levels, were comparatively less explored.

As outlined in the definition, paradigms typically highlight a problem and propose ways to address it. Consistent with this, our analysis revealed that in most studies, paradigms articulated an understanding of water-related problems and their underlying causes, while also suggesting governance solutions to address these issues. Specifically, 76% of the included studies (N = 76) addressed water-related problems and their causes to some extent. Regarding governance solutions, 57% of the publications (N = 57) discussed solutions to these problems, at least partially.

Concerning the impact of paradigms on governance, 67% of the articles (N = 67) focused, at least partially, on concrete changes in governance structures and practices influenced by paradigms. The majority examined certain governance modes in the context of paradigms (85%, N = 85). Among these, most studies considered centralized governance modes (56%; N = 56) to some extent, whereas slightly fewer addressed decentralized modes (51%; N = 51). In contrast, interactive governance, public-private governance, and self-governance modes were identified in only a small proportion of studies (Fig. 4).

Focusing on the most dominant paradigm, the “integrated approach to water governance/management,” we observed a prevalence of decentralized governance (52%; N = 12), followed by centralized governance (39%; N = 9), both practiced to some extent.

Regarding the lifecycle of paradigms, the literature offers relatively comprehensive coverage of their origin, implementation, and transitions from one paradigm to another (Table 2). In contrast, the spread or diffusion of paradigms and significant internal changes within paradigms were addressed in only 27% (N = 27) and 19% (N = 19) of the publications, respectively, at least to some extent. This finding suggests that paradigms are predominantly treated as fixed ideational blocks rather than evolving or dynamic constructs.

With respect to the question of which actors are involved in governance, government actors (69%; N = 69) and administrations (50%; N = 50) were the focus of more than half of the included studies, followed by private actors (32%; N = 32), civil society (27%; N = 27), community/citizens (26%; N = 26), and international organizations (12%; N = 12). Actor groups such as science, international nongovernmental organizations, indigenous peoples, and multinational corporations were the focus of < 14% of studies reporting on governance modes (N = 12).

Notably, 71% (N = 71) of the included studies analyzed actors promoting specific paradigms to at least some extent. These actors tend to be the predominant ones, i.e., those already actively engaged in water governance processes. Among studies examining paradigm-promoting actors to at least some extent, government actors and administrations were identified as focal in > 70% of papers (N = 50). Interestingly, international organizations emerged as the second most prominent focal actors, appearing in 49% of these studies (N = 35; Fig. 5).

We also examined the extent to which authors critically engaged with paradigms, for example, by providing normatively informed commentary. In this context, more than half of the studies offered a critical assessment of water governance paradigms and addressed power imbalances. Specifically, 63% of the included studies (N = 63) engaged in critical analysis of paradigms to some extent, while 52% (N = 52) considered issues related to power asymmetries to some extent. Only 11% of the publications (N = 11) discussed the symbolic use of paradigms to some degree.

Despite this notable critical engagement, ambiguity remains across studies regarding whether paradigms are regarded as successes or failures. Only 20% of the included studies (N = 20) presented paradigms as success stories to some extent, whereas 37% (N = 37) addressed paradigms as failures, at least partially. Among the latter, 64% (N = 32) provided policy recommendations to at least some degree, suggesting a relatively balanced discourse overall.

Finally, most studies applied evaluative criteria centered on effectiveness, encompassing dimensions such as environmental sustainability, though these criteria were not typically paradigm-specific (Table 3). While the majority evaluated effectiveness broadly, only a small subset specifically examined the effectiveness and tangible impacts of paradigms themselves. More than half of the included publications did not investigate the social, economic, or ecological consequences associated with paradigm implementation. Nonetheless, social effects received comparatively more attention, with 45% of publications (N = 45) exploring these aspects to at least some extent. Despite the ambiguity surrounding paradigmatic performance and impacts, a majority of studies (57 of 100) offered policy recommendations at least partially.

