Comparative Research Design - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 73

On the other hand, these reforms directly affect implementation of water institutional reforms
as they present the context in which they have to function. The agricultural sector is also cha
racterized by neopatrimonial features. It was even the sector wherefrom some of the classical
studies on patronage and clientelism derived their insights (e.g. Spittler 1977; Gellner, Water
bury 1977). Neopatrimonialism manifests itself in certain institutional conditions that have
strong implications for the performance of water institutional reforms.
Kyrgyzstan
In 1991, 465 kolkhozes and sovkhozes , two experimental farms and 37 interfarm organizations
with their own irrigation systems existed (Johnson III, Stoutjesdijk, Djailobayev 2002: 3). In
the 1990s, the Kyrgyz government conducted a nation wide land reform in several steps. Since
1998 full private ownership of land has been permitted. 75% land area of the former sovkhozes
or kolkhozes (FSK) was distributed among the local population while 25% remained with the
state. These 25% are managed by the local government ( aiyl okmuto , a/o), and are occasionally
leased to private farmers. Each FSK member of working age had the right to land with an
average size of 0.35 ha. 72 In addition, families kept their assigned garden plots ( ogorod ) 73 as
private property. During the land distribution in the course of the privatization influential
members of the FSK (directors, brigadiers, etc.) and local officials were often favored by being
allotted better plots at the upper runs of the irrigation systems while the majority of FSK
members suffered from lack of transparency and information on the procedures and their
rights. Many FSKs have been transformed into joint stock companies or different kinds of
cooperatives. Today there are about 1,700 new cooperative or enterprise farms, over 280,000
small private farms and some hundred thousand ogorod of less than 1ha. These home gardens
constitute nearly 50% of the agricultural gross domestic product; 74 the agricultural sector hence
is dominated by subsistence production (Giovarelli, Akamatova 2002: 1; Zitzmann, Trouchine
2005: 33 36; Mamaraimov 2007; Hassan et al. 2004: 7f; Thurman 2002: 3).
A lot of experts meanwhile tend to critically question the radical and quick privatization in
the agrarian sector. It brought forth thousands of petty farmers with neither the necessary
knowledge nor the necessary means for lucrative agriculture. In general, the assigned plots are
too small for efficient agriculture and to make any benefits from cash cropping. Only those
who rent additional fields can make a profit. Sometimes the plots are even too small for subsis
tence farming. In addition, farmers usually do not possess the technical equipment they need.
They have to hire it from the FSK or from private persons, which is cost intensive. Further
input factors have to be bought, e.g. seed and fertilizers. Taxes, water fees and (in case of mar
ket production) transport costs have to be paid. Finally, lacking markets and lacking market
access due to transportation costs or closed borders is limiting the economic opportunities.
These are the reasons why most farmers do not make any profits. Even the cotton sector, hit
by the low world market prizes, does not provide enough income to feed a family. Since there
are rarely any other sources of cash income, working migration to the cities or abroad seems to
be a better option for many villagers (Bucknall 2003: 4; DFID, Mott MacDonald 2003: 3 5;
72 The exact amount was dependent on the region. In the land-scarce south of the country, it was in general less, while
in some places in the Chuy region it could amount to up to one ha per person (Mamaraimov 2007). Pastures were
excluded from privatization.
73 An ogorod is a small garden plot which every household in an FSK in the USSR was allotted for private subsistence
agriculture. It has a different legal status than the other land.
74 Already during the last years of the USSR, the significance of the ogorod was tremendous: in 1989, while ogorods
accounted for only 3% of the cultivated area, they accounted for 25% of the agricultural production (Herbers 2006:
106).