WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 447 Workin progress WTP447 for public discussionAu st19 August 1999 Evaluating Water Institutions and Water Sector Performance R. Maria Saleth Ariel Dinar Recent World Bank Technical Papers No. 366 Carvalho and White, Combining the Quantitative and Qualitat ve Approaches to Poverty Measurement and Analysis: The Practice and the Potential No. 367 Colletta and Reinhold, Reviewv of Early Childhood Policy and Pirograms in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 368 Pohl, Anderson, Claessens, and Djankov, Privatization and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence and Policy Options No. 369 Costa-Pierce, From Farmers to Fishers: Developing Reservoir Aquaculturefor People Displaced by Dams No. 370 Dejene, Shishira, Yanda, and Johnsen, Land Degradation in Tanzania: Perception from the Village No. 371 Essama-Nssah, Analyse d'une repartition du niveau de vie No. 372 Cleaver and Schreiber, Inverser la spriale: Les interactions entre la population, I'agriculture et l'environnement en Afrique subsaharienne No. 373 Onursal and Gautam, Vehicular Air Pollution: Experiencesfrorm Seven Latin American Urban Centers No. 374 Jones, Sector Investment Programs in Africa: Issues and Experierces No. 375 Francis, Milimo, Njobvo, and Ternbo, Listening to Farmers: Participatory Assessmtient of Policy Reforn in Zambia's Agriculture Sector No. 376 Tsunokawa and Hoban, Roads and the Environment: A Handbcok No. 377 Walsh and Shah, Clean Fuelsfor Asia: Technical Optionsfor Moving toward Unleaded Gasoline and Low-Sulfur Diesel No. 378 Shah and Nagpal, eds., Urban Air Quality Management Strategy in Asia: Kathmandu Valley Report No. 379 Shah and Nagpal, eds., Urban Air Quality Management Strategy in Asia: Jakarta Report No. 380 Shah and Nagpal, eds., Urban Air Quality Management Strategy in Asia: Metro Manila Report No. 381 Shah and Nagpal, eds., Urban Air Quality Management Strategy in Asia: Greater Mumbai Report No. 382 Barker, Tenenbaum, and Woolf, Governance and Regulation of Power Pools and System Operators: An International Comparison No. 383 Goldman, Ergas, Ralph, and Felker, Technology Institutions and Policies: Their Role in Developing Technological Capability in Industry No. 384 Kojima and Okada, Catching Up to Leadership: The Role of Technology Support Institutions in Japan's Casting Sector No. 385 Rowat, Lubrano, and Porrata, Competition Policy and MERCGSUR No. 386 Dinar and Subramanian, Water Pricing Experiences: An International Perspective No. 387 Oskarsson, Berglund, Seling, Snellman, Stenback, and Fritz, A Planner's Guidefor Selecting Clean-Coal Technologiesfor Power Plants No. 388 Sanjayan, Shen, and Jansen, Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia No. 389 International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), Planning the Management, Operation, and Maintenance of Irrigation and Drainage Systems: A Guidefor the Preparation of Strategies and Manuals No. 390 Foster, Lawrence, and Morris, Groundwater in Urban Developrment: Assessing Management Needs and Formulating Policy Strategies No. 391 Lovei and Weiss, Jr., Environmental Management and Institutions in OECD Countries" Lessonsfrom Experience No. 392 Felker, Chaudhuri, Gyorgy, and Goldman, The Pharmaceuticai Industry in India and Hungary: Policies, Institutions, and Technological Development No. 393 Mohan, ed., Bibliography of Publications: Africa Region, 1990-91' No. 394 Hill and Shields, Incentivesfor Joint Forest Management in India: Analytical Methods and Case Studies No. 395 Saleth and Dinar, Satisfying Urban Thirst: Water Supply Augmentation and Pricing Policy in Hyderabad City, India No. 396 Kikeri, Privatization and Labor: What Happens to Workers When Governments Divest? No. 397 Lovei, Phasing Out Leadfrom Gasoline: Worldwide Experience ard Policy lIplications No. 398 Ayres, Anderson, and Hanrahan, Setting Prioritiesfor Environmental MAnagement: An Application to the Mining Sector in Bolivia No. 399 Kerf, Gray, Irwin, Levesque, Taylor, and Klein, Concessions for Infrastructure: A Guide to Their Design and Award (List continues on the inside back cover) WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 447 Evaluating Water Institutions and Water Sector Performance R. Maria Saleth Ariel Dinar The World Bank Washington, D.C. Copyright C 1999 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing August 1999 Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development community with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank: Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. Permission to photocopy items for internal or personal use, for the internal or personal use of specific clients, or for educational classroom use, is granted by the World Bank, provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, U.S.A., telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470. Please contact the Copyright Clearance Center before photocopying items. For permission to reprint individual articles or chapters, please fax your request with complete information to the Republication Department, Copyright Clearance Center, fax 978-750-4470. All other queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to the World Bank at the address above or faxed to 202-522-2422. LSSN: 0253-7494 R. Maria Saleth is a reader, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, India. Ariel Dinar is a principal economist in the World Bank's Rural Development Department. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Saleth, R. Maria, 1955- Evaluating water institutions and water sector performance / R. Maria Saleth, Ariel Dinar. p. cm. - (World Bank technical paper; no. 447) Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 0-8213-4561-3 1. Water resources development. 2. Water resources development- Economic aspects. 3. Water resources development-Government policy. I. Dinar, Ariel, 1947- . II. Title. III. Series. HD1691.S25 1999 333.91-dc2l 99-37395 CIP iii CONTENTS FOREWORD ............................................. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.Vl EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. Vil ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK .3 Water Sector and Water Institution: Conceptual Basis ..........3.................3 Water Institution: Analytical Decomposition .4 Water Sector Performance: Analytical Decomposition .6 Water Institution and Water Sector Performance: Analytical Linkages .8 ExISTING LITERATURE: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW .12 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ........................15.. . ........I................. 15 Definition of Variables . 15 Water Law Variables .. 15 Water Policy Variables.. . 16 Water Administration Variables .17 Performnance Variables . 17 Models of Institution-Performance Linkages ............................... 19 EMPiRICAL CONTEXT 21 Executive Perception as an Empirical Basis ...2............................. 21 Sample Selection and Characteristics ......................... 22 Perceptional Information: Empirical Validity and Interpretation .................................................... 24 Is the Perception-based Information Comparable? .24 Does Institutional Diversity Inhibit the Evaluation? .............................................. 25 How to Interpret the Variations in Experts' Responses? .26 Can the Perception-based Data be used in a Regression Context? 9. 26 Do the Regression Results Reflect Only the Expected Linkages? . 27 Can the Presence of an Institutional Aspect Ensure Better Performance? ...................................................... 27 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .28 Institutional Inter-linkages .29 Water Law Performance: Relative Role of Legal Aspects .,,, 29 Water Policy Performance: Relative Role of Policy Aspects ........................................................ 29 Water Administration Performance: Relative Role of Administrative Aspects .............................................. 30 Water Institution Performance: Relative Role of Institutional Comrponets .31 Water Institution Performance: Relative Role of Institutional Aspects ........................................................ 32 Institution-Performance Linkages .33 Water Sector Performance: Relative Role of Institutional Compoents .33 Water Sector Performance: Relative Role of Institutional Aspects .34 Water Institutions and Water Sector: Overall Performance Linkages .35 IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND POLICY .36 Analytical and Methodological Contributions .37 Contribution of the Empirical Results .38 Policy Contriutions .39 REFERENCES.45 APPENDIX-A: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS .51 APPENDIX-B: THE QUESTIONNAIRE .59 APPENDIX-C: THE DATA SET .80 APPENDIX-D: THE ENTIRE LIST OF EMPIRICAL VARIABLES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDE .89 [l tables' sources are Authors ca cuaationsl iv FOREWORD The water sector is undergoing remarkable changes in recent years. While past achievements were associated mainly with investment in new physical structures, recent developments in the water sector is associated to a greater extent with improved management and institutional changes. Although both the nature and direction of these institutional changes vary by country-specific economic, political/cultural, and resource realities, there are clearly identifiable trends and patterrns. The 1993 World Bank Water Resources Management Policy calls for a comprehensive water resources framework that recognizes appropriate management of water resources, that rely also on sound institutions. World Bank portfolio includes now water projects with massive components of institutional reforms, at all water sub-sectors and management levels. As such, World Bank's projects are part of the trend of change identified at international level. Evaluation of the institutional changes that occur and the consequential performance of the water sector are not straightforward. While country-specific studies describing institutional changes in the water sector are common, comparative studies evaluating the institutional underpinnings of water sector performance with a cross-country perspective are rather rare. Cross-country studies can help not only in understanding the major water sector challenges but also in delineating the contour of ongoing institutional responses, under various country-specific conditions. This report suggests a new methodology to shed light on the process of institution- performance interaction. The report demonstrates the use of the methodology by applying it to an extensive cross-country data set, and by deriving policy guidance based on the results. We hope that this report will stimulate thought and debate about methodologies and strategies to be used in order to evaluate institutional change and institution-performance interactions in the water sector. Alexander F. McCalla Director Rural Development Department v ABSTRACT This study develops an analytical framework to identify various layers of institutional inter-linkages and institution-performance linkages evident in the process of institution- performance interaction within water sector. The study then evaluates the layers of linkages using an evaluation methodology that uses perception-based cross-country data. Both these analytical and empirical analyses are then used to identify key inputs for developing a generic strategy for water institutional reform. Results provide several major insights: They indicate the relative strength, direction, and significance of the performance impact of institutional components and institutional aspects; they suggest clearly that the institution-performance interaction can derive from the general socio- economic, political, and resource-related environment within which such an interaction occurs; and they strongly favor a sequential strategy for institutional reform in general and for water institution in particular. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by the budget allocation from the Rural Cluster within the Development Research Group, by the Visiting Research Fellows Program, and by supplemental funds of the Rural Development Department, the World Bank. The quantitative analysis of the institution-performance interaction reported in this study would not have been possible but for the rich infonnation provided by a sample of 43 international experts on water matters. While their intellectual contributions are gratefully acknowledged without revealing their identity, the special help and logistic support of the following persons during the country visits and international survey deserve a special note of thanks. They include: Miguel Solanes, Sam Johnson, Jose Trava, Nelson Pereira, Larry Simpson, Alberto Garrido, Mohamed Jellali, Dan Yaron, Yaov Kislev, Saul Arlosoroff, Alan Conley, Gerhard Beckeburg, Piet Maritz, Douglas Merrey, Douglas Vermillion, Terrence Abeysekara, Nihal Fernando, Warren Musgrave, John Pigram, Zhang Hai Lun, and Yuri Steklov. The extensive comments and editorial suggestions received from William Easter, Marie-Leigh Livingstone, and Raymond Supalla are also acknowledged with appreciation and thanks. All remaining errors are our responsibility. Finally, the excellent secretarial support of Michelle Riguad and Fulvia Toppin as well as the efficient programming support of Jaime Yepez and data processing assistance of Mr. William Fru are also appreciated. vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The major thrust of institutional reforms within vater sector is to enhance the functional capabilities, operational strength, and institutional readiness to handle water challenges both at present and in future. Given this thrust, the mnain objectives of institutional initiatives are rather transparent. These objectives are to: address water as an economic good, strengthen allocation capabilities, increase the reliance on market forces, revive the payment culture, ensure financial self-sufficiency, promote decentralized decision structure, and encourage the adoption of modem technology and information inputs. While the economic and resource-related rationale for both the thrust and objectives of institutional change are well known, there is a lamentable dearth of understanding on the issue of how to affect water institutional change within the political economy constraints as well as opportunities. In an attempt to bridge this knowledge gap, this study develops an analytical framework to identify various layers of institutional inter-linkages and institution- performance linkages evident in the process of institution-performance interaction within water sector and evaluates these layers of linkages using an innovative evaluation methodology based on perception-based cross-country (lata. Both these analytical and empirical analyses are then used to identify key inputs fDr developing a generic strategy for water institutional reform. Such strategy can minimize the transaction cost but maximize the performance impact. This study has some unique analytical and methodological contributions to make in the context of institutional economics in general and water institution in particular. These are as follows: First, this study, for the first time, makes an analytical decomposition of both the water institution and water sector perfornance. Briefly, water institution is decomposed into three broad components, i.e., water law, water policy, and water administration. Each of these institutional components is again decomposed to identify some of its major institutional aspects. Similarly, water sector performance--considered to cover the performance of all water sub-sectors--is also decomposed in terms of its physical, financial, economic, and equity dimensions. Utilizing this decomposition exercise, the institution-performance interaction within the water sector is elaborated to analytically demonstrate some of the major layers of institutional inter-linkages and institution- performance linkages. Second, the study defines a set of variables to capture the institutional and performance aspects. Some of the major layers of institutional inter-linkages and institution-performance linkages are formally modeled as a set of inter-linked equations. The constant terms in these equations are considered to capture the combined effects of the general environment facing the process of institution-performance interaction within water sector. Since the general environment is defined as socio-economic, political, legal, and environmental factors that are outsiide the strict confines of water sector, it viii captures the intervening effects of factors exogenous to the water sector. In this way, the equations capture the effects of both the endogenous as well as exogenous factors. And, finally, for the empirical estimation of the equations, this study relies on an innovative evaluation methodology based on a cross-country survey of 43 water sector experts having different disciplinary background arnd professional orientation from 11 countries with diverse water problems, socio-economic settings, historical traditions, and political arrangements. While this methodology is nothing new, the justification for its legitimacy provided in this study is, however, new. Unlike the past studies, this study justifies this approach not so much in terms of data difficulties but in terms the subjective nature of institutions recognized repeatedly in the institutional economic literature. That is, institutions are inherently subject in nature because they are human creations for increasing transparency and reducing uncertainty in human interactions and hence, they exist, evolve, and interact with human beings. This fact justifies the use of executive perception as a legitimate basis for institutional evaluation. Both to demonstrate the robustness of the evaluation methodology as well as to facilitate the better interpretation of the policy implications of this study, it is useful to provide here the gist of the regression results. The empirical evaluation focuses on various layers of the institutional inter-linkages arnd institution-performance linkages evident in the process of institution-perfornance interaction within water sector, the results are organized following the same structure. First, as to the institutional inter-linkages within each of the three water institution components. The results could identify some of the legal, policy, and administrative aspects that dominate the current debate on water institutional reform. As per the results, among the seven legal aspects considered for evaluation, only four are important in determining the performance of water law. These legal aspects are: the effectiveness of conflict resolution provisions, the degree of internal consistency within water law, the integrated treatment of water sources, and the scope for private sector participation. Even among these four legal aspects, the first two have a re:latively stronger effect on water law performance as compared to others. Among the seven policy aspects considered, only four are significant in explaining water policy performance. These policy aspects are: the degree of economic orientation of project selection criteria, the level of cost recovery, the linkage between water policy and other policies (e.g., agricultural, fiscal, and trade policies), and the overall