DISCUSSION

We next discuss several key issues emerging from our results. Specifically, we examine the dominance of certain paradigms in the literature, highlighting imbalances in research focus; the pivotal role of specific actors in promoting and implementing these paradigms; the challenges involved in translating paradigms into practical governance approaches; and the extent to which the literature problematizes these paradigms. We conclude by outlining the limitations of our study and suggesting directions for future research.

Imbalances in the research focus

The review reveals imbalances in the research focus within the literature on water governance paradigms. The results show the dominance of the “integrated approach to govern/manage water” paradigm, which is identified in the majority of studies and is the most prominent paradigm in one-half of the publications. In contrast, paradigms such as “collaborative approach,” “community-based (natural resource) management,” “polycentricity,” and “hydrosolidarity” appear in only 13% of the studies.

The large number of studies focusing on the integrated approach may reflect its hegemonic status in governance practice. This paradigm is widely promoted by governments and international development institutions and incorporated into global frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals indicator framework under Agenda 2030 (Benson et al. 2015). It has attracted substantial empirical attention, with 52 studies primarily dedicated to it. IWRM, in particular, has been extensively promoted and institutionalized at international and national levels. However, the governance implications derived from this paradigm vary considerably. Studies on this paradigm report that it has been implemented in both decentralized and centralized governance modes with similar frequency. This highlights the flexibility and, at times, the opaqueness of dominant paradigms in water governance.

Although the abundance of research on “integrated approach to govern/manage water” offers opportunities for thorough cross-case comparisons and deeper insights into this particular paradigm, such a strong focus also risks overshadowing alternative ontologies. As paradigms typically envision particular societal realities to be pursued (Molle 2008), they can render alternative paradigms invisible or destabilized (Yates et al. 2017). Therefore, engaging with a diverse range of paradigms becomes crucial. By acknowledging these imbalances and recognizing the overshadowing effects of dominant paradigms, we underscore the importance of fostering diversity in the discourse on water governance. Engaging with a plurality of paradigms, and placing them in dialogue, enables critical reflection on how different paradigms frame water governance problems and the kinds of solutions they propose. Incorporating alternatives also broadens our understanding of water and expands conceptions of what water management and governance can entail (Yates et al. 2017). Thus, promoting diversity within the discourse ensures a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to addressing water governance challenges.

The central role of specific actors in the promotion and implementation of paradigms

Policy changes can be initiated by both governmental actors, including politicians, bureaucrats, and officials at various levels, and nongovernmental entities such as nongovernmental organizations, academics, and individual citizens (Huitema and Meijerink 2010). Although a variety of actors such as private sector representatives, civil society, and international organizations participate to varying degrees in governance processes, our review reveals the significant influence of governmental actors in both promoting and implementing paradigms. Despite the broad spectrum of stakeholders involved in water governance, state actors (i.e., government and administrative bodies) continue to serve as the central focus in the study of paradigms and their materialization in governance practices.

In addition to governmental actors, international organizations play a crucial role, particularly in promoting specific paradigms. As emphasized by Meijerink and Huitema (2010), international donor organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and others have been instrumental in shaping water policy transitions, especially in developing countries. These organizations not only provide financial assistance but also impose conditions on national governments, thereby influencing policy directions and implementation strategies. The literature consistently acknowledges the roles of national governments and international organizations in promoting paradigms, particularly IWRM (e.g., Benson et al. 2015, Allouche 2017, Lee et al. 2022).

Paradigms hitting the ground

Our results highlight the predominance of integrated approaches while revealing an almost equal distribution of centralized and decentralized governance modes among the studies that focus exclusively on this paradigm. This discrepancy points to a divergence between the normative aspirations of paradigms and their practical implementation. This phenomenon has been discussed previously in the water governance literature (e.g., Lukat et al. 2022, Rowbottom et al. 2022). For example, Meijerink and Huitema (2010) found that the adoption of new water policies across 16 case studies did not lead to full implementation or the complete replacement of existing policies. A key reason for this discrepancy, as highlighted in several of the reviewed studies, lies in the strong connection between a paradigm and the context in which it is applied. The importance of context in water governance has been widely acknowledged (Armitage 2008, Ingram 2011, Gupta et al. 2013a). As Bressers and de Boer (2013) argue, the effective adoption and implementation of a given policy is highly dependent on the alignment between its original context and the environment in which it is introduced.

