Comparative Research Design - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 53

facilities, a unified water energy system was established: In exchange for water withdrawal in
the summer, the downstream states delivered energy (esp. coal and gas) in winter. Hence,
there was an integrated basin wide water and energy management approach in which each
republic fulfilled a particular function.
To sum up, water governance prior to independence in general was hierarchically and centrally
organized and based on a Union wide approach. It was a purely state managed system without
any economic mechanisms or stakeholder participation and inefficient and wasteful usage
patterns. The two independent states of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan inherited these water insti
tutions that constitute the common starting point of the reforms. In how far these institutions
have changed is the topic of this study.

5.4 The Shared Context of Water Governance in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

Controlled context variables are those variables that can be expected to have an impact on the
outcome (dependent variable) but are not the focus of the analysis. They are controlled for in
the research design by holding them constant in both cases. Regarding the politics of water
institutional reform, several factors were identified that were considered to be influential and
which the two countries have in common: Economic development and structure, water re
sources and water usage, historical institutions of water management, national policy priorities,
and the state of financial, technical and professional capacities. Although the analysis does not
focus on these aspects, they are crucial for understanding the context of WIR in both coun
tries.

5.4.1

Economic Development and Structure

The following table presents a number of basic data on the economic and social development
of both states.
Table 5: Basic development data on Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

Indicator Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan

Territory (km²) 198,500 143,100

Territory above 1000m/3000m (%) 94/40 93/more than 50

Population (Mio) 4.5 6.02

Rural population (%) 61 68

GNP per capita 2000 280 180

GNP per capita 2005 450 330

People below USD 2 a day, %, 2006 21.40 42.8

GDP per capita in USD 2000 1,474 790

GDP per capita in USD 2006 1,935 1,202

HDI 1995 n.a. 0.631

HDI 2000 n.a. 0.627

HDI 2004 0.705 0.652

Sources: Sarsembekov et al. 2004: 87f, 91f; World Bank: World Development Indicators
(http://devdata.worldbank.org/data-query/); UNDP: Human Development Report 2006
(http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/); UNECE Statistical Database (http://w3unece.org/pxweb/Dialog), ac-
cessed 06/09/2007.