IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Institutional analysis of irrigation management in Uzbekistan using Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Case studies of water consumers associations in Bukhara region

  • Hamidov, Ahmad
  • Khamidov, Mukhamadkhan
  • Thiel, Andreas
Registered author(s):

    Given the fact that water consumers associations (WCAs) in Uzbekistan were established about a decade ago in a top-down fashion to maintain on-farm water facilities, using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis tool this paper attempted at determining sets of conditions that are necessary and sufficient to achieve an outcome. The study followed the logic of abductive approach, where sets of theories were adjusted based on the empirical field stint. Institutional economics perspective was applied to identify rural farmers’ behavior in the management of common pool resources (CPRs). The study took place in Bukhara region – southwestern part of Uzbekistan – and involved focus group discussions with members of fifteen WCAs using semi-structured interview format. Three sets of conditions (appropriate chairmanship skills [ACS], proper water allocation [PWA], and effective participatory governance [EPG]) were found to be important for explaining the outcome (improved maintenance of irrigation canals [IMC]). The analysis of necessary conditions indicated that neither condition ACS nor PWA nor EPG is necessary for IMC on its own. The same finding was apparent for the complements of the three conditions, ~ACS, ~PWA, ~EPG. In the meantime, the analysis of necessary conditions for unions of conditions (logical OR) revealed that the terms of PWA OR EPG (i.e. PWA+EPG) is necessary to achieve the outcome. However, their presence is not sufficient. The result for sufficiency analysis highlighted that no single condition alone is sufficient to achieve IMC. The results for combinations of conditions showed that the presence of ACS AND PWA AND EPG (i.e. ACS*PWA*EPG) is sufficient for achieving the outcome, IMC. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that when these conditions are present simultaneously, there is a great chance of improving CPR use within WCA territories.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by University of Giessen (JLU Giessen), Center for International Development and Environmental Research in its series International Conference and Young Researchers Forum - Natural Resource Use in Central Asia: Institutional Challenges and the Contribution of Capacity Building with number 159099.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 01 Oct 2013
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:ugidic:159099
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702766, May.
    2. Wade, Robert, 1987. "The Management of Common Property Resources: Collective Action as an Alternative to Privatisation or State Regulation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 95-106, June.
    3. Speer, Johanna, 2012. "Participatory Governance Reform: A Good Strategy for Increasing Government Responsiveness and Improving Public Services?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(12), pages 2379-2398.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ugidic:159099. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.