One way context shapes the translation of paradigms is through institutional layering, whereby new institutional elements are added onto existing ones (Streeck and Thelen 2005). Layering is often influenced by path dependency, which makes systemic change difficult (Rowbottom et al. 2022). An example of such a case could be water governance in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan, as water reforms in both countries face challenges due to traditional and Soviet path dependency, and newly introduced institutions are undermined by old informal institutions (Sehring 2009). Another example comes from Mills-Novoa and Hermoza (2017), who describe the tensions between the IWRM framework and large-scale infrastructure development in Piura, Peru. Despite the introduction of participatory mechanisms and the establishment of the River Basin Council as part of decentralization efforts, these new institutional elements have had limited influence on centralized, state-led decision-making related to large-scale water projects, largely due to the entrenched hydraulic mission legacy. Other studies have highlighted similar dynamics in water governance, including IWRM implementation in Alberta, Canada (Shapiro and Summers 2015) and Water Framework Directive implementation across the European Union (Giakoumis and Voulvoulis 2018), further demonstrating how institutional legacies shape the adoption and adaptation of governance paradigms.

Context also plays a significant role in how paradigms are articulated by different actors, reflecting their political interests as well as their epistemological and ontological positions (Mehta et al. 2016). This is particularly true for paradigms such as IWRM, which, although functioning as a consensual yet ambiguous boundary object, is often appropriated, reshaped, or even applied symbolically by actors to legitimize their agendas (Molle 2008). Several of the reviewed studies address this issue: for instance, Clement et al. (2017) discuss how IWRM discourse in Nepal has been used to obscure questions of social (in)justice related to water resource development, despite not being operationalized; Warner et al. (2017) show how IWRM and River Basin Management have been employed to justify and advance practices associated with the hydraulic mission in Ecuador; and Mehta et al. (2014) analyze how IWRM implementation in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique has been shaped by both international donor agendas and domestic policy concerns, resulting in varied implementation practices.

At the beginning of this article, we framed paradigms as the source code of water governance. Our review indicates that attempts to introduce new paradigms into water governance systems, often driven by the aim of achieving more sustainable outcomes, are frequently met with resistance. This is primarily because existing institutions, often rooted in older paradigms, tend to persist and resist change. Furthermore, even when new paradigms are introduced, they may be articulated in diverse ways depending on the political, epistemological, and ontological positions of the actors involved. Although we examined whether the reviewed studies assess the actual outcomes resulting from the introduction of new paradigms, we found relatively few instances in which such evaluations were conducted. This gap in the literature may reflect the practical and political challenges associated with implementing the approaches aligned with new paradigms.

Problematizing paradigms in water governance research

The results of our review reveal that most studies adopt a critical perspective on water governance paradigms, as evidenced by the substantial number of articles offering critical analyses or addressing power imbalances. A small proportion of studies present paradigms as either success or failure stories, suggesting that the overall discourse is not entirely biased for or against paradigms. This indicates a relatively balanced perspective across the literature.

However, we also observe that only a limited number of studies explicitly consider the implications of adopting specific paradigms, as reflected in the small subset of publications that examine their actual effects. Additionally, we identify the lack of a common term to denote a “paradigm,” with a wide variety of terms used across studies. As a result, many relevant publications may not have appeared in our search results because they do not explicitly label the concept being studied as a paradigm. In many of these cases, paradigms are implicitly assumed and rarely interrogated, mirroring patterns found in much of the practical discourse.

Problematizing paradigms by bringing them to the forefront of analysis, explicitly questioning their assumptions and implications, exploring viable alternatives, and establishing clearer, more consistent terminology is essential for deepening our understanding of their real-world impacts. Doing so also supports greater reflexivity among both scholars and practitioners engaging with water governance paradigms.

