Conclusion - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 195

This study presented an analytical approach for the study of water institutional reforms based
on policy analysis, implementation research, and political anthropology. It used qualitative
research and analysis methods instead of statistics or modeling exercises. By this, it is able to
avoid a technocratic bias on water governance issues and to capture the politics of reform. As a
result, it showed the impact of five variables on water institutional reform processes. Further
studies can use this framework to apply it to other countries, reexamine its validity for other
contexts, and improve its explanatory power.
To explain the frapping difference between decision making and implementation and to
get further insights on politics, another tool might be discourse analysis. Authors like Allan
(1999) and Jägerskog (2002) have pointed to the usefulness of Foucaultian approaches in order
to understand water politics and how it is shaped by the discourse. This discourse that restricts
national actors might also be one reason why advice by foreign consultants often does not
work.
While this study addressed international donor organizations as part of the explanatory
set for the outcomes of water institutional reform, their role surely deserves a more in depth
analysis. Also donors themselves fall short in translating their rhetoric into practice: Despite
the prominence of the water issue, water is far from being a priority on the policy agendas of
international donor organizations. On average, donors give 3 billion USD aid and 1 1.5 billion
USD lending each year to the water sector. However, most of this money still is spent on large
scale projects in water supply and sanitation. Only about 10% is dedicated to water policy
development, planning, and programs (UNESCO 2006: 52). The discursive turn hence has yet
to be met by a change in political practices.
A final, yet definitely important point for further research is the concept of good water
governance itself. Like the good governance concept, it is, on the one hand, fuzzy and needs
concretization. On the other hand, there is a danger that it is used as a label under which mar
ket economic and Western models are imposed without consideration of alternatives. It states
probably too many objectives, which are difficult to achieve even in a functioning democratic
state. As was shown, there can be trade offs between certain elements of good water gover
nance, so priorities should be discussed.
Undoubtedly, the task to put the norms of good water governance into practice is tre
mendous. This study made a contribution to master this challenge by identifying factors that
influence water reform process and therefore should be considered when planning reform
strategies and defining objectives. Reforming complex water governance institutions is a
process that has to be adapted to the concrete political, socio economic, and cultural condi
tions of the respective country. It cannot succeed without sound sequencing of reforms, partic
ipation of stakeholders, renunciation of rigid adherence to blueprint models, and a long term
and comprehensive approach.