Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
on in general, but also because Tajikistan had to cope with a civil war and political instability
and therefore could be expected to have fewer capacities than Kyrgyzstan to develop these
fundamental legal and policy documents.
However, there are also similarities. It is striking that both countries have a number of
formal policy decisions but neither has successfully implemented one reform until now. Some
reforms need a long term perspective and might achieve better performance in future, notably
the irrigation management transfer to WUAs. But even reforms such as the introduction of the
ISF, which have been started around ten years ago in both states, are still not fully implemen
tated. For recent reforms like the policy strategy or inter sectoral coordination in Kyrgyzstan it
can already be anticipated that they will not function based on the experiences hitherto. The
only reform that is systematically implemented, at least in Kyrgyzstan, is the transfer of irriga
tion management. But in both countries this reform is implemented by international donor
agencies and NGOs, and was so before an adequate law existed and before both countries'
Parliaments approved the reform. In both cases, the WUA reform acted solely on a govern
ment decree in its first years.
The analysis of the dependent variable thus revealed a discrepancy between policy deci
sions and policy implementation in both states. While this is a shared outcome in both states,
there is a difference in reforms started (general ones in Tajikistan, concrete ones in Kyrgyzstan)
and in the ways they are formulated and implemented. The case studies described these politics
of the reform processes in detail. The next chapter summarizes and compares the results in
both countries in reference to the impact of the neopatrimonial regime and thereby also high
lights and explains the differences in the politics of water institutional reform in both states.
8.2
Effects of Neopatrimonialism on Water Institutional Reform
The basic research interest of this study is to reveal how neopatrimonialism influences the
political process of water institutional reform. Based on three analytical approaches institu
tionalist policy analysis, implementation research, and political anthropology and the empiri
cal findings, four variables and one interfering variable were identified in which this influence
occurs: the decision making institutions, the institutional conditions of the agricultural sector,
the local governance institutions, the water institutional linkages, and the role of international
donor organizations as interfering factor (see chapter 5.5). These shape the institutional corri
dor for reforms and institutional change, i.e. for actors' behavioral options for setting and
implementing new rules. This chapter will compare the impact of these variables in both case
studies and discuss the scope of their differences and similarities.
Institutions of Decision Making
The degree of democratic decision making influences the formulation of new rules. While both
countries are characterized by internal agenda setting and domination of the presidential appa
ratus, in Kyrgyzstan the decision making is more open and more actors have the capacity to
participate. The result of the latter is paradox: In Tajikistan, laws and policy strategies were
developed and approved considerably faster than in Kyrgyzstan. While the institutional setting
in Kyrgyzstan allows for more participation, many actors are restricted to veto playing: They
have the power to oppose policies they regard as being against their interests, but they do not
have the power to be agenda setters. This is done by the government and by donors. Those
reforms that are implemented (ISF, WUAs, at least on paper also management along hydro
Search WWH ::




Custom Search