Limitations and future research

One limitation of this study is the restriction to English-language academic articles. We acknowledge that exploring regional debates published in other languages, including those from the Global South, as well as incorporating other forms of literature such as books, book chapters, and gray literature would provide valuable insights. However, such an approach falls beyond the scope of our review. This exclusion may affect the representation of certain paradigms and the frequency with which they are discussed in the broader literature. Limiting our analysis to academic publications also constrains our ability to examine deeper structural factors such as financial flows and power imbalances that influence the emergence and decline of paradigms. We see significant potential for future studies to broaden this scope and offer a more comprehensive understanding of water governance paradigms that may currently be underrepresented.

We also acknowledge a limitation in our search strategy related to the use of terms associated with paradigms. While our review identified a wide array of terminology used to describe paradigms, we deliberately focused on those primarily employed in the governance literature to conceptualize paradigms, for example, “paradigms” (Hall 1993, Pahl-Wostl et al. 2006), “imaginaries” (Jasanoff and Kim 2015), and “policy ideas” (Daigneault 2014). This selective approach, grounded in key discussions within the field, may have excluded studies in which alternative terminology is more common or in which the name of a paradigm is used without reference to any broader conceptual label. Nonetheless, this focus was necessary to maintain coherence with our research objectives and to account for time and resource constraints. Future research could expand on this work by exploring the broader spectrum of terms used across disciplines, thereby capturing a more diverse and inclusive understanding of governance paradigms.

Importantly, our study focused primarily on papers that analyze paradigms as the unit of analysis, rather than directly examining the paradigms themselves. While this approach provided valuable insights into the literature on paradigms, it may not fully capture the nuanced complexities inherent in the paradigms themselves. Therefore, future research could directly investigate the paradigms discussed in these studies, potentially through comparative analyses, to develop a more comprehensive understanding of their characteristics and implications. Our review establishes a repository with significant potential for researchers aiming to conduct more detailed investigations into specific paradigms or particular aspects thereof, such as distinct stages in the lifecycle of paradigms or their effects. Additionally, it offers a valuable foundation for comparative analyses of various paradigms and facilitates the exploration of nuanced dimensions that warrant further examination.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review examines what we currently know about water governance paradigms and how they are studied in the literature. A review of 100 studies reveals multiple paradigms discussed in the literature, with the “integrated approach to governing water” emerging as the most prevalent, followed by paradigms centered on the “state-centric/command-and-control approach” and “adaptive governance/management.” This dominance raises questions about the plurality of perspectives in the literature and the overshadowing of alternative ontologies.

The promotion and implementation of water governance paradigms are driven primarily by governmental actors, along with international organizations, which also play important roles in promotion. However, our review highlights the discrepancy between promoted paradigms and contextual realities. Paradigms often disregard the local context in which they are implemented, leading to challenges in effective implementation exacerbated by the problem of layering.

Our review reveals areas for advancing the problematization of paradigms within the water governance discourse. Although many studies take a critical view of paradigms, few studies have examined their effects. Furthermore, the lack of common terminology to indicate paradigms poses a challenge for comprehensive literature reviews.

Moving forward, future research should expand beyond language and publication limitations to explore regional debates and incorporate diverse forms of literature. Furthermore, a direct examination of the paradigms themselves is necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of their characteristics and implications, thus contributing to a more nuanced discourse on water governance. We hope that this review contributes to an improved understanding of water governance paradigms and will serve as a catalyst for further research in this field, fostering increased scholarly engagement and facilitating additional work on this crucial topic.

LITERATURE CITED

Abson, D. J., J. Fischer, J. Leventon, J. Newig, T. Schomerus, U. Vilsmaier, H. von Wehrden, P. Abernethy, C. D. Ives, N. W. Jager, and D. J. Lang. 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46(1):30-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

Allouche, J. 2017. The birth and spread of IWRM - a case study of global policy diffusion and translation. Pages 30-56 in L. Mehta, B. Derman, and E. Manzungu, editors. Flows and practices: the politics of integrated water resources management in eastern and southern Africa. Weaver Press, Harare, Zimbabwe. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh8r2qk.5

Armitage, D. 2008. Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the Commons 2(1):7-32. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.28

