SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1

Global Hegemony and the Meaning of Water: The Discourse of Sustainability, Financialization, and Hydrosocial Relations

Küresel Hegemonya ve Suyun Anlamı: Sürdürülebilirlik Söylemi, Finansallaşma ve Hidrososyal İlişkiler

Özge Can Doğmuş(MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8318-8242
Pages
448–470
Publication Date
2026-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Bringing these strands together within a critical geographical framework, the study conceptualises the regime of measurability that emerges at the intersection of sustainability discourse and financialisation, while showing its ethical and epistemic consequences through a hydrosocial reading.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article examines how sustainability discourse has become a hegemonic framework in contemporary water and energy policies and how, in the process, it reconstitutes the social meaning of water.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The argument develops along three lines.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Bringing these strands together within a critical geographical framework, the study conceptualises the regime of measurability that emerges at the intersection of sustainability discourse and financialisation, while showing its ethical and epistemic consequences through a hydrosocial reading.
🔬Design:Olgu Sunumu
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilirlik söylemi · Hidrososyal döngü · Su yönetişimi

Abstract

This article examines how sustainability discourse has become a hegemonic framework in contemporary water and energy policies and how, in the process, it reconstitutes the social meaning of water. The argument develops along three lines. First, sustainability often recasts environmental goals through the language of economic growth and technical rationality, shifting decision-making into technocratic arenas where participation and justice are more easily marginalised. Second, institutional and financial instruments such as natural capital accounting, green bonds, and public-private partnerships render water legible as a measurable economic value, narrowing its ethical, cultural, and relational dimensions. Third, drawing on the hydrosocial cycle approach, the article treats water not as a passive resource but as a medium through which social relations and ethical obligations are produced and contested. Bringing these strands together within a critical geographical framework, the study conceptualises the regime of measurability that emerges at the intersection of sustainability discourse and financialisation, while showing its ethical and epistemic consequences through a hydrosocial reading.

Özet

Bu makale, sürdürülebilirlik söyleminin çağdaş su ve enerji politikalarında nasıl hegemonik bir çerçeveye dönüştüğünü ve bu süreçte suyun toplumsal anlamını nasıl yeniden kurduğunu inceler. Argüman üç eksen üzerinden ilerler. İlk olarak, sürdürülebilirlik çevresel hedefleri çoğu zaman ekonomik büyüme ve teknik rasyonalite diliyle yeniden tanımlayarak karar alma süreçlerini katılım ve adaletin daha kolay dışlandığı teknokratik alanlara taşır. İkinci olarak, doğal sermaye muhasebesi, yeşil tahviller ve kamu-özel ortaklıkları gibi araçlar suyu ölçülebilir bir ekonomik değer haline getirirken, onun etik, kültürel ve ilişkisel boyutlarını daraltır. Üçüncü olarak, hidrososyal döngü yaklaşımı doğrultusunda makale suyu edilgen bir kaynak değil, toplumsal ilişkilerin ve etik yükümlülüklerin üretildiği bir vasat olarak ele alır. Bu çerçevede çalışma, sürdürülebilirlik söylemi ile finansallaşmanın kesişiminde ortaya çıkan ölçülebilirlik rejimini kavramsallaştırmakta ve bunun etik ile epistemik sonuçlarını görünür kılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Doğmuş, Ö. C. (2026). Global Hegemony and the Meaning of Water: The Discourse of Sustainability, Financialization, and Hydrosocial Relations. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 448–470. https://doi.org/10.33688/aucbd.1802518

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (56)

