Analytical framework - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 36

a wider definition of power. Similar to implementation theory, which does not regard deviant
implementations as a form of non compliance to reforms but as a bottom up policy making
process, political anthropology re conceptualizes power and also detects it in niches of auton
omy, disobedience and informal co option of formal institutions by the local population (Le
wellen 2003: 105, 127).
Development of political anthropology roughly reflects the general trends in social
sciences. After structural functionalistic approaches, process theory and action theory evolved
as main schools of thought. While process theory focuses on the processes in generals and on
the historical context of societies in particular, action theory focuses on the strategies and
behavior of actors interested in power under the condition of a certain political setting (Lewel
len 2003: 85). When analyzing historical and institutional change, political anthropology also
followed different argumentative methods, some more functionalist, some game theorist, re
flecting the different paradigms in the social sciences. Already in the 1960s, Victor Turner
analyzed historical change by individual “social dramas” that disclosed how individual political
actors manipulate existing norms in accordance with their strategies. While paying considerable
attention to institutions, this approach also showed that norms are “neither consistent nor fully
coherent” (Gledhill 2000: 132) and therefore allow for different behavioral options. The se
minal definition of politics by anthropological action theory was given by Swartz, Turner and
Tuden (1966): The study of politics “is the study of the processes involved in determining and
implementing public goals and in the differential achievement and use of power by members
of the group concerned with these goals.” (cited after Lewellen 2003: 85)
Such an understanding is conducive for this study as it reflects a comprehensive view of
the political process of water reforms in the two countries under research. As these are charac
terized by a strong role of informal institutions and a neopatrimonial political system, it is
useful to include the perspective of political anthropology in the analytical framework. But this
is not the only reason for including political anthropology in this research. Its methods are a
major contribution: ethnographic fieldwork, participant observation, and 'thick description'
enable the researcher “to elicit insider perspectives and meanings” (Schatz 2007: 2). The usage
of these and other methods in this study is described below in chapter 5.2.

4.5

Research Questions and Guiding Assumptions

Many of the countries that face water crises and problems with access to freshwater are devel
oping countries. In these countries, water institutional reforms in order to achieve good water
governance are often implemented and demanded by donor organizations. More often than
not, these are countries that fall short of meeting general good governance norms. Many of
them can rather be labeled neopatrimonial regimes: Besides formal bureaucracy and democrat
ic institutions, patrimonial informal institutions (clientelism, corruption, personalistic leader
ship) exist and and exert an influence. But can water institutional reforms be effective (i.e.
achieve the norms of good water governance) in such a neopatrimonial institutional context?
Can they build on or perhaps even strengthen the existing democratic structures or are they
undermined by patrimonial informal institutions? In order to address this question, the study
compares two states categorized as neopatrimonial. Of these, Kyrgyzstan has more democratic
elements while Tajikistan has more authoritarian and fragile ones. Do these different characte
ristics make a difference or is the shared patrimonial context decisive?