Bakker, K., and C. Morinville. 2013. The governance dimensions of water security: a review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 371:20130116. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0116

Benson, D., A. K. Gain, and C. Giupponi. 2020. Moving beyond water centricity? Conceptualizing integrated water resources management for implementing sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science 15(2):671-681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00733-5

Benson, D., A. K. Gain, and J. J. Rouillard. 2015. Water governance in a comparative perspective: from IWRM to a ‘nexus’ approach? Water Alternatives 8(1):756-773. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol8/v8issue1/275-a8-1-8

Bilalova, S., N. Valin, A. F. Burchard-Levine, A. K. Gerlak, D. Huitema, N. W. Jager, D. H. Geagea, J. K. L. Koehler, J. Newig, R. Singh, H. Porada, and J. Rodríguez Ros. 2025. Now you see me, now you don’t: the role and relevance of paradigms in water governance. Ecology and Society 30(4):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-16279-300411

Biswas, A. K. 2008. Integrated water resources management: Is it working? International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(1):5-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620701871718

Biswas, A. K., and C. Tortajada. 2023. Global crisis in water management: Can a second UN Water Conference help? River 2(2):143-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/rvr2.40

Bressers, H., and C. de Boer. 2013. Contextual interaction theory for assessing water governance, policy and knowledge transfer. Pages 36-54 in C. de Boer, J. Vinke-de Kruijf, G. Özerol, and H. T. A. Bressers, editors. Water governance, policy and knowledge transfer: international studies on contextual water management. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203102992

Bréthaut, C., and R. Schweizer, editors. 2018. A critical approach to international water management trends. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60086-8

Chaffin, B. C., H. Gosnell, and B. A. Cosens. 2014. A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society 19(3):56. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356

Challies, E., and J. Newig. 2022. Water, rivers and wetlands: governance paradigms and principles. Pages 512-525 in P. G. Harris, editor. Routledge handbook of global environmental politics. Second edition. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008873-43

Chomba, M. J., T. Hill, B. A. Nkhata, and J. J. Förster. 2017. Paradigms for water allocation in river basins: a society-science-practice perspective from southern Africa. Water Policy 19(4):637-649. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2017.130

Clement, F., D. Suhardiman, and L. Bharati. 2017. IWRM discourses, institutional holy grail and water justice in Nepal. Water Alternatives 10(3):870-887. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol10/v10issue3/386-a10-3-12

Cosgrove, W. J., and D. P. Loucks. 2015. Water management: current and future challenges and research directions. Water Resources Research 51(6):4823-4839. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016869

Daigneault, P.-M. 2014. Reassessing the concept of policy paradigm: aligning ontology and methodology in policy studies. Journal of European Public Policy 21(3):453-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.834071

del Moral, L., M. F. Pita, B. Pedregal, N. Hernández-Mora, and N. Limones. 2014. Current paradigms in the management of water: resulting information needs. Pages 21-31 in A. Roose, editor. Progress in water geography: pan-European discourses, methods and practices of spatial water research. Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, Department of Geography, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

Franco-Torres, M. 2021. The path to the new urban water paradigm - from modernity to metamodernism. Water Alternatives 14(3):820-840. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol14/v14issue3/646-a14-3-9

Frohlich, M. F., C. Jacobson, P. Fidelman, and T. F. Smith. 2018. The relationship between adaptive management of social-ecological systems and law: a systematic review. Ecology and Society 23(2):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10060-230223

Furlong, C., K. Gan, and S. De Silva. 2016. Governance of integrated urban water management in Melbourne, Australia. Utilities Policy 43(A):48-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.04.008

Gerlak, A. K., and F. Mukhtarov. 2015. ‘Ways of knowing’ water: integrated water resources management and water security as complementary discourses. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 15(3):257-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9278-5

Giakoumis, T., and N. Voulvoulis. 2018. The transition of EU water policy towards the Water Framework Directive’s integrated river basin management paradigm. Environmental Management 62(5):819-831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1080-z

Global Water Partnership. 2000. Towards water security: a framework for action. Page Global Water Partnership. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden. https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/references/towards-water-security.-a-framework-for-action.-mobilising-political-will-to-act-gwp-2000.pdf

