Comparative Research Design - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 40

With this method of small n comparisons, the respective countries are selected based on a
number of features they have in common so that the differences that explain various political
outcomes can be highlighted. In the example presented in Table 1, A C are variables that both
countries have in common. Therefore, the effect of these variables can be considered to be
controlled. It is obvious that e.g. factor B cannot be responsible for outcome Y, as it also exists
in country 3 that does not have outcome Y. The value of the independent variable X varies in
the cases so that its absence or existence explains the outcome. In practice, X may not be
completely absent in one case, rather its degree may vary.
The advantage of a small n approach is that it allows for restricted inferences and heuris
tic theory development through a focused and structured comparison while at the same time
allowing the researcher to detect case specific details and to include historical explanation and
process tracing as it builds on in depth, idiosyncratic case studies. By using the MSCD ap
proach, the central weakness of small n comparisons, namely many variables and few cases,
can be minimized as many variables are controlled for ( ceteris paribus condition). This means
that they are constant in both countries. However, cases in reality are never entirely similar.
Therefore, process tracing is used as a way of within case comparison in order to identify
causal relations. In contrast to comparisons of many countries that use quantitative analysis,
studies with a small number of cases are related to field research and qualitative methods of
analysis. The aim is to gain a deeper understanding of processes instead of relating variables to
one another (Lijphart 1971; Hague et al. 1998: 272 287; Landman 2000: 27 32; George, Ben
nett 2004: 151 179, 205 232).
Such a research design can be achieved when choosing to compare countries located in a
single geographic region (area approach): As it can be assumed that they share similar historic
and cultural legacies, geographic framework conditions and developments, it is possible to
control numerous factors that may potentially influence the dependent variable. This approach
is chosen with the comparison of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. As the two countries are located
in one area, they share a cultural historical background with specific features of water man
agement practices and political legacies as well as the recent past as part of the Soviet Union
that transformed (or tried to transform) society, introduced new, crucial institutions, and
shaped the attitudes and behavior of the actors. Concerning geographic conditions, there are
many similarities. Most importantly, both cases are upstream countries with abundant water
resources. This excludes first order scarcity. Instead, they are examples of the other types of
water scarcity mentioned above (see chapter 2.1.1). This distinguishes them from their neigh
bors Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. While a comparison with these countries
would also fulfill the conditions of an area approach as they share many cultural, historical and
political features and water management institutions, there are three important differences:
First, these three countries are downstream and face physical water shortages; second, they rely
on outside water sources; and third, they have considerable amounts of other resources at their
disposal, especially oil and gas. As these factors can be assumed to have an impact on water
politics, it was decided to restrict the research to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
The two countries were selected with regards to the independent variable the different
peculiarities of the neopatrimonial regime. A selection based on the dependent variable is first
not advisable as it may cause a selection bias (King, Keohane, Verba 1994: 128 139). Second
the prevalence of the dependent variable formulation and implementation of water institu
tional reform was not clear at the outset of the research as no comprehensive evaluation of
water governance and institutional reform in both countries existed so far. It was expected that
the outcome would be different due to the differing degree of the independent variable.