linkage between water law and water policy. In terms of relative importance, cost recovery comes first followed then by law-policy linkage and policy inter-linkages. Among the seven administrative aspects considered, only two aspects, i.e., the balance in functional specialization and the existence of an independent body for water pricing, have a dominant role in determining the overall performance of water administration. Second, the institutional inter-linkages within water institution are evaluated by relating the overall performance of water institution first with the performance of its three constituent components and then with some of the selected institutional aspects from each of these three water institution components. The results for the first case show that the overall performance of water institution depends more on the performance of its policy ix and administrative components than on the performance of its legal component. The results for the second case show that of the 16 institutional aspects considered for evaluation, only four become significant in exlplaining water institution performance. These institutional aspects given in the order of their relative importance are: the degree of balance in functional specialization, the existence of an independent body for water pricing, the linkages between water policy and other policies, and the legal scope for private sector participation. And, finally, the institution-performance linkages are evaluated by relating water sector performance first with the performance of the three water institution components and then with the 16 institutional aspects underlying the performance of these three water institution components. The results, in the first case, show that water sector performance is linked more to the performance of water law and water policy than to water administration. The results, in the second case, identify the following institutional aspects to be major determinants of water sector performance. These institutional aspects given in the order of their importance are: the integrated legal treatment of water sources, the existence of an independent body for water pricing, the balance in functional specialization, the legal scope for private participation, and the seriousness of budget constraint. More importantly, the results in almost all cases also show that the constant term capturing the effects of the general enviromnent as defined by the exogenous factors is not only significant but also positive. Some of the major policy implications emanating from the empirical analysis are noted below. As to the policy contributions of this study, its analytical framework is itself important for the purpose of developing strategies for institutional reform within the water sector strategies. Since the analytical decomposition of both water institution and water sector performance provides a sound framework for understanding of the inner dynamics of the process of institution-performance interaction within water sector, it proves to be the starting point for framing institutional initiatives in the water sector. Although the analytical framework developecL here is more generic and useful for planning institutional reform from an international perspective, country level planning, however, requires its adaptation to country-specific ccntexts to take stock of regional variations and unique situations. In addition to the policy implications of the analytical approach, the regression results also provide key inputs for the strategy of institutional reform in the water sector. The policy contributions of the empirical results are as follows: First, since the estimated coefficients of the equations indicate the relative strength, direction, and significance of the performance impact of institutional components and institutional aspects, they can be used as basis for identifying some of the most desirable features of a performance-oriented water institution. In general terms, an ideal water institution needs to have a water law that treats all water sources within an integrated framework, has effective conflict resolution provisions, reveals higher degree of internal consistency, and provides scope for private sector participation. Similarly, it is desirable to have a water policy centered on economically-based project selection x criteria, full cost recovery, strong ties with other economic policies, and close links with water law. Likewise, the most desirable features of water administration are the balance in functional specialization and the existence of an independent body for water pricing. These features set the priorities for institutional reform in a generic context. Second, the institutional aspects identified to be the dominant features of an ideal water institution do not, however, imply that other institutional aspects are less important. In view of the intricate linkages among institutional aspects and the resultant difficulty in isolating the individual effects of various legal, policy, and administrative aspects, it is entirely possible that the effects of some aspects may be either picked up by or mixed up with those of the others. In the first case, the significant institutional aspects actually capture also the joint effects of a set of other related institutional aspects. However, in the second case, institutional aspects, which are significant at an individual level, can become insignificant in a collective context where they are combined with other ineffective institutional aspects. From a policy perspective, therefore, it is necessary to recognize the institutional and performance linkages that the identified set of desirable institutional features has with others. Third, although all water institution components and its constituent institutional aspects are interrelated and hence, equally important, the observed variations in the size and significance of their estimated coefficients in d.ifferent evaluation contexts clearly suggest that they differ in terms of their institutional linkages and performance impacts. Since their differential effects reflect essentially the role of both time lag and operational proximity, it is reasonable to order and sequence the institutional aspects in terms of their instantaneous effects and immediate linkages as indicated by the size, direction, and significance of the variables representing them. Such an ordering provides a very valuable basis both for institutional design as well as for its sequential implementation. Given an initial institutional design, the general guide]ine for its implementation involves the identification of institutional aspects having both the most immediate return in terms of improved water sector performance as well as the most intimate operational linkages with other institutional aspects which are next in the hierarchy of importance. In this way, the implementation of each institutional aspect improves water sector performance even while creating a favorable climate for the implementation of subsequent institutional aspects. Fourth, the significant positive effect that the constant term has in most contexts suggests clearly the synergy that the institution-performance interaction can derive from the general socio-economic, political, and resource-related environment within which such an interaction occurs. With an overall pro-reforrn climate, it is possible not only to minimize the overall transaction cost of institutional reform but also to achieve more than proportionate improvement in water sector performance with a given level of institutional change. The significance of the exogenous factors also suggest that the institutional reforms within water sector need to be approached in a broader context to exploit well the synergy generated by prior, concurrent, and subsequent changes elsewhere in the economy. This also suggests the role that timing of water institutional reforms implementation play in determining their effectiveness and impact. xi Finally, the results strongly favor a sequential strategy for institutional reform in general and water institution in particular. The main rationale for this strategy lies in the tremendous scope for gainfully exploiting the synergy that emerges from both within and outside the water sector. While the strategy of institutional reform at-one-go is economically costly and politically difficult, effecting gradualistic changes within an ordered and sequential framework enhance the feasibility and effectiveness of institutional change in most situations. Since the institutional synergy reduces the transaction costs-of subsequent reforms, and the immediate performance impacts of initial reforms ensures a steady flow of economic benefits, the sequential strategy enhances the prospects for institutional change by gradually weakening political resistance even while precipitating an endogenous pressure for further reforms. The sequential strategy is also more suitable for international lending agencies such as the World Bank with an avowed interest in promoting institutional change in thLe water sector worldwide. Since this strategy provides a natural framework for temporally and operationally linked long-term lending programs in the institutional sphere of water sector, it is mutually advantageous for both the borrowing countries and the lending agencies. To conclude, the present study does break new grounds both in terms of its analytical approach and methodological innovation as well as in terms of its policy insights into the process of institution-performance interaction. But, further research is needed to improve the policy value and credibility of this study by extending the analysis in two main directions. First, the empirical basis of the analysis has to be broadened by increasing the sample size--both by adding more countries and water sector experts--and incorporating, thereby, a greater diversity in the context and perception of the institution- performance interaction. Second, the evaluation has to be extended to cover also the layers of interaction among institutional aspects within each water institution component (e.g., the relationship among the legal aspects such as conflict resolution, water rights, and accountability). And, finally, the estimation procedure has to be refined to evaluate together the intricate linkages among various layers of the institution-performance interaction within a sequential or simultaneous system fiamework. Since a simultaneous estimation can isolate and trace the effects of any institutional aspects throughout the system, it allows the identification of a more accurate institutional design and sequencing than that possible at present. With a well designed and sequential strategy that exploits better the institutional inter-linkages and synergy, the political economy constraint that persists because of an inadequate understanding of the process of institutional change, can be relaxed, and even, be turned into an imperative for change. INTRODUCTION Physical limits to fresh water expansion--an emerging reality in many parts of the world-- make absolute water scarcity inevitable. The inability of the already developed water supply to meet an ever-growing demand for fresh water also makes the emergence of relative water scarcity unavoidable. Water scarcity--both in its absolute and relative forms--gets accentuated further by an increasing premiurn attached to water quality and ecological sustainability. The multifarious economic and political consequences of water scarcity--including the widespread occurrence of inter-regional and inter-sectoral water conflicts--have heightened the need for creating flexible but effective water allocation and management mechanisms. The creation of allocation-cenatered institutional mechanisms of the kind needed to tackle water scarcity on a continuing basis is not an isolated task. It warrants a rather radical restructuring of the whole gamut of institutional arrangements that govern various facets of water sector like water resource development, allocation, utilization, and management. Such an institutional restructuring obviously entails concurrent reforms in the legal, policy, and administrative spheres of the water sector. Institutional reform of the magnitude required at present is obviously a daunting challenge in most countries with outdated and poorly functioning water institutions. While policy-makers realize the heavy socio-economic costs of the prevailing institutional inadequacy within the water sector, the political economy constraints remain a powerful obstacle for initiating any substantive institutional reform. This adds an additional dimension to the task of promoting institutional change, i.e., the identification of a politically more acceptable reform strategy. Fortunately, in addition to the positive influence of the progress in water and information teclmologies, two powerful factors enhance the prospects for water institutional reforms in most countries. First, the economic benefits likely to be realized from an allocation-oriented institutional change are not only substantial but also increasing with increased water scarcity. Such benefits, though difficult to quantify exhaustively, can be conceptualized in general terms as improvements in overall water sector performance. And, second, the cost of transacting institutional reform in a given political economy context can be minimized and the usual inertia associated with the stupendous nature of the refonn task can be overcome through a gradual but sequential reform strategy. Since such a strategy continuously builds on the synergy generated by undertaking selected reforms in key institutional components, subsequent reforms become easier to transact both politically and institutionally. Taken together, these two factors also have the additional effect of offsetting residual political resistance. The identification of a sequential strategy for water institutional reform requires a much closer evaluation of the two main dimensions of the process of institution- performance interaction within water, i.e., the institutional inter-linkages and institution- performance linkages. Such an evaluation, if performed within an analytical framework capable of capturing well the institution-performance interaction and an empirical context amenable for generalization, can provide immense policy insights into the relative significance of various institutional components in terms of the nature and magnitude of 2 their institutional inter-linkages and performance effects. The relative significance of institutional components including their linkages and performance impact can enable the establishment of a prioritization scheme where institutional components and sub- components are ordered in terms of their performance impact and political acceptability. Given such a prioritization scheme, it is rather straightforward to outline not only a blueprint of a performance-oriented water institution but also a sequential strategy for its implementation with a minimum transaction costs but maximum performance benefits. Unfortunately, existing literature on the subject--both theoretical and empirical-- provides little guidance as their focus is either too narrow to consider water institutions as a whole or too descriptive or anecdotal to provide any quantitative evaluation. This limitation of the existing literature is understandable for two reasons. First, most studies have either ignored or underestimated the strategic roles of the critical linkages evident among institutional components (e.g., the linkages between property rights system and conflict resolution capabilities or the extent of water technology and information application and enforcement/monitoring capabilities of water administration). And, second, the inherent difficulties in quantifying institutional issues and obtaining the right kind of data have discouraged the attempt for a quantitative evaluation of water institution and their performance impacts. While the analytical challenges and empirical difficulties are too real to discount, the strategic value of a quantitative institutional inquiry within the water sector provides the urge to venture into this uncharted course of policy research. The present study aims to make a modest beginning in this critical but least explored area of institutional research. It develops first an evaluation methodology that analytically decomposes water institution and water sector performance to identify some of their major components. It functionally links these components to formally characterize the institutional inter- linkages and institution-performance linkages within water sector. It utilizes an innovative cross-country survey of international water sector experts to obtain both factual and perceptional information on all relevanit variables. Finally, utilizing the evaluation methodology and the survey information, this study attempts a quantitative evaluation of both the institutional inter-linkages and institution-performance linkages within the water sector to derive significant implications for both theory and policy. More specifically, the main objectives of this study are to: (a) delineate an analytical framework capable of capturing the operational linkages both within and among different water institutional components as well as between water institutions and water sector performance; (b) develop an evaluation methodology to functionally link some of the major water institutional components both witlh themselves as well as with water sector performance; (c) demonstrate the practical utility of the methodology for the quantitative analysis of both the institutional inter-linkages and the institution-performance linkages with its empirical application in al cross-country context; 3 (d) identify the relative significance of various institutional components in terms of the nature and strength of their institutionaL and performance linkages and synergy; (e) outline the desirable characteristics of a performance-oriented water institution including the identification of some key features of a strategy for its sequential implementation; and (f) conclude by identifying key implications for both water institution theory and water sector policy. It is useful to note that the study is also organized, more or less, on the lines of this sequentially linked set of objectives. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK The analytical framework underlying the evaluation methodology involves three steps. First, the concepts of 'water sector', 'water institution', and 'water sector performance' are defined to set the broad contour of analysis. Second, water institution and water sector performance are conceptually decomposed to identify some of their major components and sub-components (or, aspects). And, finally, the decomposition exercise is used as a basis to analytically highlight various layers cf institutional inter-linkages and institution-performance linkages evident within water sector. Water Sector and Water Institution: Conceptuial Basis For the purpose of this study, water sector is considered lto cover all consumptive uses of water like irrigation, domestic consumption, and industrial use from both surface and sub-surface sources as well as reclaimed or recycled sources. The non-consumptive uses such as power generation, navigation, and ecological water needs are considered but only to the extent they influence the dominant consumptive uses either directly or indirectly. Although the macro perspective entailed by a broader concept of water sector involves an obvious sacrifice of micro details, such a perspective is taken deliberately to sharpen the focus on the main thrust of this study, i.e., the evaluation of the process of institution- performance interaction within water sector. Consistent with the institutional economics literature, institution is conceived in a much broader sense than mere organization. Since instilutions set the rules of the game and define, thereby, what individuals can and cannot do in given context, they, in effect, delineate the action sets for both individual and collective decision-making (Commons, 1968; Bromley, 1989a and 1989b; North, 1990). Institutions are influenced by a variety of factors such as historical precedents, constitutional provisions, political arrangements, demographic conditions, resource endowment, and economic development. Since the influence of these factors is formalized into three inter-related aspects, i.e., legal frameworks, policy issues, and administrative arrangements, institution can be conceptualized as an entity defined interactively by three main components, i.e., law, policy, and administration. Specializing such a general notion of institution to the 4 particular context of water sector, water institution can be characterized in terms of water law, water policy, and water administration.' As in the case of water sector, water institution is also approached from a national perspective. Besides, water institution as used in this study covers only its formal dimensions. i.e, formal water law, water policy, and water administration but excludes their informal counterparts such as conventions, customs, and administrative traditions. Since the fonnal dimensions of water institutions, unlike their informal counterparts, evince remarkable stability and regional similarity, they are more opt for the purpose of establishing an internationally comparable standard characterization and decomposition. Water Institution: Analytical Decomposition The analytical decomposition of water institution is done at two stages. First, water institution is decomposed into three broad institutional components, i.e., water law, water policy, and water administration. And, then, each of these institutional components is decomposed further to identify its constituent institutional aspects.2 While it is easy to identify all the institutional aspects involved in each of the three institutional components of water institution, it is rather difficult to considzr all of them within a single and tractable framework. For a focused and manageable evaluation, therefore, it is necessary to concentrate on some of the major institutional aspects. It is desirable from a policy perspective that the institutional aspects selected for a focussed treatment are those which are noted frequently as the key factors influencing the overall performance of both water institutions and water sector. The institutional aspects that are finally selected under each of the three institutional components of water institution are given below. The Water law component of water institution includes the following law-related institutional aspects: (a) Legal treatment of water and related resources, (b) Format of water rights, (c) Provisions for conflict resolution, (d) Provisions for accountability, (e) Scope for private sector participation, (f) Centralization tendency, and (g) Degree of legal integration within water law. The water policy component of water institution includes the following policy- related institutional aspects: I Note that water institution is also influenced by the non-water-related legal, policy, and administrative aspects (e.g., constitution, and land and environment laws, agricultural and fiscal policies, and agricultural and credit administrations). As such, the influence of these aspects has also to be taken into account when dealing with water institution. 2 Notice the way the concepts of 'institutional components' and 'institutional aspects' are used in this study. While the former is used to denote a broader decomposition of water institution, the latter is used to denote a further decomposition of the three water institution components. Thus, the latter can also be used to denote a finer decomposition of water institution per se. 5 (a) Project selection criteria, (b) Pricing and cost recovery, (c) Inter-regional/sectoral water transfer, (d) Private sector participation, (e) User participation, and (f) Linkages with other economic policies. The water Administration component of water institution includes the following administration-related institutional aspects: (a) Spatial organization, (b) Organizational features, (c) Functional capacity, (d) Pricing and finance, (e) Regulatory and accountability mechanisms, and (f) Information, research, and technological capabilities. As can be seen, the institutional aspects selected for evaluation here capture some of the policy issues that dominate the current debate on water sector reform. These issues are: integrated water resources management, conflict resolution, accountability, financial viability, decentralization, and capacity building within water sector. All these issues also have a strong bearing on the overall performance of both water institution and water sector. The coverage of water institutional aspects can, therefore, be considered adequate to evaluate most of the currently relevant policy issues operating in the interface between water institutions and water sector performance. Besides these institutional aspects, there is also a need for a set of performance aspects to capture the overall effectiveness or performance of not only each of the three institutional components but also water institution taken as a whole. They are as follows: (a) Overall effectiveness of water law, (b) Overall effectiveness of water policy, (c) Overall effectiveness of water administration, and (d) Overall effectiveness of water institution. The overall effectiveness of each of the three institutional components depends not only on the effectiveness of its constituent institutional aspects but also on the strength of their linkages with other institutional components. Similarly,, the overall effectiveness water institution depends on both the individual and interactive effects of the performance levels of the three institutional components. In this way, the overall performance of water institution is linked ultimately to both the individual and joints effects of the institutional aspects underlying all the three institutional components. In addition to the direct impact of institutional components and their underlying institutional aspects, the performance of water institution is also influenced by the general socio-economic, political, and resource- related environment within which it operates. Although the overall performance of water institution is relatively more difficult to conceive and measure as compared with that of its components, it is, however, possible to capture it indirectly in terms the progressiveness of water institution. Broadly 6 speaking, the progressive nature of water institution can be conceived in terms of four inter-related factors, i.e., adaptive capacity, scope for innovation, openness for change, and ability to tackle emerging problems. While adaptive capacity is indicative of the flexible nature of water institution to change with time and space, the scope for innovation allows it to acquire new and more appropriate institutional structure and get itself updated constantly. Similarly, the openness for change suggests the absence of institutional rigidity within water institution and the ability to tackle emerging problems indicates its performance efficiency even with changing resource realities within water sector. Obviously, all these factors are fundamentally interrelated in the sense that the openness of water institution for change is a basic condition for ensuring its adaptive capacity and innovation potential, and all these three factors are indispensable for creating a flexible and performance-oriented water institution. Given the decomposition of water institution and its performance outlined above, it is possible to link--both analytically and functionally--the performance of each institutional component with their constituent institutional aspects. Similarly, the overall performance of water institution can also be linked not only with the performance of institutional components but also with the institutional aspects themselves. In this way, the analytical decomposition exercise outlined above provides a framework for evaluating both the institutional inter-linkages as well as institution-performance linkages within water sector. Water Sector Performance: Analytical Decomposition Rigorous performance criteria have been developed and applied at the level of particular projects within the irrigation sub-sector (e.g., Sampath, 1990; Bos, 1997; Burt and Styles, 1997; Brewer, Sakthivadivel, and Raju, 1997; Renault, 1998). But, the same cannot be said about the criteria needed for an evaluation of the overall performance of water sector taken as a whole. Efforts to develop objective and internationally comparable economic and equity criteria are severely constrained both by the data and methodological problems involved in capturing the economic or scarcity value of water as well as by the subjective issues inevitable in evaluating equity performance. While there are indicators for the physical gap (i.e., between water demand and supply) and financial gap (i.e., between water charges and supply cost), their aggregate/sector-specific nature and data problems limit their ability to serve as objective criteria for the overall water sector performnance. Even with well-developed objective performance criteria, water sector performance cannot be evaluated in all its dimensions due to the presence of crucial subjective but very pertinent aspects of performance such as the smoothness of water transfers and the adaptive ability of water institution. Although the number of water conflicts can be used as a proxy for the smoothness of water transfers, it is not clear how the relative seriousness of such conflicts can be factored into the evaluation. Similar is also the case with the extent of science and technolog;y application because the number of scientific and technical instruments need not necessarily reflect the effectiveness with which they are used. Even in cases where objective criteria are available or theoretically 7 possible, subjective aspects (in the sense of learned judgements of experts) are still inevitable either to substitute or supplement prevailing knowledge. Since water sector performance is an entity having both physical, finantcial, economic, and equity dimensions, it is logical to decompose it in terms of these four performance dimensions or components. The performance aspects selected under each these four performance components of water sector performance are listed below. The physical performance of water sector is evaluated in terms of the following aspects: (a) Demand-supply gap, (b) Physical health of water infrastructure, (c) Conflict resolution efficiency (low-cost and less time), and (d) Smoothness of water transfers across sectors/regions/users. The financial performance of water sector is evaluated in terms of the following aspects: (a) Investment gap (actual vs. requirecl) and (b) Financial gap (expenditure vs. cost: recovexy). The economic efficiency of water sector is evaluated in terms of the following aspects: (a) Pricing gap (water prices vs. supply cost) eand (b) Incentive gap (water prices vs. scarcity value of water). And, finally, the equity performance of water sector is evaluated in terms of the following aspects: (a) Equity between regions, (b) Equity between sectors, and (c) Equity between groups. One issue deserves special mention partly because of its significance and partly as an instance for the inter-dimensional synergy evident among performance components. This is the mutual performance impact of physical, financial, economic, and equity components. For instance, the pricing and cost recovery aspects have an influence on the physical health of water infrastructure via their implications for the ability to fund maintenance and system improvement activities on a regular basis. Similarly, an enhanced service quality as induced by a healthy water infrastructure is likely to facilitate a better recovery of costs. Likewise, efficient conflict resolution mechanisms can ease the process of inter-sectoral and inter-regional water transfers and contribute, thereby, to a more efficient and equitable allocation of water resources. Besides their financial implications, efficient water prices can also contribute to water use efficiency and conflict resolution. Similar kinds of inter-dimensional synergy among the water institution components and institutional aspects have already been discussed in the context of the analytical decomposition of water institution. It is in view of its ability to capture such linkages that the analytical framework developed from a. detailed decomposition of water institution and water sector performance becomes important as an analytical tool for a systematic evaluation of the institution-performance interaction within the water sector. 8 Water Institution and Water Sector Performance. Analytical Linkages With the analytical decomposition of water institutions and water sector performance, it is now possible to demonstrate their analytical and operational linkages. To distinguish the linkages with water institution (i.e., the linkages among water institution components and aspects) from those between water institution and water sector performance, the former are denoted as institutional inter-linkages whereas the latter are denoted as institution-performance linkages. As stated already, these two sets of linkages constitute actually the two main dimensions of the process of institution-performance interaction within water sector. Since the institutional inter-linkages are the underlying causes for the institution-performance linkages, it is logical to begin with the former. In this respect, it is useful to recognize certain special features of the linkages among the three components of water institution. Although water law and water policy are related, it is difficult to establish whether water law precedes or succeeds water policy as history provides evidence for both cases. But, in any case, neither of them can be effective without the other in view of their mutual feed backs and adjustments occurring through time. Under ideal conditions, water law empowers water policy and water policy, in turn, provides a political economy translation for water law. Taken together, they define the framework and determine the capacity of water adrministration that actually implements the legal and policy provisions at the field level. Intuitively speaking, water law and water policy form the software component of water institution whereas water administration forms as the hardware component of water institution. The overall performance of water institution and its ultimate impact on water sector performance depends not only on the capabilities of its individual components but also on the degree of integration evident among them. The degree of integration within water institution can be formalized in terms of the strength of institutional inter-linkages. An illustrative set of these institutional inter-linkages is depicted in Figure 1. To begin with, the legal aspects related to the way different water sources as well as their linkages with other resources, such as land and environment, are legally treated have an influence on water policy aspects such as the prioritization of water sources and project selection criteria. For instance, a water law that does not discriminate water by its source but does recognize the ecological linkages between water and other resources is more likely to encourage a water policy that assigns a higher priority for environmental imperatives and hydrological inter- connectivity in project selection. Such a legal-policy linkage also creates a favorable institutional environment for promoting an integrated approach to water resource management. This particular linkage also indicates the way in which water law and water policy are influenced by the laws and policies relating to other resources like land and environment. The most important legal aspect having multiple linkages with other legal, policy, and administrative aspects is related to water use rights. It reinforces further the effects of the already inter-related legal aspects of conflict resolution and accountability. It also influences the water policy through its effects--both implicit and explicit--on policy aspects such as water pricing, cost recovery, management decentralization, and private sector participation. The three legal aspects related respectively to water rights, conflict 9 resolution, and accountability also have a strong effect on water administration. This is because their implementation requires special administrative mechanisms and functional capabilities. Taken together, they also determine the regulatory powers of water administration. Different policy aspects also infLuence water administration. The most important among them are the policy aspects involving user participation, management decentralization, and private sector participation. These policy aspects can strengthen water administration by tapping private skills and funds even while contributing to staff reduction and de-bureaucratization. Water policy with regard to the application of water, information, and management technologies contributes to skill formation and capacity building within water administration. Besides the institutional inter-linkages noted here, there are also many more linkages--both straightforward and subtle--that are equally important in determining the overall performance of water institutions. Water Law ,Water Policy * Inter-Source Links * Use Priority * Inter-Resource Links * Project Selection * Water Rigts * Cost Recovery O , Conflict Resolution - * Water Transfers _ Accountability -* Decentralization! _ Scope for Private -Privatization Participation * Technology Policy Water Administration * - Governnent Layers * Structure of Water Administration * Finance/Staff Patterns _q _ * Pricing/Fee Collection < _ * Regulation/Accountability I Information Capability --- Technical Capacity _ Figure 1 Water Institution: Illustrative Inter-linkages For a better understanding of the institution-performance linkages, it is necessary to recognize two factors, i.e., the specific role of institution and the intervening influence of factors that are strictly outside the realm of both water institution and water sector. Since the main role of institutional arrangements is to structure the incentive system in vogue, they underpin the operation of the allocation mechanisms and guide water resource allocation and utilization on a continuing basis. Thus, the performance impact of an institutional arrangement depends critically on its incentive properties and allocation abilities. This applies equally to water irLstitution. In view of its deep operational linkages with the incentive structures and allocation mechanisms, water 10 institution has a strong and direct impact on water sector performance. The strength of the performance impact of water institution depends, of course, on the efficacy of its individual components as well as the degree of integration among those institutional components themselves. Moreover, the overall context in which the institution- performance linkages are evaluated also exerts a strong influence on the strength of the performance impact of water institution. Given the influence of exogenous factors such as political condition, economic development, demographic growth, and resource scarcity, an institutional arrangement with stronger incentive features and integration properties is likely to yield a better water sector performance as compared with others. The operational implication of this fact, which forms the basic logic behind the institutional approach to water resource management, is that water sector performance can be improved through induced changes in water institutions. The nature of the institution-performance interaction within water sector can be explained using Figure 2. PoLitial System ; Water Lam, .