Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
This definition does not add clarity to the entire issue, though. It adds a positive connota
tion to socially embedded institutions, although Cleaver does not conceal that they can be
exclusionary as well. She herself admits that the basic difficulty formal and informal institu
tions often not being easily distinguishable remains. We will therefore continue to use the
terms formal and informal institutions, while being aware of their overlap and integration in
concrete arrangements.
In contrast to sociological and anthropological research, comparative politics for a long
time neglected informal institutions and was occupied with formal institutions alone. Only
recently it was recognized that a better knowledge on the role of informal institutions and their
relation to the formal framework is crucial for an understanding of political realities (Lauth
1999; Lauth 2000; Helmke and Levitsky 2004; Köllner 2005). Informal institutions have a
considerable impact on politics. Often they are perceived with a negative connotation as un
dermining formal democratic structures. This is however not the case. New institutionalism, in
contrast to the 'old' institutionalism, no longer perceives informal institutions as deviancies of
formal ones in a negative way but sees them as inherent to formal structures. All societies and
all political systems know formal as well as informal rules. Ideally, they are complementary.
Many defect democracies, however, are characterized by informal institutions undermining the
formal ones. Therefore, the question of interest is not, whether informal institutions exist, but
which specific type of informal institution, and how it impacts politics (Lauth 1999). The anal
ysis of the relationship between formal and informal institutions and their dynamics is there
fore important for an understanding of politics.
3.2.2
Water Institutions and Institutional Environment
After outlining the general conceptions of formal and informal institutions, the question of
how exactly water institutions can be defined will be discussed next. For this study it is useful
to distinguish between water institutions in a strict sense, and other political, societal, or cultur
al institutions that shape politics, economy and society and are therefore also relevant for water
governance the institutional environment.
The work of Saleth and Dinar (1999, 2004) on the institutional economics of water
reform has been constitutive for the scientific discourse on water institutions so far and pro
vides the commonly referred to definition of water institutions: They distinguish between
water law, water policy, and water administration, which are however closely interdependent
(see Figure 3). Water law refers to the legal status of water, water rights, conflict solution me
chanisms, possible contradictions between laws, legal pluralism, and the existence or non
existence of administrative regulations for implementing the law. Water policy covers usage
priorities, water tariffs, decentralization or centralization of competencies, participation, and
coordination with other policies. Water administration is the organizational structure of water
management, including funding, staff, capacities, and fee collection (Saleth and Dinar 2004:
101ff). It is necessary to make a short note on organizations to avoid a common confusion: We
define organizations as a distinct subtype of institutions as they present an institution to other
actors, but they may also emerge as (corporate) actor bound by external and internal institu
tional rules. On the one hand, organizations are actors constrained by institutions. On the
other hand, they are institutions themselves, like the internal rule system of hierarchy etc. and
the rules they present to other actors. A water agency, a water user association (WUA) they
can be analyzed as an actor. On the other hand, they are institutions as they represent, set and
Search WWH ::
Custom Search