Abstract
The last chapter provided the broad background and the problem statement of this study. This chapter elaborates the analytical framework developed to address the research questions. Friedland and Alford (1991: 250f) formulate a precise prerequisite for social theory: “An adequate social theory must work at three levels of analysis — individuals competing and negotiating, organizations in conflict and coordination, and institutions in contradiction and interdependency.” To meet this objective, I combine several analytical approaches as well as empirical methods to ensure that all three levels are covered by the analysis. Chapters 4.2–4.4 introduce into the three approaches used to analyze politics: policy analysis, implementation research, and political anthropology. Following, guiding assumptions that evolve from these analytical approaches are presented (ch. 4.5). But before turning to these approaches, the first section of this chapter will deal with the basic analytical category for analysis: neopatrimonialism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
This is not to say that the Central Asian Soviet Republics can be regarded as colonies. But it appears fruitful to point out certain structural features such as their status as low industrialized resource provider with strong economic dependencies, a “combination of autocratic state practice with the ideologies of high modernism that animated both Soviet communism and European colonial projects in Africa” (Beissinger, Young 2002a: 20), and a postcolonial/post-Soviet period characterized by increasing poverty, deterioration of physical and economic infrastructure, informalization of the economy (increase of subsistence and barter trade), dysfunctional institutions, limited state capacities, informal regulative system (Beissinger, Young 2002: 4f). For a critique on the transitology approach to Central Asia or post-communist countries in general see Berg 2004: 49; Kubicek 2000: 300–302; Hensell 2004: 12; Geiss 2006: 23–25.
See e.g. Putnam 1988. This argument was also made by scholars in the field of international water relations, who found that they could not analyze foreign water policy without linking it to domestic politics. See Kalpackian 2003, Jägerskog 2002, Weinthal 1998.
The fundamental definition given by Oran Young (1979) is: “Compliance can be said to occur when the actual behavior of a given subject conforms to prescribed behavior, and non-compliance or violation occurs when actual behavior departs significantly from prescribed behavior” (cited in Simmons 1998: 77).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2009). Analytical framework. In: The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91377-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91377-3_4
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-16508-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-531-91377-3
eBook Packages: Chemistry and Materials ScienceChemistry and Material Science (R0)