- Water Policy eg Wate]r Institution Water DemographyAdmninistration g/Tconomic Deveomn (Rsources/Envrnet\\\ Water Sector Performance Figure 2 Water Sector: Institution-Performance Linkages Figure 2 has two parts, the institution-performance interaction within water sector and the general context within which such interaction occurs. Taking first the institution- performance interaction, notice the two-way arrow that links water institution and water sector performance. While institutions do influence water sector performance through the economic medium, both the nature of the water sector and the level of its performance influence water institution through the hydro-geological and political mediums. This two-way linkage has three major implications. First is the role of economic factors in initiating institutional change in water sector. Next is the role of hydro-geological factors 11 in explaining institutional variations across countries and regions. Since water institutions are shaped by the nature of water sector, they are not entirely independent of the basic characteristics of the water sector itself. Thus, water institutions in areas with water abundance differ obviously from those in areas withi acute scarcity. The last one is the role of water sector crisis in building political pressure for institutional change. The crisis-induced institutional responses observed now in most countries do provide evidence for the central role of political pressure (see Saleth and Dinar, 1999). The political impact of the hydrological phenomenon of vater crisis has an underlying economic urge for change as well. With a crisis-riddlen water sector, the marginal benefits of institutional change in terms of improved performance become very high relative to both the real and monetary costs of transacting the institutional change. This provides a welfare theoretic logic for initiating changes in the institutional arrangements governing water sector. Although the incremental net benefits from institutional change can decline as water institution matures over time, they are quite high in the initial stages of institutional evolution.3 The context within which the institution-perfonnance interaction occurs is as important as its mechanics because of its effect on the two-way linkages between water institution and water sector performance. In reality, the general context or the environment is defined by an inter-play of innumerable factors that are strictly exogenous to the water sector. But, for analytical convenience and simplicity, Figure 2 focuses only on the most important among them such as the political system, legal framework, economic development, demographic condition, and resource endowment. Although these factors are themselves inter-related, for expositiornal purpose, Figure 2 highlights only the nature of their relationship with the process of institution-performance interaction. While the political system and legal framework affect mainly the structure of water institution, the other factors influence and are also being influenced by water sector performance. Since these factors represent the exogenous constraints and opportunities, they play a major role in shaping both the nature and character of the institution- performance interaction within water sector. Although institutional differences provide the major explanation for variations in water sector performance, the general context of the institution-performance interaction is still important for providing residual explanations.4 In many instances, the context can even explain better the reasons as to why sirailarly placed water institutions (or its The evaluation of the benefits and costs of institutional change is often blurred in view of the political context in which the exercise is being done. Because of the rayopic calculus, the transaction costs-- both real and monetary--are overestimated while the benefits siream that continues over a longer time span and spills over far beyond the water sector are underestirmated. However, the point being made here takes purely an economic stand with a welfare theoretic perspective. Regarding the important role that the social and political contexts play in determining the effectiveness of institutions in general, North (1990:101) notes that the adoption of either the US constitution by many Latin American countries or the westem property rights laws by many developing countries has not been successful because "the enforcement mechanism, the norms of behavior, and the subjective model or models of the actors are not the same". This means that institutional similarity does not necessarily assure performance consistency across contexts. 12 components) lead to a differential water sector performance. The performance variations in the turn-over policy across countries (see Johnson, 1997; Vermillion, 1997) and basin level organizations (see Kliot et al., 1997) are cases in point. These instances show that political and legal commitments to declared policies, though necessary, are not sufficient in the face of administrative inadequacy and other bottlenecks including the structural basis of political system (e.g., federal vs. unitary form or presidential vs. parliamentary form). The economic factors including macro economic reform and trade policy change also play a strong role in providing impetus for institutional changes within water sector. The success of the turn-over program in Mexico, the extensive water sector reform initiated already in China, and the growing policy attention to water sector reform in India can all be traced to their macro economic reforms of the late 1980s (Saleth and Dinar, 1999). Almost similar is also the role of environmental factors including drought and floods as illustrated by the cases of California and China respectively. These instances for the powerful role that exogenous factors play in process of institution- performance interaction within water sector clearly underline the need to incorporate within the evaluation framework both the synergy as well as discord emanating from both within and outside the water sector.5 EXISTING LITERATURE: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW To provide background and set contrast for the methodology to be used in the present study, it is useful to review a subset of existing studies in the institutional economics literature that try to empirically evaluate the issue of institution-performance interaction both in general and in water sector contexts. The focus of this review is mainly on three aspects, i.e., the dimensions of the institution-performance interaction being evaluated, the nature of the variables being developed to capture institutional aspects, and the methodological framework and evaluation context being used by the existing studies. To begin with, a temporal analysis is used by Wallis and North (1986 and 1988) to study the size, structure, and implications of the 'transaction sector' (i.e., the institutional structures that facilitate, enforce, and maintain economic exchanges within the market setting) in the US during 1870-1970. Adelman and Morris (1974) and Adelman and Lohmoller (1994) combine both temporal and cross-section analysis to study the impact of political structures and economic institutions on economic growth in the context of 23 countries during 1850-1914. The study by Adelman and Lohmoller (1994) is particularly important in view of its methodological implications for the purpose of the present study. It evaluates the institution-performance interaction within a quantitative framework using a latent variable regression model where many latent or One way of conceptualizing and analytically tracking the influence of these exogenous factors is to consider their effects both on the social benefits and transaction costs of institutional change. While political and legal factors have a dominant role in determnining the transaction costs, others have a larger role in defining the social benefits from institutional changes within water sector. 13 unobservable institutional variables are captured by their relationship with manifest or observable variables. Most of the latent variables (e.g., the character of national political leadership, favorableness of land institutions to improvements, and the spread of technology in different sectors) have also been formulated as categorical variables with categories ordered based either on actual evidence or on a priori reasoning (Adelman and Lohmoller, 1994:351-354). A combination of temporal and cross-sectional analysis has also been used for studying both general as well as specific aspects of institution-performance interaction. For instance, the study by Remmer (1998) uses this hybrid approach to evaluate the relationship between democracy and international cooperation in the Mercosur region (comprising of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) during 1947-85. While the actually observed economic and international treaty data are combined to quantitatively evaluate the democracy-cooperation linkages within a 'logit regression framework, the main dichotomous variable, i.e., democracy, has been created using secondary information from a comparative research on Latin American democracy. There are also theoretical and analytical studies addressing particular aspects of the institution- performance interaction such as the relationship between organizational performance and economic development status (e.g., Clague, 1994) and the role of state in building new institutions and managing conflicts during the process of structural change (Chang, 1994). Although these issues can be addressed quantitatively, since these two studies use a cross-section of only a few countries, they evaluate these issues only theoretically within an analytical framework.6 There is another interesting set of studies which show how data problems inherent in an empirical evaluation of institution-performance interaction can be overcome by combining subjective information with objective data particularly within cross-sectional contexts. As for instance, in their logistic regressicn-based cross-country study of institutions and economic perforrnance, Knack and Keefer (1986) combine observable variables like investment, gross domestic product, and prices with subjectively evaluated institutional variables like quality of bureaucracy, conuption level, expropriation risk, and infrastructure quality. They obtain these institutional variables--evaluated within a 0- 10 or 0-4 scale--from the compilation of private professional bodies providing international investment risk services such as the International Country Risk Guide and Business Environment Risk Intelligence. These investment service firms, in turn, develop these institutional indicators based on a survey of international executives. Similarly, Gray and Kaufmann (1998) evaluate the linkage between corruption and development in a cross-country context utilizing the executive perception-based institutional information compiled by the World Economic Forum (1997).7 6 This is not, however, to undermine the importance of these and ather similar studies but to illustrate how the subject of enquiry, evaluation context, data problems, and. evaluation techniques are inter-related. This is particularly so in the case of institution-performance interaction because of an innate difficulty in quantifying an essentially qualitative and subjective phenornenon. 7 For instance, the 1997 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum has compiled and processed the responses from 3000 firms in 59 countries. 14 Cukierman, Webb, and Neyapti (1992) have studied the nature of the relationship between the degree of independence of central banks and the level of inflation within a regression framework. Thier study provides an interesting case not only for combining temporal and cross-sectional analysis but also for obtaining institutional information from a cross-section of policy experts through a custom-made questionnaire. While their dependent variable, i.e., inflation, is observable and objective, their independent variable, i.e., the independence of the central bank, is reflected by a set of coded and appropriately weighted legal aspects pertaining to the functioning of the central bank and its top executive. Notably, the survey of experts in 23 of the 72 sample countries has been used to obtain both parallel information as well as perceptional weights on all relevant institutional variables. Brinkerhoff (1994) evaluates the effects of institutional design features on the performance of projects by considering a random sample of 80 World Bank-funded projects undertaken in different countries during 1983-90. The scope of this study is confined to a cross-section of projects and its evaluation technique is limited to a statistical analysis of tabulated data. Nevertheless, it is notable for its detailed analytical decomposition of institutional design features as well as for its use of a rating scheme for the numerical conversion of some of the institutional aspects on a scale of -3 to +3.8 Both the general and specific aspects of the linkages between water institutions and water sector performance have been recognized widely either within a theoretical, anecdotal, or case study framework (e.g., Hartman and Seastone, 1970; Dinar and Latey, 1991; Frederiksen, 1992; Guggenheim, 1992; Le Moigne, et al., 1992 and 1994; Gazmuri and Rosegrant, 1994; Heame and Easter, 1997; ]Howitt, 1998). While the scope, purpose, and methodology of these studies vary, the common element binding them together is their focus on the performance implications of one or more aspects of water allocation and management institutions. But, there is hardly any study that either posits or evaluates the issue of institution-performance interaction in the water sector with such a broader perspective as outlined in Figures 1 and 2. However, there are few studies that evaluate some of the aspects of this interaction using different evaluation contexts and methodologies. Wade (1982) compares the yield and employment performances of irrigation water control institutions (i.e., the water distribution system and allocation procedure) in Southern India with that in Korea within an essentially descriptive and non-quantitative framework. The better performance of Korea is explained in terms of a better water supply, small, decentralized, and demand-controlled system, and good management structure. Lo and Tang (1994) utilize, again, a case study framework of descriptive nature to explain the differential performance of institutional arrangements (governance and management structures) in controlling water pollution from different sources (industrial and domestic) by considering the case of Guangzhou Municipality, China. The main result is that since no one set of institutional arrangements can solve all types of 8 The rating scheme involves subjective considerations in the sense of 'learned judgment'. Few instances for the rated variables are the level of government, stakeholder, and public support; economic, policy, and social contexts; and environmental stability. 15 collective problems, a better institutional performance can be ensured only by designing them to be compatible with the type of problems they confront. There are also studies that specifically consider the role of the context within which the institution-performance interaction occurs in the water sector. For instance, Rausser and Zusman (1991) provides a theoretical molel that considers the political, economic, and physical aspects of the water systems as parts of a co-evolutionary process. Although this study does not deal with either institution or its performance directly, it suggests a way for endogenizing the context of institution-performance interaction within the evaluation process itself. S'imilarly, utilizing the case of the River Platte in the north-west US, Yang (1997) describes the way water institution, resource system, and competing economic and social interests interact and co-evolve through time. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The analytical framework outlined above provides a basis for developing a methodology for a quantitative evaluation both the institutional inter-linkages (see Figure 1) as well as the institution-performance linkages (see Figure 2). The methodology involves two inter- related steps. First, for the purpose of translating the analytical framework into an empirically applicable form, a set of variables is identified to capture various analytical components and aspects of both water institution and water sector performance. The selection of each of these variables is guided not only by its ability to reflect the status of a given component or aspect but also by its amenability for numerical translation within an empirical setting. Obviously, some of these variables are quantitative or, at least, quantifiable by proxies whereas others are inherently qualitative and, therefore, relative involving subjective or judgmental considerations. And, second, given the identified set of institutional and performance variables, various layers of institutional inter-linkages and institution-performance linkages evident in figures 1 and 2 are translated in the form of functional models which can be empirically estimated within a regression framework. Definition of Variables The definition of both the institutional and performance variables flows directly from the analytical decomposition of water institutions and water sector performance. Each of the decomposed institutional and performance aspects is captured by one or more variables depending upon the desired level of detail. To facilitate a better interpretation of these variables, it is necessary to describe their nature and forrnat including the range of values they can take. The institutional and performance variables are defined below. Water Law Variables LTRWSA = Legal treatment of surface and subsurface sources, a dummy variable with 1 if both sources are treated alike but 0 otherwise; LPRSRF = Format of surface water rights with a value range of 0-6 where 0 for no rights, 1 for unclear/unauathorized/scattered rights, 2 for common/ state property, 3 for ripariarn system, 4 for appropriative system, 5 for 16 correlative (proportional sharing) system, and 6 for licenses/permits; LCRMEE = Effectiveness of conflict resolution mechanisms9 captured in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a 0-10 scale; LACPRE = Overall effectiveness of accoumtability provisions'" evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a 0-10 scale; LINTRE = Overall ability of water law to provide a legal framework for an integrated treatment of water from various sources evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; LOECEN= Extent of centralization tendency within water law evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; LOEPRV = Legal scope for private sector participation in water sector evaluated in termns of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; LOEFWL = Overall effectiveness of water law" evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; Water Policy Variables PPSCRI = Project selection criteria having a value range of 0-6 with 0 for no response, 1 for political dictates, 2 for equity factors, 3 for ecological factors, 4 for benefit-cost ratio, 5 for internal rate of return, and 6 for multiple criteria; PCOREC= Cost recovery status with 0 for non-response, 1 for full subsidy, 2 for partial recovery, and 3 for full-cost recovery; PIRSWE = Smoothness of inter-regional and inter-sectoral water transfers evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PGPIPP = Impact of private sector promotion policy evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PGPIUP = Impact of the policy for promoting users' participation evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; POPAWE = Extent of the influence of other policies'2 on water policy evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; POELWL = Extent of linkages between water law and water policy evaluated in terrns of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; 9 The conflict resolution mechanisms considered for evaluation include: bureaucratic systems, national water council and the like, tribunals, water court systems, judicial/legislative mechanisms, river boards, basin level organization and the like, WUAs, and multiple arrangements; 0 The accountability provisions considered for evaluation include both those related to officials (e.g., indemnity clause, penalty provisions, and administrative actions as well as those related to users (e.g., injunctions, sanctions, and tortiuous liabilities). The key issues considered in the evaluation of the effectiveness of water law include: its current and future relevance, synergy with other laws, and capacity for conflict resolution as well as its ability to adjust with environmental issues and emerging technologies. 12 These policies include agricultural policies, energy/power policies, fiscal policies, economic policies, credit/investment policies, environmental policies, trade policies, and foreign policy. 17 POEFWP = Overall effectiveness of vwater policy evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10;'3 WaterAdministration Variables AORGBA= Spatial organization of water administration taking a value of 0 for non-response, I if organized in terms of administrative divisions, 2 for the hybrid basis, i.e., in terms of both geographic divisions and hydro-geologic regions, 3 for broad hydro-geological regions, and 4 for river basins; ABALFS = Balance in functional specialization, a dummy with 1 if balanced and O otherwise; AIBDWP = Existence of an independent body for price determination/revision, a dummy with 1 for existence and 0 otherwise; ASBUDC= Seriousness of budget constraint facing water administration evaluated in termns of judgme:ntal perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AACCME = Effectiveness of the accountability arrangements14 evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AARINF = Adequacy/relevance of the informnation base evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AEXTST = Extent of science/technology application"5 in water administration evaluated in termns of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AOEFWA = Overall operational ability of water aidministration evaluated in termns of judgmental perception andL expressed on a scale of 0-10; Performance Variables WSPPHY Physical performance'6 of water sector evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; 13 The overall effectiveness of the water policy is obtained by averaging the judgmental values reported for the effectiveness of policies with respect to project selection, cost recovery, water pricing, regulatory and incentive aspects, water education and extension, application of water information, and management technologies. 14 The accountability arrangements considered here include the following categories present both within and outside formal water administration: administrative oversight, financial auditing (Public Accounts Committees), work auditing, grievance cells, monitoring procedures for sectoral/regional water allocation, inter-ministerial committees, statutory bodies, local administration, user groups, and NGOs. 15 The extent of science/technology application is evaluated by considering the use of computers, remote sensing and satellite, research/experimental information, modem accounting/auditing techniques, management information system, geographic information system, wireless communication,- water measuring technologies, and computerized dynamic control of canal/water delivery networks. 16 Physical performance of the water sector is evaluated by consiclering the following aspects: ability to bridge the overall demand-supply gap, physical health of water infrastructure, conflict resolution efficiency (low-cost and less time), and smoothness of water transfers across sectors/regions/users. 18 WSPFIN = Financial perforrnancel7 of water sector evaluated in terrns of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; WSPECO = Economic Performance of water sector evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; WSPEQU = Equity Performance of water sector evaluated in terrns of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; WSPOEV = Overall perfornance of water sector obtained by averaging WSPPHY, WSPFIN, WSPECO., and WSPEQU; and WIPOEV = Progressiveness or the overall adaptive capacity of water institution taken as a whole evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10. Although the variables as defined above arc self-explanatory, few words are in order to recognize some of their general characteristics. Both the institutional and performance variables can be grouped into two broad categories, i.e., the factual and perceptional variables. The factual variables can be observed whereas the perceptional variables involving judgmental considerations camnot be observed. Even though the factual variables are observable, problems like unc_rtainty and incomplete information can lead to multiple answers. For instance, the legal format of water rights is subject to multiple interpretations notwithstanding a complete legal clarity in water law. In contrast, there are institutional and performance variables which specifically require judgmental considerations to have numerical information on them. Instances for these cases are the variables aiming to capture both the overall as well as component-wise performance of water institution.18 As alluded already, value judgments are also unavoidable even in the case water sector performance in view of the need to circumvent data problems and to incorporate futuristic considerations into the evaluation process. The variables can also be grouped into three categories based on the value they take, i.e., dummy (0 or 1) variables, categorical variables taking integer values within a given range, and scale variables taking a value in the 0-10 range. The first two groups of variables are essentially factual and involved only in the case of water institution whereas the variables in the third group are basically perceptional or judgmental in nature and involved in all cases where performance evaluation is needed. While the dummy variable indicates the existence or otherwise of a given institutional aspect, the categorical 17 While financial performance is evaluated in terms of overall cost recovery and investment adequacy, the economic performance is evaluated with due considerations to both the gap between water charges and supply cost as well as the gap between water charge and the economic or scarcity value of water. 18 This is not to deny the fact that some institutional aspects can be captured through observable and quantifiable variables. For instance, the effectiveness of th- conflict resolution aspect of water law can be expressed in terms of the number of unresolved water conflicts. Similarly, the size of water administration can be expressed in terms of staff strength and the effectiveness of cost recovery policy can be captured by the gap between water rates and supply costs. But, apart from the usual information problems, the need for incorporating factors like futuristic considerations, qualitative dimension, and regional variations increases the value of subjective and judgmental information. 19 variable attempts to place a given institutional aspect inlto a fixed number of feasible categories. In the case of categorical variables, the categories are identified either in terms of their actual occurrence or in terms of theoretical possibilities. For example, the categories identified for water rights are based on a modification and extension of the four-way classification of property rights made by Bromley (1989a:205) to the particular context of water resource. In the context of all categorical variables, the numerical value for each category is assigned consciously to obtain an ascending order in terms of their values. While there is some value judgement involved irn the ordering of categories, the process does utilize both the available empirical evidence and acceptable theoretical justification. For example, the higher value for appropriative rights is based on its superior allocation efficiency over both the state/commoni property rights as well as the riparian/correlative rights (see Burness and Quirk, 1979; Hartman and Seastone, 1970; Saleth, Braden, and Eheart, 1991). On the other hand, the ordering of categories in cases like project selection criteria and cost recovery is based purely on economic reasoning. Finally, the bounded nature of the scale variables withiin the 0-10 range has important implications. Since zero means the worst situation and 10 means an ideal situation, the intermediate values taken by the scale variables can be ini:erpreted as the extent the actual situation deviates from either the worst or the ideal situation. In this sense, the scale variables add a relativity dimension to evaluation of various institutional and performance aspects. Models of Insfitution-Performance Linkages Given the set of institutional and performance variables, it is rather straightforward to specify the models that characterize some of the policy-w"ise most important layers of the institution-performance interaction within water sector. In fornal terms, the functional relationships that the performance of both water institution and water sector perfonnace can be described by the following set of equations: LOEFWL = f1[LTRWSA, LPRSRF, LCRMEE, LACMEE, LiNTRE, LOECEN,LOEPRV] ............................................ [1] POEFWP = f2[PPSCRI, PCOREC, PIRSWE, F'GPIPP, PGPIUP, POPAWE, POELWL] ................. [2] AOEFWA = f3[AORGBA, ABALFS, AIBDWP, ASBUDC, AACCME, AARINF, AEXTST] ................. [3] WIPOEV = f4[LOEFWL, POEFWP, AOEFWA] .[4] WIPOEV = f5[LTRWSA, LPRSRF, LCRMEE, LINTRE, LOECEN, LOEPRV, PPSCRI, PCOREC, POPAWE, POELWL, AORGBA, ABALFS, AIBDW]', ASBUDC, AACCME, AEXTST] .[5] 20 WSPOEV = f6[LOEF WE, POEFWP, AOEFWA] .......... .................. [6] WSPOEV = f7[LTRWSA, LPRSRF, LCRMEE, LINTRE, LOECEN, LOEPRV, PPSCRI, PCOREC, POPAWE, POELWL, AORGBA, ABALFS, AIBDWP, ASBUDC, AACCME, AEXTST] ...................................................... [71 WSPOEV = f8[WIPOEV]-.--..-.-..-.-. ........................................... [8] Of these equations, the first three are central and crucial because of their structural linkages with other equations. Equation [1] postulates that the overall performance of water law is a function of seven water law aspects. These legal aspects are: the legal treatment of water sources, the format of rights in surface water use (considered as a proxy for the general format of water rights), the effectiveness of conflict resolution mechanism, the effectiveness of accountability provisions, the level of internal consistency within water law, the degree of centralization tendency within water law, and the legal scope for private sector participation. Similarly, equation [2] considers the overall performance of water policy as a function of seven water policy aspects. These policy aspects are: the project selection criteria, the cost recovery status, the effectiveness of inter-regional/sectoral water transfer policy, the extent of the impact of government policy towards private sector and user participation, the effects of other economic policies on water policy, and the extent of linkage between water law and water policy. Likewise, equation [3] specifies the overall performance of water administration as a function of seven administrative aspects. These administrative aspects are: the organizational basis of water administration, the level of balance in functional specialization, the existence of an independent body for water pricing, the severity of budget constraint, the effectiveness of administrative accountability, the adequacy/relevance of information, and the extent of science and technology application within water administration. While the first three equations are designed to capture the functional linkages within each of the three water institution components, equations [4] and [6] show respectively how the performance of water institution and water sector are linked with both the individual and joint performance of the three water institution components. Also note that the dependent variables in the first three equations enter as independent variables in equations [4] and [6]. The implicit sequential relationship that equations [4] and [6] have with the first three equations is made more explicit in equations [5] and [7]. In these two equations, the respective performance of water institution and water sector is specified as an explicit function of some of the most crucial independent variables in the first three equations.19 Although all the 21 independent variables in the first three equations can be included in equations [5] and [7], only 16 of them were included because of the small sample (i.e., 43 observations) and the consequent need to preserve the degree of freedom for the estimation process. Despite this fact, the structural relationship that these equations have with the first three equations is still strong and valid. 21 Finally, equation [8] that postulates water sector performance as a function of water institution performance tries to evaluate directly the performance linkage between water institution and water sector. Taken together, the eight equations--with different levels of detail and disaggregation--can help in evaluating some of the most important and policy-wise relevant layers in the institution-performance interaction. Thus, when these equations are estimated within an appropriate empirical context, the sign and size of their coefficients could provide valuable insights into the relative role that various institutional aspects play in determining the performance of both water institution as well as water sector. EMPIRICAL CONTEXT The review of existing literature on institutional evaluation shows how unique the present attempt is in its detailed modeling of the institution-performance interaction within the water sector. It also demonstrates how serious are the information challenges involved in the empirical translation of such an interaction process. It is true that the issue can be quantitatively addressed by using either time series data. for a country or cross-section data for a large set of countries, or combining both the time-series and cross-section data. Unfortunately, the task of obtaining actually observed and also internationally comparable time-series or cross-section data sufficient enough for an empirical estimation of the models specified in equations [1] to [8], though nol impossible, is extremely costly in terms of both time and resources. Even if such data is available, there is still a problem as they represent a past situation and cannot, therefore, capture expectation and futuristic trends. Since observed data can allow only an ex-post rather than an ex-ante analysis, their value for policy purposes is obviously limited. Executive Perception as an Empirical Basis To overcome the problems of both the non-availability and limitations of the observed data, the present study follows the empirical approach of using the executive perception- based data for institutional analysis (see Knack and Keefer, 1986; Cukierman, Web, and Neyapti, 1992; Gray and Kaufmann, 1998). Relying on this empirical approach, the information on all relevant institutional and performance variables is obtained by administering a structured questionnaire to a sample of key water sector experts from selected countries. Notably, the information, even on the variables capturing water sector performance, is also obtained within the judgmental framework for following two reasons. First, observed data, though available on some of the aspects of water sector performance, is neither adequate to cover all performance aspects nor capable of capturing the ongoing as well as prospective performnmce changes. As a result, the information on all performance variables can also be obtained within the framework of judgmental evaluation. And, second, in addition to its role in solving the data problems, this approach also provides a consistent data set vwhere each set of independent institutional observations has its own set of corresponding observation on water sector performance. 