Theoretical Framework: New Institutionalism - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 14

3 Theoretical Framework: New Institutionalism

As a basis for the analysis of water institutional reforms, it is important to define and theoreti
cally substantiate institutions as well their reform the change of institutions. Therefore, this
chapter outlines the theoretical framework of this study. After an overview of approaches of
new institutionalism in political science (chapter 3.1), a detailed definition and theoretical subs
tantiation of institutions and water institutions is given (chapter 3.2) and concepts of institu
tional change and continuity are presented (chapter 3.3). The final section, chapter 3.4, outlines
the problem statement that evolves from this background.
A focus on institutions and institutional reform in water management is not entirely new.
In this respect, the seminal works of R. Maria Saleth and Ariel Dinar (1999; 2004) on water
sector reform and of Elinor Ostrom (1990, 1992) on irrigation reform need to be highlighted.
In addition, efforts to establish water user associations and participatory irrigation management
were scrutinized by numerous case studies. Systematic comparative studies are rare, however.
In 2005, the Journal Water Policy has dedicated a whole issue on the topic of water institution
al reform. Concerning Central Asia, Wegerich (2005) studied institutional change in provincial
and local water management in Uzbekistan; and Herrfahrdt et al. (2006) inquired the state of
and prospects for IWRM in Kyrgyzstan. Most of this research is conducted either in institu
tional economics based on rational choice models or with collective action approaches analyz
ing the management of water as a common pool resource. An original input from political
science or sociology is marginal. Although the aforementioned research provides useful in
sights and conceptions, economic approaches fall short of understanding the whole spectrum
of water governance. Therefore, this study will refer to neo institutionalist approaches of polit
ical science with a broader definition of and a different perspective on institutions.

3.1 Approaches of New Institutionalism in Political Science

Peters (2001) distinguishes six schools of new institutionalism in political science. All of them
stress the importance of institutions for social, economic and political outcomes. They mainly
differ in their definition of institutions, their assessment of the relationship between institu
tions and actors/behavior, and their explanation of genesis and change of institutions. Howev
er, a clear distinction between them is difficult to draw. Quite a few authors combine features
of different strains. 9 Also, the respective internal differentiation is enormous.
The three main approaches are sociological, historical, and rational choice institutional
ism. Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) in political science is closest to new institutional
economics, from which it has adopted the concept of the homo oeconomicus. In this view, institu
tions exist because they reduce insecurities, enhance the possibility to anticipate the behavior
of other actors, and hence allow for strategic interaction. This way, institutions reduce control,
9 E.g., Fritz W. Scharpf and Renate Mayntz broaden in their analytical framework of actor-centered institiutionalism
the view of classic RCI. Pauline Jones Luong (2002), in her analysis on institutional change in Central Asia, combines
rational choice and historical insitutionalism.