  1. Adger, W. N., Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K. & Svarstad, H. (2001). Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Development and Change, 32(4), 687–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00222
  2. Ahlers, R. & Merme, V. (2016). Financialization, water governance, and uneven development. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 3(6), 766-774.
  3. Bakker, K. (2010). Privatizing water: Governance failure and the world’s urban water crisis. Princeton University Press.
  4. Bakker, K. (2013). Neoliberal versus postneoliberal water: Geographies of privatization and resistance. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.756246
  5. Başkaya, F. (2021). Eko-sosyalist paradigma. Yordam Kitap.
  6. Bayliss, K. (2014). The financialization of water. Review of Radical Political Economics, 46(3), 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613413506076
  7. Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J. & Rodríguez-de-Francisco, J. C. (2014). Commoditizing water territories: The clash between Andean water rights cultures and payment for environmental services policies. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 25(3), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.876867
  8. Boelens, R., Perreault, T. & Vos, J. (Eds.). (2018). Water justice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316831847
  9. Bond, P. & Dugard, J. (2008). Water, human rights and social conflict: South African experiences. Law, Social Justice & Global Development Journal. http://go.warwick.ac.uk/elj/lgd/2008_1/bond_dugard
  10. Budds, J. (2009). Contested H2O: Science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile. Geoforum, 40(3), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.12.008
  11. Budds, J. (2020). Securing the market: Water security and the internal contradictions of Chile’s Water Code. Geoforum, 113, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.09.027
  12. Büscher, B. & Fletcher, R. (2020). The conservation revolution. Verso.
  13. Castree, N. (2008). Neoliberalising nature: Processes, effects, and evaluations. Environment and Planning A, 40(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39100
  14. Christophers, B. (2018). The new enclosure: The appropriation of public land in neoliberal Britain. Verso.
  15. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2012). Türkiye’de karbon piyasası (Çevre Yönetimi Genel Müdürlüğü).
  16. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2014). Sera gazı emisyonlarının izlenmesi ve raporlanması hakkında tebliğ (Resmî Gazete, 17 Mayıs 2014, Sayı 29003).
  17. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2014). Sera gazı emisyonlarının takibi hakkında yönetmelik (Resmî Gazete, 22 Temmuz 2014, Sayı 29068).
  18. Çoban, A. (2010). “Sürdürülebilir kalkınma” tartışması ekseninde Bergama köylü direnişi. İçinde D. Yıldırım & E. Haspolat (Ed.), Değişen İzmir’i anlamak (ss. 561–599). Phoenix Yayınevi.
  19. Doğmuş, Ö. C. (2025). Hidrososyal döngü: Su yönetiminde sosyo-politik ve çevresel dinamikler. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 34(1), 189-206.
  20. Dünya Çevre ve Kalkınma Komisyonu (WCED). (1987). Ortak Geleceğimiz [Our common future]. Oxford University Press.
  21. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press.
  22. Escobar, A. (2015). Territories of difference: Place, movements, life, redes. Duke University Press.
  23. Fairhead, J., Leach, M. & Scoones, I. (2012). Green grabbing: A new appropriation of nature? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770
  24. Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science. Routledge.
  25. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
  26. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (G. Burchell, Trans.; M. Senellart, Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  27. Fricker, M. (2017). Epistemik adaletsizlik kavramının gelişimi. I. J. Kidd, J. Medina & G. Pohlhaus Jr. (Ed.), Epistemik adaletsizlik üzerine Routledge el kitabı (ss. 53–60). Routledge.
  28. Goldman, M. (2005). Imperial nature: The World Bank and struggles for social justice in the age of globalization. Yale University Press.
  29. Görer Tamer, N. (2015). Neoliberal politikalar, çevre ve kent bağlamında Türkiye’de su yönetimi. İçinde A. Çoban (Ed.), Yerel yönetim, kent ve ekoloji: Can Hamamcı’ya armağan. İmge Kitabevi.
  30. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
  31. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
  32. Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital: And the crises of capitalism. Profile.
  33. Kandır, S. Y. & Yakar, S. (2017). Yeşil tahvil piyasaları: Türkiye’de yeşil tahvil piyasasının geliştirilebilmesi için öneriler. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26(2), 159–175.
  34. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
  35. Linton, J. (2010). What is water? The history of a modern abstraction. UBC Press.
  36. Linton, J. (2014). Modern water and its discontents: A history of hydrosocial renewal. WIREs Water, 1(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1009
  37. Linton, J. & Budds, J. (2014). The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a relational–dialectical approach to water. Geoforum, 57, 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.008
  38. Loftus, A. (2012). Everyday environmentalism: Creating an urban political ecology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  39. Luke, T. W. (1999). Environmentality as green governmentality. İçinde E. Darier (Ed.), Discourses of the environment (ss. 121–151). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  40. MacDonald, K. I. (2010). The devil is in the (bio)diversity: Private sector “engagement” and the restructuring of biodiversity conservation. Antipode, 42(3), 513–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00762.x
  41. Menteşe, B. (2021). Yeşil tahvilin gelişimi ve Türkiye’deki uygulamaları. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 17(2), 299–327.
  42. Miller, C. A. (2005). New civic epistemologies of quantification: Making sense of indicators of local and global sustainability. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(3), 403–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904273448
  43. Newell, P. & Paterson, M. (2010). Climate capitalism: Global warming and the transformation of the global economy. Cambridge University Press.
  44. Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): An oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development, 13(4), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.281
  45. Sovacool, B. K. & Walter, G. (2019). Internationalizing the political economy of hydroelectricity. Review of International Political Economy, 26(1), 49–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2018.1511449
  46. Sultana, F. & Loftus, A. (Eds.). (2012). The right to water: Politics, governance and social struggles. London, England: Earthscan/Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203152102
  47. Sullivan, S. (2013). Banking nature? The spectacular financialisation of environmental conservation. Antipode, 45(1), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.00989.x
  48. Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409358728
  49. Swyngedouw, E. (2011). Depoliticized environments: The politics of ecology. İçinde The international handbook of political ecology (ss. 131-146). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936172.00017
  50. Turguttopbaş, N. (2020). Sürdürülebilirlik, yeşil finans ve ilk Türk yeşil tahvil ihracı. Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 12(22), 267–283.
  51. Türkay, M. (2005). 1945’ten 2000'lere Söylem ve Gerçeklik Arasında “Kalkınma”nın Halleri. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 16(55), 31-42.
  52. UNDP. (2013). Karbon piyasalarında ulusal deneyim ve geleceğe bakış.
  53. Wesselink, A., Kooy, M. & Warner, J. (2017). Socio‐hydrology and hydrosocial analysis: toward dialogues across disciplines. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4(2), e1196.
  54. World Bank. (2014). Water resources sector strategy: strategic directions for World Bank engagement (Vol. 1 of 2) (English). Washington, DC: World Bank.
  55. Yetiş, M. (2018). Hegemonya. İçinde G. Atılgan & A. Aytekin (Ed.), Siyaset bilimi: Kavramlar, ideolojiler, disiplinler arası ilişkiler. Yordam Kitap.
  56. Žižek, S. (1999). The ticklish subject: The absent centre of political ontology. London, England: Verso.