22 Apart from its ability to overcome the constraint of observed data, the approach of using executive perception as an empirical basis also has a number of other advantages. First, it allows considerable freedom in the choice of institutional and performance variables and also enables the acquisition of all relevant information. Second, it can tap both the accumulated wisdom and futuristic considerations that are not captured by observed data. Third, not only can it synthesize different types of information (i.e., objective data, subjective observation, and expected trend) but also internalize some of the complicated and difficult-to-measure concepts (e.g., performance, efficiency, and equity). And, finally, given its empirical reliance on a cross-section of countries and experts, it can capture the effects of the variations not only in the exogenous factors (e.g., political system, demographic condition, economic development, and resource endowment) but also in the individual-specific subjective factors (e.g., disciplinary background, experience, and ideological orientation). With its empirical precedence and practical advantages apart, the use executive perception as an empirical basis for the evaluation of institution-performance interaction can also be justified in terms of some theoretical results from the institutional economics literature. Since institutions are not objective phenomenon but a human mental construct that think and act through the medium of individuals (Douglas, 1987; Stein, 1997), the approach of evaluating water institutions and their performance impact based on thie perception of water sector experts remains theoretically consistent. Similarly, since the subjective nature of institutions makes value judgments unavoidable in their evaluation (Bhaskar, 1997:773), the subjective or judgmental evaluation of institutions is again justified. Sample Selection and Characteristics The value and credibility of the models of institution-performance interaction within a cross-country perspective depend obviously on the choice of the sample countries as well as the sample of experts identified from each of them. The sample countries are: Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, and the US (Illinois and Colorado). Importantly, these countries/regions taken together account for about 27 percent of the global area, 41 percent of global population, and 20 percent of global renewable water resources. Since the sample covers different continents, historical backgrounds, political systems, development stages, demographic trends, water law traditions, and, more importantly, levels of water scarcity, it can represent well the reality of global water sector in all its relevant dimensions. The representative character of the sample is enhanced further by the fact that it also covers the full spectrum of recently observed institutional changes in the global water sector both in terms of their coverage and effectiveness (see Saleth and Dinar, 1999). The choice of the sample countries is purposive to ensure diversity of situations whereas the choice of the sample of experts almost' random more by accident than by design. First, a total of 98 key water sector experts--with a diverse disciplinary orientation, wider experience, and international exposure--were identified from the sample countries. Considering this list of experts as a preliminary sample, an exhaustive but pre-tested questionnaire was either personally handed over or mailed to them. Only 50 percent of the 98 experts have responded with a completed questionnaire. Even 23 among these responses, only 43 turned out to be complete to give comparable information on all the variables and the rest could not be used in view of large gaps or partial responses. It is these 43 responses that form the information basis for the quantitative evaluation of the institution-performance interaction reported in this study. The descriptive statistics for the institutional and performance variables--tabulated by sample countries and disciplinary background of experts--are given in Appendix A.20 The questionnaire used for the survey is reproduced in Appenadix B. And definitions of all variables in the questionnaire in an alphabetical order are presented in Appendix D. As to the composition of the sample, Figure 3 showvs the country-wise distribution of the sample of international experts while Figure 4 depicts the disciplinary background of the final sarnple of experts. The number of respondents ranges from 6 for Mexico to 2 for South Africa with an overall average of 4 per country. The majority of the respondents are engineers (46 percent) and economists (40 percent). The rest are either lawyers or represent other disciplines such as hydro-geology, management, and sociology. This strict disciplinary characterization of experts does not, however, reflect fully their vast trans-disciplinary knowledge gained either through experience or through interaction. The fact that they were able to provide complete answers to all the issues covered in the exhaustive questionnaire used in this study (see Appendix C) is itself an ample testimony for their wider knowledge base that extends much beyond their strict disciplinary background. us ____ Sri Lanka Spain S.Africa Mexico Israel = India China Chile Brazil Australia =__ 0 2 4 6 Number of Responses Figure . Regional Composition of the Sample of Experts 20 Appendix-A provides the descriptive statistics for only 30 institutional and performance variables that are included in the present analysis. For the descriptive statistics and raw data for all 75 variables--17 legal variables, 25 policy variables, 27 administrative variables, five water sector performance variables, and one water institution performance variable--that can be generated from the questionnaire, see Appendix C. 24 Lawyers Others Economists 9% 5% 40% [ ~~~Engineers 46% Figure 4 Disciplinary Background of the Sample of Experts Another relevant aspect related to the sample composition is that it also covers experts from both the government and non-governmental spheres. While experts within government are officials at the highest echelon of water administration in the respective countries, others include retired officials, academicians, and international consultants. As noted already, since international exposure is one of the major criteria for their selection, the experts do have considerable knowledge on the water sector and its institutional arrangements in other countries. Overall, the sample displays a wider diversity not only in terms of the background and experience of experts but also in terms of the development status, political arrangements, and resource endowments of the countries. It can, therefore, provide a broader spectrum of both country-specific as well as cross- country perspectives on the linkages both within and between water institution and water sector performance. Perceptional Information: Empirical Validity and Interpretation The use of executive perception as an empirical basis for institutional analysis does have empirical precedence, theoretical justification, and practical advantages. While the empirical approach is certainly legitimate, there are still questions as to the nature of the perception-based information, its interpretation, and its amenability for a regression- based analysis. Since the validity of the results and the credibility of their policy implications are predicated ultimately on the appropriateness of the empirical context and the quality of the information, some of the most important among these questions have to be addressed prior to the analysis of the regression results. Is the Perception-based Information Comparable? The comparability of information is a precondition for its use in a regression context. The question over comparability arises from both the perceptional basis of the information and as well as the structure of the sample with different countries and different expert from the same country. Since water institutions and water sector issues differ both within and across countries, the responses of the experts are considered to reflect their subjective evaluation of different and apparently distinct institutional 25 arrangements and performance conditions. But, this argument for the non-comparability of the responses ignores both the basic conceptual framework as well as the quality of sample experts involved in the evaluation process. Conceptually, water institution of each country can be considered as a set containing all of its legal, policy, and administrative features. For visual purpose, let this set be represented as a circle. Although water institutions differ across countries, they do share certain common features. To reflect this reality, the water institutional arrangements at the global level can be represented by a larger circle that contains the set of intersecting circles representing both country-specific as well as common institutional aspects. A similar analogy can also be extended to conceptualize the water sector at the global level. Given their international experience, it is reasonable to consider that they evaluate only these larger sets--representing respectively the institutional arrangements and performance levels of the global water sector--that are being evaluated by them. Since the experts evaluate their country-speci:fic situation with reference to global situation, their observations pertain to different parts of the larger entities of global water institution and global water sector. On this logic, it is legitimate to consider the independent observations of the sample experts as comparable. While the conceptual basis of evaluation ensures the general comparability of information, a few additional aspects of comparability are to be noted in the context of both factual and judgmental information. For instance, the factual information on an institutional feature provided by an expert from a given country becomes also relevant and comparable with that provided by experts from other countries with a similar institutional feature. The judgmental information obtained on a 0-10 scale implies that the values reported by experts are an outcome of a comparison of the current situation with an ideal situation that lies at the back of their nmind. Such information can be compared only when the 'ideal situation' is the same (or, at least, closer) across experts. Since the ideal situation can either be the one existing in some other countries or be the one existing in theory, it is likely to be same across experts having substantial international experience and subject knowledge.2' Does Institutional Diversity Inhibit the Evaluation? Although the present study aims to evaluate the effects of institutional variations on the performance of both water institution and water sector performance, such an evaluation is in terms of variations that are observed in major institutional typologies rather than in micro level details. Thus, the micro level institutional details--certainly an important concern for studies associated with the institutional diversity at national and regional 21 Even if the ideal situation is not exactly the same, the independently reported judgmental values can be shown to be comparable--both within and across countries--in ihe sense as consumption expenditure or poverty level is being compared across individuals and countries with different utility for money and living standard norms. Again, from another perspective, t:he values are conceptually not much different from the one obtained from willingness-to-pay or contingent valuation surveys among individuals with different socio-economic background and other subjective characteristics. 26 level, are not pertinent for the main purpose of this study. This can be illustrated by considering the legal forrnat of water rights. While the format of water rights displays wider variations across countries, regions, and water sources, it is still possible to identify a generic set of key typologies of water rights format such as the common property rights, riparian rights, appropriative rights, correlative rights, and water permits. Since this study requires only the evaluation of the relative effects of these broad categories rather than their micro level variants, the evaluation is not constrained by the micro level institutional diversity. How to Interpret the Variations in Experts' Responses? When water institutions are effective in the sense that they are powerful enough to pervade the minds of the decision-makers and influence, thereby, their water allocation and use decisions, the variations in the responses of experts are likely to be lower. Otherwise, the variations will be wider among the responses due to the role of disciplinary background, differential interpretation, and other subjective factors. If the subjective factors are powerful enough to disorient perception, then, water institutions have failed in their basic role of providing a transparent framework for human-water interaction. Intuitively speaking, the magnitude of these variations can be considered as a measure of institutional ineffectiveness. For instance, the variations in factual information (e.g., the format of water rights or conflict resolution mechanism) among experts from the same country represent the degree of ignorance or uncertainty which can, in fact, be considered more as a measure of institutional ineffectiveness than as a limitation of sample experts. Similarly, since the variations in the judgmental information of experts from the same country will be larger when institutions are ineffective and subjective factors like bias and expectations are dominant, the magnitude of such variations can also be considered as a measure of institutional ineffectiveness. While inter-country variations in both kinds of infornation can be considered as an indication of cross-country variations in performance of both water institutions and water sector, their intra-country variations can be interpreted as an indicator of the level of uncertainty over the features of water institutions and their performance impacts. Since the main function of institutions is to reduce uncertainty and increase transparency, the extent of uncertainty or ambiguity evaluated in this manner can also provide comparative insights on the relative efficacy and performance of water institutions in different contexts. Can the Perception-based Data be used in a Regression Context? The comparability of information, though necessary,, is not sufficient to justify its use within a regression framework. The sufficient condition for the use of perception-based information in a regression context, however, comes :from the following observation that forms the very foundation of the evaluation methodology outlined above. Experts are often observed to say that the water sector performance of a given country/region is low because of poor institutional arrangements. This is not a casual statement but based on a mental process of evaluation that compresses both the observed data as well as subjective 27 information on water institution and water sector performance. It is reasonable, therefore to magnify and elaborate the mental process of evaluation to ask how low is water sector performance and how poor are the water institutions and use such information to see the linkages between water institutions and water sector performance. This is exactly what the evaluation methodology of this study does to obtain all the relevant information from a sample of international experts and the regression models specified in equations [1] to [8] does to evaluate the linkages between water institution with water sector performance. Since the regression exercise actually mimics the process of evaluation that occurs in thLe minds of experts relying on the same set of information used in such a process, the use of the perception-based information within a regression framework is intuitively consistent aneL justified. Do the Regression Results Reflect Only the Expected Linrkages? While the responses of experts is an outcome of not only their observations of reality but also their expectations of desirable situation, the regression results cannot be considered to reflect only the expected linkages. As long as the responses are truthful and are based on observed information, the results do reflect the actual linkages. Given the fact that the sample covers internationally known experts with a considerable stake on their reputation when revealing their knowledge and judgment, it is unreasonable either to question the integrity and objectivity of their responses or to consider the evaluation as a hypothetical exercise for making self-fulfilling prophecy. Even when the regression results reflect only the expected linkages, they are still valid because they are not used here to prove the already known fact that institutions matters but to evaluate the relative impact of institutional aspects on the performance of water institutions and water sector performance. In this sense, the regression results can be considered as a means for finding an international consensus in the relative importance of various institutional components and aspects in addressing water sector problems. Can the Presence of an Institutional Aspect Ensure Better Performance? Some of the equations in the model of institution-performance interaction postulate that the presence of an institutional aspect can improve performance on the reasoning that the performance of both water institution and water sector is likely to be better than otherwise. This does not mean any mixing up of 'cause' and 'effect'. Since there are sequential linkages and synergy among institutional components, institutional components that are considered as a means to induce changes in the institutional and water sector spheres are themselves an outcome of prior changes in other institutional components. Considering water rights system as an example, the presence of such a system implies also the presence of a related set of legal, policy, and administrative arrangements that are necessary to support its operation. While water rights system is certainly a means for improving water sector performmnce, it is also an end from the viewpoint of institution building. Similarly, financial self-sufficiency or cost recovery, which is an end from the financial angle, is also a means for improving the physical 28 health and operational efficiency of water projects. Thus, the cause-effect categorization is path dependent in the sense that a 'cause' can be an 'effect' and vice versa depending upon the objective with which the evaluation proceeds. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Prior to the presentation and analysis of the results, it is useful to understand some of the empirical features of the model of institution-performance interaction specified in equations [1] to [8]. First, although it is possible to use different functional forms like log-log and log-linear, only simple linear forms are used here for the empirical estimation of all equations. Second, although equations [1] to [8) are specified as independent of each other, there is a strong sequential, or even, simultaneous relationship between some of them. While this points to the need for estimatlbng these equations within a system framework, the lower degree of freedom associated with the smallness of the sample prevents the system-based regression estimation at this stage. Consequently, the equations are estimated using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) technique. And, finally, all the equations are estimated with a constant term with the express purpose of capturing the important effects that the context as defined by exogenous factors (i.e., socio- economic, political, demographic, and ecological factors) has on the process of institution-perforrnance interaction within water sector. Since the model equations capture different layers of the institution-performance interaction, the analysis of their results can be more illuminating when the evaluation proceeds in a structured way. That is, each of the layers are evaluated first and utilizing such a disaggregated analysis, then, each of the two main dimensions of the institution- performance interaction, i.e., institutional inter-linkages and institution-performance linkages, will be evaluated. The institutional inter-linkages are evaluated at three levels. The first level evaluation deals with the relationship that the performance of each of the three components of water institution has with its institutional aspects (equations [1] to [3]). The second level evaluation considers the relationship that the performance of water institution has with the performance of its three cornponents (equation [4]). The third level evaluation shows the relationship that the performance of water institution has with some of the major legal, policy, and administrative aspects (equation [51). The institution-performance linkages are also evaluated at three levels. The first level evaluation deals with the relationship that water sector performance has with the performnance levels of the three water institution components (equation [6]). The second level evaluation shows the relationship that water sector performance has with some of the major legal, policy, and administrative aspects (equation [71). The third level evaluation considers the relationship between water sector perfornance and water institution performance. Understandably, the nature and strength of these relationships are evaluated in terms of the size, direction, and statistical significance of the estimated coefficients of the variables included in each of the equations. In this way, the two main dimensions of the process of institution-perfornance interaction within water sector are evaluated from different angles with a view to identify the relative role of some of the 29 most important legal, policy, and administrative aspects underlying the performance of both water institution and water sector. Institutional Inter-linkages The regression results for equations [1] to [3] show how the effectiveness or performance of each of the three components of water institution, i.e., water law, water policy, and water administration, is influenced by the nature and status of its constituent institutional aspects. On the other hand, the results for equations [4] and [5] show respectively how the overall performance of water institution depends on the performance of its three components and some of their underlying institutilonal aspects. The regression results for these five equations can, therefore, be used to highlight some of the major features of the institutional inter-linkages evident within each of the three components of water institution. Water Law Performance: Relative Role of Legal Aspect, Table 1 presents the regression result for equation [1] that postulates water law performance as a function of some of the major water law aspects. Considering the R2 and F-value for the estimation, the model is reasonably sound in terms of its explanatory power. All variables except the one capturing the centralization tendency in water law have a positive effect on water law performance. The constant term that captures the effects of the general environment as defined by exogenous factors also has a positive sign indicating its overall favorable role. While the signs of all the variables are consistent with expectation, the statistical signifiicance of their coefficients (as evaluated in terms of their t-ratios and significance levels) indicates that the variables differ in terms of their importance for the performance of water law. Of the seven legal variables considered, only four are statistically significant in contributing to the performance of water law. These four variables capture respectively the following four legal aspects, i.e., integrated treatment of water sources, effectiveness of conflict resolution provisions, degree of integration within water law, and legal scope for private sector participation. Going by the relative size of the coefficients of these four statistically significant legal aspects, the one having a clominant influence on water law performance is the effectiveness of conflict resolution provisions. Next in importance are the degree of legal integration within of water law followed by the integrated treatment of water resources within water law. Among the remaining variables which are not significant at conventional level of significance (i.e., 10 percent), the format of surface water rights--included as a proxy for water rights in general--is relatively more significant than the rest of the non-significant variables. Water Policy Performance: Relative Role of Policy Aspects The relative effect of policy aspects on the perforrnance of water policy can be seen from Table 2 that presents the regression results for equation [2]. Again, both the R2 and F- value suggest that the independent variables included in. the equation explain most of the variations in the dependent variable, i.e., the performance of water policy. Of the seven 30 policy variables considered, only four are statistically significant, suggesting the relative importance of the policy aspects represented by them in explaining the performance of water policy. These policy aspects--given in the order of their importance to water policy performance--are: cost recovery status, strength of law-policy linkage, project selection criteria, and extent of the influence of other policies (e.g., agricultural policy, fiscal policy, and trade policy) on water policy. Among these four aspects, the law-policy linkage and policy linkages between water policy and other policies are notable because they demonstrate the important role that institutional and policy inter-linkages play in improving the performance of water policy. Considering the sign of the coefficients of the variables representing these four policy aspects, all of them except the variable capturing project selection have a positive influence on the performance of water policy. The unexpected sign of some of the policy variables included in equation [2] has an interesting interpretation. For instance, although the negative effect of the three policy aspects, i.e., project selection criteria, and effectiveness of policy with respect to private sector participation and user involvement, seems to contradict expectation, it can, however, be shown to be intuitively consistent. This is in view of the two-way flow of effects between water policy and its constituent policy aspects. Thus, instead of viewing that a better performance of these three policy aspects as causing a negative influence on water policy performance, it is equally legitimate to view that it is the poor performance of past water policy that leads to a better performance of these policy aspects. For instance, it is the failure of past water policies that has prompted current policy efforts to enhance the participation of private sector and users in project financing, maintenance, and management. Viewed in this sense, the negative coefficients of the three policy aspects are, in fact, an indication for the positive role that economically oriented project selection criteria and successful user and private sector participation can play in improving the future performance of water policy. Water Administration Performance: Relative Role oJfAdministrative Aspects Table 3 presents the results for equation [3] that relates the performance of water administration with some of its key aspects. Unlike equations [1] and [2], equation [3] has a lower R2 indicating a limited explanatory power of its independent variables. However, the statistical significant F-value suggests that the underlying model does fit the data well. Although all the seven variables have the expected sign, only two variables are statistically significant, that too, at somewhat a relaxed level of significance. Both of them are dummy variables capturing respectively the balance in functional specialization within water administration and the existence of an independent body for water pricing. Interestingly, when equation [3] is estimated without the constant term, these two variables become insignificant but other variables like the severity of budget constraint, information adequacy, and the extent of science and technology application within water administration become significant. This means that the constant termn--that is supposed to capture the effects of the exogenous factors representing the general socio-economic and political environment and resource endowment--also captures both the individual and joint effects of some of endogenous factors. Besides, given the intricate linkages among 31 various administrative aspects, the effects of some variables may get either captured by or mixed with others. Such a possibility indicates, in fact, the practical difficulties in isolating the effects of some of the individual law, policy, and administration-related institutional aspects even when water institution is decom.posed with still finer analytical details. This applies especially to water administration where not only a clearer analytical decomposition is difficult but also the effects of mnost of the administrative aspects are too intertwined to isolate. Despite all these difficulties, the regression results could clearly identify the important role that functional balance and an administratively independent water pricing mechanism--the two aspects receiving top priority in the ongoing debate on water institution reforn--play in explaining the performance of water administration. Water Institution Performance: Relative Role of Institutional Components The focus till now has been on the institutional inter-linkages within each of three components of water institution. Since these comLponent level institutional inter-linkages, when taken together, pervade throughout water institution and acquire considerable synergy from the mutuality of their individual. and collective effects, they have far reaching implications not just for the overall performance of water institution but also for its ultimate impact on water sector performance. It is, therefore, necessary to bring these component level institutional inter-linkages together to evaluate their impact on the overall performance of water institution. Such an evaluation is done sequentially by first relating the performance of water institution with the performance of its components and then by relating the same with some of the major legal, policy, and administrative aspects. The regression results for equation [4], which evaluates the relationship between the performance levels of water institution and its components, are given in Table 4. For a proper interpretation of the results reported in Table 4, it is useful to recognize the fact that equation [4] is actually a sort of reduced form of equations [1] to [3] in that the dependent variables in these three equationis enter as independent variables in equation [4]. Such a structural relationship reflecting the empirically important econometric linkages among these equations22 can be utilized to evaluate the linkages among various layers of the institution-performance interaction. These econometric linkages are also important for the interpretation of results because of their role in explaining why variables capturing different institutional aspects that are significant in one context becomes not so in other contexts. Returning to Table 4, although R2 is low, all the variables have the expected positive effect suggesting that a better performance of each of the water institution components is likely to improve the overall performance of water institution. While this result appears to be tautological in nature, its real significance lies in demonstrating how the three institutional components differ in terms of iheir relative contribution to the overall performance of water institution. As can be seen, among the three variables, only the variable representing water policy performance is significant at 10 percent level and 22 As will be shown subsequently, a similar relationship also exists among equations [1], [2], [3], and [6]. Here, the relationship captures the ultimate linkages that war.er institution and its components have with water sector performance. 32 the variable representing water administration perfonnance is significant only at a relaxed level of significance. Although the variable representing water law performance is in significant, the constant term is highly significant suggesting the important role that the general environment--as defined by socio-economic, political, legal, and resource-related factors--plays in cementing institutional inter-linkages within water institution. The insignificance of the variables capturing respectively the performance of water law and water administration can be due to the fact that their effects are captured by the constant term to the extent that the enforcement and implementation aspects are a function of political will and resource-related imperatives. One way of interpreting the dominant effect of water policy performance on the overall performance water institution is in terms of its pivotal position of simultaneously being both the political translation of water law as well as the operational framework for the functioning of water administration. Another interpretation emerges from a political economy perspective of the recent institutional changes observed especially among the sample countries. Since these changes confine mostly to the politically easier policy sphere rather than the politically risky and administratively difficult legal and administrative spheres (see Saleth and Dinar, 1999), the variable capturing water policy performance can become a dominant factor explaining the overall performance of water institution. Water Institution Performance: Relative Role of Institutional Aspects While the results for equation [4] reported in Table 4 shows the overall linkages between water institution and its constituent components, those for equation [5] reported in Table 5 show the linkages between water institution and some of the major institutional aspects underlying the three water institution components. These two equations are, therefore, interrelated not only because they have the same dependent variable but also because their independent variables are structurally related through equations [1] to [3]. Thus, equation [4], which is a reduced form of the first three equations, is brought to its full form in equation [5] by explicitly incorporating 16 most important independent variables included in the first three equations. The recognition of this fact is necessary for a better interpretation of the results reported in Table 5. The results in Table 5 show how some of the most important legal, policy, and administrative aspects affect the overall performance of water institution. The model behind the results fits the data well and also has a good explanatory power. But, it shows that a number of variables--especially those related to legal and administrative aspects-- have the unexpected signs. Even though these variables with the unexpected negative sign are not statistically significant, their perverse behavior requires, however, an explanation.23 One explanation for this behavior lies in the differential performance of institutional aspects when they are combined with others. Thus, for instance, efficient conflict resolution provisions and functional integration within water law that had a significant positive effect on water law performance can be insignificant or have a 23 Such an explanation is particularly necessary in the context of some variables (e.g., two legal aspects, i.e., the effectiveness of conflict resolution provisions and the legal integration within water law) that are shown to have a significantly positive effect on the performance of water institution components. 33 negative influence on the overall performance of water institution when they are combined with inefficient policy or administrative aspects. A similar argument can also be extended to show why only a very few variables are statistically signi cant in explaining the overall performance of water institution. In terms of the statistical significance of ithe 16 variables included in the model, only four variables--representing each one of the legal and policy aspects and two administrative aspects--are significant either at the conventional or at a relaxed level of significance. Notably, all these statistically significant institutional aspects have a positive effect on water institution performance. These institutional aspects are: the linkages between water policy and other economic policies, balance in functional specialization, the existence of an independent body for water pricing, and the legal scope for private sector participation. In terms of their relative impact on water institution performance as indicated by the size of their coefficient and T-ratio, the first two institutional aspects noted above are more important than the other two. In any case, the significant positive effect of these four institutional aspects clearly suggest the dominant role that capacity building, policy inter-linkages, and financial health play in improving the overall performance of water institution. Institution-Performance Linkages The focus of the analysis, so far was on the first dimension of the institution-performance interaction within water sector, i.e., the institutional inter-linkages. The analysis shifts now to the other dimension of the interaction, i.e., the institution-performance linkages. The institution-performance linkages are evaluated using the three equations [6] to [8]. While equation [6] captures the linkages between water sector performance and the performance of three components of water institution, equation 7 captures the same linkages between water sector performance and some of the major institutional aspects underlying these water institution components. Equation [8], on the other hand, captures the overall performance linkages between water institution and water sector. Since these equations evaluate the linkages between water institution and water sector performance at different levels of institutional disaggregation, the regression pertaining to these three equations can be used to evaluate some of the main layers of the institution-performance linkages possible within water sector. Water Sector Performance: Relative Role of Institutional Components The relative role that the three water institution components play in explaining water sector performance can be seen from Table 6 that presents the regression results for equation [6]. All three variables representing respectively the performance of the three water institution components, law, policy and administration, have a positive sign, suggesting their favorable role in improving water sector performance. But, among these three variables, only the variable representing water law performance is statistically significant and also contributes the most in explaining water sector performance. The variable representing water policy performance becomes significant only at a somewhat relaxed level of significance whereas the other representing water administration 34 performance is not at al. significant in explaining water sector performance.24 This result suggesting the relative dominance of water law performance does not mean that the performance levels of the other two components of water institution are unimportant in explaining water sector performance. This is because of the significance one institutional component encompasses, not just from the strength of that component alone but equally also from the interactive roles of other components as well as the role of the general environrment within which the institution-performance interaction occurs. Speaking of the role of the general environment, the constant term that captures the joint effects of the factors exogenous to water sector has a statistically significant positive effect and such effect is stronger even as compared with that of the dominant endogenous factor, i.e., water law performance. This can imply either the powerful intervening effects of exogenous factors on the process of institution-performance interaction or the capacity of the constant term to capture some of the effects of the other non-significant endogenous factors. Whatever are the reasons for the positive and significant effects of the constant term, it does suggest that the general environment is becoming increasingly favorable and has considerable synergy to produce a snowballing effect on the performance implications of institutional changes in the water sector. This means that the ultimate effects of institutional change on water sector performance are going to be far greater than the intermediary effects of the same on the performnance of either water institution or its components. Water Sector Performance: Relative Role of Institutional Aspects Unlike Table 6 that relates water sector pzrforrnance to institutional aspects indirectly through the performance of water institution components, Table 7 relates the same to institutional aspects directly. Since the results in Table 7 allow a more direct evaluation of the relative effects of institutional aspects on water sector performnance, they shed lights on the most important layer of the institution-performance linkages within water sector. In terms of the R2 and F-value, the model behind the results in Table 7 explains about two-thirds of the variations in the dependent variable and also fits the data well. Despite these desirable econometric features, the results show that only three of the 16 institutional aspects considered for evaluation are statistically significant and all the three have a positive effect on water sector perforrnance. These institutional aspects-- given in the order of their relative importance--are: the integrated legal treatment of water sources, the existence of an independent body for water pricing, and the balance in functional specialization. While the first aspect formrs the legal basis for the promotion of integrated water resource development accepted widely as a key strategy for sustainable 24 It can be recalled that these three variables have differentia:! effects on water institution performnance. While the variable representing water administration performance remains insignificant in explaining the performances of both water institution and water sector, water law performance that had an insignificant effect on water institution performance has significant effect on water sector performance. In contrast, water policy performance that had a dominant effect on water institution performance has only an insignificant effect on water sector performance. 