Comparing the Politics of Water Institutional Reform

Abstract

The previous two chapters offered a detailed description and analysis of water governance and water institutional reforms in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. This chapter aims to compare the similarities and differences in both countries and to assess to what extent the identified variables are able to explain them. The first section compares the water governance structures and the water institutional reforms in both states, thus the dependent variable (chapter 8.1). The next part (8.2) discusses the role neopatrimonial features play and how donor policies interfere with them. Subsequently, three sub-chapters sum up the reform experience in both countries under three thematic foci: first, the introduction of monetary economic mechanism (8.3); second, the introduction of new administrative principles, namely hydrographic and inter-sectoral management approaches (8.4); and third, the involvement of stakeholders by way of user participation and decentralization (8.5). After this comparison of the empirical findings, we will turn to the theoretical assumptions formulated in the beginning. What do these cases tell us about institutional change? Where can we identify path-dependent developments? What was the impact of the juncture both countries experienced — was it critical? And finally, is the ultimate result an outcome of path dependency, of path change, or of institutional bricolage? This will be discussed in chapter 8.6. The final section of this comparative part (8.7) will address the question of which lessons can be learned from this analysis and should be considered when conducting water institutional reforms.