Gupta, J., A. Akhmouch, W. Cosgrove, Z. Hurwitz, J. Maestu, and O. Ünver. 2013a. Policymakers’ reflections on water governance issues. Ecology and Society 18(1):35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05086-180135

Gupta, J., C. Pahl-Wostl, and R. Zondervan. 2013b. ‘Glocal’ water governance: a multi-level challenge in the anthropocene. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(6):573-580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.003

Gusenbauer, M., and N. R. Haddaway. 2020. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods 11(2):181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Hall, P. A. 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25(3):275-296. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246

Harrington, C. 2017. The political ontology of collaborative water governance. Water International 42(3):254-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2017.1309507

Harsha, J. 2012. IWRM and IRBM concepts envisioned in Indian water policies. Current Science 102(7):986-990. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24084537

Hogan, J., and M. Howlett. 2015. Reflections on our understanding of policy paradigms and policy change. Pages 3-18 in J. Hogan and M. Howlett, editors. Policy paradigms in theory and practice: discourses, ideas and anomalies in public policy dynamics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137434043_1

Huitema, D., and S. Meijerink. 2010. Realizing water transitions: the role of policy entrepreneurs in water policy change. Ecology and Society 15(2):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03488-150226

Ingram, H. 2011. Beyond universal remedies for good water governance: a political and contextual approach. In A. Garrido and H. Ingram, editors. Water for food in a changing world. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203828410

Jasanoff, S., and S.-H. Kim, editors. 2015. Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226276663.001.0001

Katusiime, J., and B. Schütt. 2020. Integrated water resources management approaches to improve water resources governance. Water 12(12):3424. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123424

Kern, F., C. Kuzemko, and C. Mitchell. 2014. Measuring and explaining policy paradigm change: the case of UK energy policy. Policy and Politics 42(4):513-530. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655765

Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition, enlarged. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Lebel, L., A. Haefner, C. Pahl-Wostl, and A. Baduri. 2020. Governance of the water-energy-food nexus: insights from four infrastructure projects in the Lower Mekong Basin. Sustainability Science 15(3):885-900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00779-5

Lee, M., H. Kim, J.-Y. Lee, J. E. Yang, and C. Lim. 2022. A shift towards integrated and adaptive water management in South Korea: building resilience against climate change. Water Resources Management 36(5):1611-1625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03071-x

Lopez-Gunn, E. 2009. Agua para todos: a new regionalist hydraulic paradigm in Spain. Water Alternatives 2(3):370-394. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol2/v2issue3/66-a2-3-5

Lukat, E. C. G., M. Schoderer, and S. Castro Salvador. 2022. When international blueprints hit local realities: bricolage processes in implementing IWRM in South Africa, Mongolia, and Peru. Water Alternatives 15(2):473-500. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol15/v15issue2/664-a15-2-6

Mancilla García, M., J. Hileman, Ö. Bodin, A. Nilsson, and P. R. Jacobi. 2019. The unique role of municipalities in integrated watershed governance arrangements: a new research frontier. Ecology and Society 24(1):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10793-240128

Mehta, L., R. Alba, A. Bolding, K. Denby, B. Derman, T. Hove, E. Manzungu, S. Movik, P. Prabhakaran, and B. van Koppen. 2014. The politics of IWRM in southern Africa. International Journal of Water Resources Development 30(3):528-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2014.916200

Mehta, L., S. Movik, A. Bolding, B. Derman, and E. Manzungu. 2016. Introduction to the special issue - flows and practices: the politics of integrated water resources management (IWRM) in southern Africa. Water Alternatives 9(3):389-411. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol9/v9issue3/337-a9-3-1

Meijerink, S., and D. Huitema. 2010. Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: lessons from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe. Ecology and Society 15(2):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03509-150221

Mills-Novoa, M., and R. T. Hermoza. 2017. Coexistence and conflict: IWRM and large-scale water infrastructure development in Piura, Peru. Water Alternatives 10(2):370-394. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol10/v10issue2/360-a10-2-10

Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and The PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Molle, F. 2008. Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: insights from the water sector. Water Alternatives 1(1):131-156. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol1/v1issue1/20-a-1-1-8

Molle, F. 2009. River-basin planning and management: the social life of a concept. Geoforum 40(3):484-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.004

Molle, F., P. P. Mollinga, and P. Wester. 2009. Hydraulic bureaucracies and the hydraulic mission: flows of water, flows of power. Water Alternatives 2(3):328-349. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol2/v2issue3/65-a2-3-3

Mukhtarov, F., and A. K. Gerlak. 2014. Epistemic forms of integrated water resources management: towards knowledge versatility. Policy Sciences 47(2):101-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9193-y

Muskatirovic, J. 1997. International river basin management - imperative for sustainable water development. Pages 363-368 in Proceedings of the 27th IAHR World Congress, San Francisco. International Association of Hydraulic Research, Beijing, China.

Pahl-Wostl, C., N. Isendahl, S. Möllenkamp, M. Brugnach, P. Jeffrey, W. Medema, and T. Tessa de Vries. 2006. Paradigms in water management. NeWater Project Deliverable 1:39. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://hpacenter.org/uploads/editor/images/PARADIGM%20%20SH%C4%B0FT%20ON%20WATER%20MANAGEMENT%20.pdf

Rowbottom, J., M. Graversgaard, I. Wright, K. Dudman, S. Klages, C. Heidecke, N. Surdyk, L. Gourcy, I. A. Leitão, A. D. Ferreira, S. Wuijts, S. Boekhold, D. G. Doody, M. Glavan, R. Cvejić, and G. Velthof. 2022. Water governance diversity across Europe: Does legacy generate sticking points in implementing multi-level governance? Journal of Environmental Management 319:115598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115598

Sehring, J. 2009. Path dependencies and institutional bricolage in post-Soviet water governance. Water Alternatives 2(1):61-81. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol2/v2issue1/36-a2-1-5

Shapiro, A., and R. Summers. 2015. The evolution of water management in Alberta, Canada: the influence of global management paradigms and path dependency. International Journal of Water Resources Development 31(4):732-749. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2015.1005286

Streeck, W., and K. Thelen, editors. 2005. Beyond continuity: institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Supalla, R. J. 2003. Institutional arrangements to improve water quality in irrigated agriculture 1. International Journal of Water Resources Development 19(1):89-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/713672721

Tantoh, H. B., and D. Simatele. 2017. Community-based water resource management in North-west Cameroon: the role of potable water supply in community development. South African Geographical Journal 99(2):166-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2016.1208589

Taylor, P. L., and D. A. Sonnenfeld. 2017. Water crises and institutions: inventing and reinventing governance in an era of uncertainty. Society and Natural Resources 30(4):395-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1274208

Tyagi, A. C. 2019. Civil society in the water sector. Pages 303-311 in A. Singh, D. Saha, and A. C. Tyagi, editors. Water governance: challenges and prospects. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2700-1_18

Valin, N., and D. Huitema. 2023. Experts as policy entrepreneurs: how knowledge can lead to radical environmental change. Environmental Science and Policy 142:21-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.01.013

Vatn, A. 2018. Environmental governance - from public to private? Ecological Economics 148:170-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.010

Warner, J. F., J. Hoogesteger, and J. P. Hidalgo. 2017. Old wine in new bottles: the adaptive capacity of the hydraulic mission in Ecuador. Water Alternatives 10(2):322-340. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol10/v10issue2/358-a10-2-8

Whaley, L., and E. K. Weatherhead. 2014. An integrated approach to analyzing (adaptive) comanagement using the “politicized” IAD framework. Ecology and Society 19(1):10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06177-190110

Woodhouse, P., and M. Muller. 2017, April 1. Water governance—an historical perspective on current debates. World Development 92:225-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.014

Yates, J. S., L. M. Harris, and N. J. Wilson. 2017. Multiple ontologies of water: politics, conflict and implications for governance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35(5):797-815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775817700395