Analytical framework - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 35

Western discourse. Still, there have been efforts to adapt the concepts to developing countries'
contexts. The respective approaches stress the significance of institutional factors and the so
called meso level (Mehta et al. 1999; Wimmer, de Soysa, Wagner 2003; Najam 1995; Grindle
1980a). The meso level is the level of the lower administration that is responsible for the im
plementation of policy decisions; it is the intermediate institution between the political elite and
the target group. The social actors at the meso level, the so called “street level bureaucrats”
(Lipsky) or “administrators as implementers” (Grindle) are considered to be as important for
the policy process as the top level: “The institutional set up responsible for implementation
may thus be equally important for successful reform as the more visible power politics”
(Wimmer, de Soysa, Wagner 2003: 9). Its neglect by policy reform activities is considered re
sponsible for their failure. This is also acknowledged in research on water reform: „Among
the different levels of an administrative system, the so called meso level is of special importance
in ensuring the implementation of formal regulations, for it is at this level that formal and
informal institutions meet“ (van Edig, Engel, Laube 2002: 31).
This contradicts the findings of Saleth and Dinar (1999:31f) that policies are more impor
tant for water institution performance than the status of the water law and water administra
tion. However, according to the insights of Implementation Research, we can expect the meso
level of the water administration to be of crucial importance.

4.4 Political Anthropology

As noted, policy analysis as well as implementation research were originally developed in and
for Western societies. A topic of continuous scientific debate in comparative policy analysis
has been the applicability of its concepts to developing or transformation countries, and in
general to differing cultural contexts. Prominent discussions and approaches have been carried
out regarding the question of the application of existing definitions to new cases ('travelling
problem') and of adding ambiguous cases to a certain category resulting in fuzziness ('concep
tual stretching') (Sartori 1970).
From its inception, political anthropology as a sub discipline of social anthropology was
devoted to the study of non Western societies and therefore offers a perspective that can pre
vent a biased analysis of policy. Political anthropology is neither a coherent theory nor a dis
tinct analytical approach like policy analysis or implementation research. Rather, it is a different
perspective on politics and it is therefore included in this analytic framework. Many issues that
became prominent in political science later have already long been objects of research in politi
cal anthropology, especially the role of culture, kinship, clientelism, and the co existence of
modern bureaucracies with traditional systems of power. One of the basic allegations against
political anthropology its lack of distinction between the political and other societal subsys
tems is actually a strong virtue: It challenges the construct of politics as an autonomous
field. The deficiency of this construct is especially relevant in societies like the ones studied in
this thesis, but also in Western societies. Political anthropology does not separate politics from
other societal systems but rather analyzes how power and authority is also represented and
manifested in other institutions like kinship or religion. Politics is therefore not only shaped by
the political 'rules of the game' but also by other possibly conflicting commitments and
institutional logics (Gledhill 2000: 12, 20f, 135; Lewellen 2003: xi). Those institutions can even
be more powerful manifestations of politics than formal political institutions. Political anthro
pology therefore reflects the simultaneous existence of different political spheres and provides