35 water management, the others are important either for capacity building or for improving financial sustainability within water sector. As the level of significance is relaxed to about 20 percent, three more institutional aspects become significant. They are: the legal scope for private sector participation, policy inter-linkages between water policy and other policies like agricultural, fiscal, and trade policies, and the severity of budget constraint. While the first two have a positive effect suggesting the favorable roles that private sector participation and policy inter- linkages can play in enhancing water sector performance, the last one related to budget constraint has a negative effect. Budget constraint, if it is at a reasonable level, can have a healthy effect on water sector performance both by inducing efficiency in the allocation and utilization of limited financial resources as well as by providing an urge to search for internal avenues for revenue augmentation and cost minimization. But, when budget constraint is too severe, it can hurt water sector performance both directly by limiting development and maintenance investments within water sector as well as indirectly by limiting funds for capacity building within water institution. As to the role of policy inter-linkages, a water policy that is tailored to the overall policy framework is likely to improve water sector performance more than the one that is divorced from the general policy environment.25 Water Institutions and Water Sector: Overall Performance Linkages After having evaluated the institution-performance linkages at different disaggregated levels, attention can now be directed at the nature of such interaction at the aggregate level by directly relating water sector performance with water institution performance. The results for equation [8] that makes such an attempt are presented in Table 8. The results confirm rather strongly that water institution performance has a statistically significant positive effect on water sector performance. As in the case of most other layers of the institution-performance interaction, the constant term is also significant and has a positive effect suggesting clearly the intrinsic synergy that such an interaction can derive from the general environment with a strong pro-reforrn orientation at present. As a matter of fact, considering the relative size of the coefficients, the constant terms capturing the general environment has a much stronger effect on water sector performance as compared with the variable capturing thLe overall performance of water institution. This is understandable in view of the positive role of many developments that occur both within and outside the water sector. The worldwide resurgence of democratic form of government increases the scope for the adoption of decentralized and participatory systems in all spheres including water resource management. Economically and socially maturing social systems have enabled the ennergence of new forms of social 25 A relatively better water sector performance in Mexico and China, among others, demonstrates the value of water policy that is being conditioned by macro-economi.c policies. However, there are also contrary cases for the negative performance of water policy because of its being a hostage to other policies like agricultural policies. In this case, to achieve the targets of agricultural polices, the water policy aspects like water pricing and project selection are deliberately biased. Countries like India and Sri Lanka provide instances for the latter case. 36 organizations conducive for grassroots level allocation and management decisions. The widespread occurrence of water scarcity has enhancecd both the relevance and prospects of many unconventional solutions (e.g., water markets) that were once considered infeasible. Scientific advancement and technical progress have created new possibilities for more accurate measurement and monitoring of resources including water. Since these developments tend to create a pro-reform climate, their synergetic impulses can be exploited through a proper design, sequencing, and ti:ming of the strategy for institutional reforms within the water sector. Despite the limitation of having a small sample and the difficulty in isolating the individual institutional aspects in the face of their intricate linkages, the models of institution-performance interaction is still on target as they identify some of the institutional aspects dominating the current debate on water institutional reform. Even though the estimated results for some equations indicate only a few institutional aspects as statistically significant, considering the sample limitations and looking at the institutional aspects identified by then as significant, the evaluation methodology underlying the estimation procedure can still be considered as robust. The regression analysis has also succeeded in empirically demonstrating three key issues having immense value not only for institutional design but also for its sequential implementation. These issues are: the relative importance of institutional aspects, the performance impact of their linkages, and the synergy possible from factors exogenous to water sector. The relative importance of institutional aspects as indicated by the size and significance of their coefficients is useful for institutional choice and design. Since the regression equations are estimated separately rather than as a system, the issue of institutional linkages could not be fully evaluated. The overall synergy possible from the general environment as defined by exogenous factors suggests the importance timing in institutional initiatives. Since the exogenous factors have an overall positive effect, the total transaction costs could be reduced not only by institutional sequencing but also by proper timing. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND POLICY The major thrust of institutional reforms within water sector is to enhance the functional capabilities, operational strength, and institutional readiness to handle water challenges both at present and in the future. Given this thrust, the main objectives of institutional initiatives are rather transparent. These objectives are to: make water as an economic good, strengthen allocation capabilities, increase the ieliance on market forces, revive the payment culture, ensure financial self-sufficiency, promote decentralized decision structure, and encourage the adoption of modem technology and information inputs. While the economic and resource-related rationale for both the thrust and objectives of institutional change are well known, there is a lamentable dearth of understanding on the issue of how to effect water institutional change within the political economy constraints as well as opportunities. 37 In an attempt to bridge this knowledge gap, this, study develops an analytical framework to identify various layers of instituitional inter-linkages and institution- performance linkages evident in the process of institution-performance interaction within water sector and evaluates these layers of linkages using an evaluation methodology based on perception-based cross-country data. Both these analytical and empirical analyses are then used to identify key inputs for developing a generic strategy for water institutional reform that can minimize the transaction cost but maximize the performance impact. Analytical and Methodological Contributions This study has some unique analytical and methodological contributions to make in the context of institutional economics in general and water institution in particular. These are as follows: First, this study, for the first time, makes an analytical decomposition of both the water institution and water sector performance. Briefly, water institution is decomposed into three broad components, i.e., water law, water policy, and water administration. Each of these institutional components is again decomposed to identify some of its major institutional aspects. Similarly, water sector performance--considered to cover the performance of all water sub-sectors--is also decomposed in terms of its physical, financial, economic, and equity dimensions. Utilizing this decomposition exercise, the institution-performance interaction within the water sector is elaborated to analytically demonstrate some of the major layers of institutional inter-linkages and institution- performance linkages. Second, defining a set of variables to capture the institutional and performance aspects, some of the major layers of institutional inter-linkages and institution- performance linkages are formally modeled as a set of inter-linked equations. The constant termns in these equations are considered to capture the combined effects of the general environment facing the process of institution-performance interaction within water sector. Since the general environment is defined in terms of socio-economic, political, legal, and environmental factors that are outside the strict confines of water sector, it captures the intervening effects of factors exogenous to the water sector. In this way, the equations capture the effects of both the end.ogenous as well as exogenous factors. And, finally, for the empirical estimation of the equations, this study relies on an evaluation methodology based on a cross-country survey of 43 water sector experts having different disciplinary background and professional orientation from 11 countries with diverse water problems, socio-economic settings, historical traditions, and political arrangements. While this methodology is nothing new, the justification for its legitimacy provided in this study is, however, new. Unlike the past studies, this study justifies this approach not so much in termLs of data difficulties but in terns the subjective nature of institutions recognized repeatedly in the institutional economic literature. That is, institutions are inherently subjective in nature because they are human creations for increasing transparency and reducing uncertainty in hurman interactions and hence, they 38 exist, evolve, and interact with human beings. This fact justifies the use of executive perception as a legitimate basis for institutional evaluation. Contribution of the Empirical Results Both to demonstrate the robustness of the evaluation methodology as well as to facilitate the better interpretation of the policy implications of this study, it is useful to provide here the gist of the regression results. Since the empirical evaluation focuses on various layers of the institutional inter-linkages and institution-performance linkages evident in the process of institution-performance interaction within water sector, the results are organized following the same structure. First, as to the institutional inter-linkages within each of the three water institution components, the results could identify some of the legal, policy, and administrative aspects that dominate the current debate on water institutional reform. As per the results, among the seven legal aspects considered for evaluation, only four are important in determining the performance of water law. These legal aspects are: the effectiveness of conflict resolution provisions, the degree of internal consistency within water law, the integrated treatment of water sources, and the scope for private sector participation. Even among these four legal aspects, the first two have a relatively stronger effect on water law performance as compared with others. Among the seven policy aspects considered, only four are significant in deciding water policy performance. These policy aspects are: the degree of economic orientation of project selection c:riteria, the level of cost recovery, the linkage between water policy and other policies (e.g., agricultural, fiscal, and trade policies), and the overall linkage between water law and water policy. In terms of relative importance, cost recovery comes first followed then by law-policy linkage and policy inter-linkages. Among the seven administrative aspects considered, only two aspects, i.e., the balance in functional specialization and the existence of an independent body for water pricing, have a dominant role in determining the overall performance of water administration. Second, the institutional inter-linkages within water institution are evaluated by relating the overall performance of water institution first with the performance of its three constituent components and then with some of the selected institutional aspects from each of these three water institution components. The results for the first case show that the overall performance of water institution depends more on the performance of its policy and administrative components than on the performance of its legal component. The results for the second case show that of the 16 institutional aspects considered for evaluation, only four become significant in explaining water institution performance. These institutional aspects given in the order of their relative importance are: the degree of balance in functional specialization, the existence of an independent body for water pricing, the linkages between water policy and other policies, and the legal scope for private sector participation. And, finally, the institution-performance linkages are evaluated by relating water sector performance first with the performance of the three water institution components and then with the 16 institutional aspects underlying ile performance of these three water 39 institution components. The results, in the first case, show that water sector performance is linked more to the performance of water law and water policy than to water administration. The results, in the second case, identify the following institutional aspects to be major determinants of water sector performance. These institutional aspects given in the order of their importance are: the integrated legal treatment of water sources, the existence of an independent body for water pricing, the balance in functional specialization, the legal scope for private particilpation, and the seriousness of budget constraint. More importantly, the results in almost all cases also show that the constant term capturing the effects of the general environment as defined by the exogenous factors is not only significant but also positive. Now, some of the major policy implications emanating from the empirical analysis can be noted. Policy Contributions As to the policy contributions of this study, its analytical. framework is itself important for the purpose of developing strategies for institutional reform within the water sector strategies. Since the analytical decomposition of both water institution and water sector performance provides a sound framework for understanding of the inner dynamics of the process of institution-performance interaction within water sector, it proves to be the starting point for framing institutional initiatives in the water sector. Although the analytical framework developed here is more generic and useful for planning institutional reform from an international perspective, country level planning, however, requires its specialization to country-specific contexts to take stock of regional variations and unique situations. In addition to the policy implications of the analytical approach, the regression results also provide key inputs for the strategy of institutional reform in the water sector. The policy contributions of the empirical results are as follows: First, since the estimated coefficients of the equations indicate the relative strength, direction, and significance of the performance impact of institutional components and institutional aspects, they can be used as basis for identifying some of the most desirable features of a performance-oriented water institution. In general terms, an ideal water institution needs to have a water law that treats all water sources within an integrated framework, has effective conflict resolution provisions, reveals higher degree of internal consistency, and provides scope for private sector participation. Similarly, it is desirable to have a water policy centered on econormically rooted project selection criteria, full cost recovery, stronger ties with other economic policies, and closer links with water law. Likewise, the most desirable features of water administration are the balance in functional specialization and the existence of an independent body for water pricing. These features set the priorities for institutional reform in a generic context. Second, the institutional aspects identified to be the dominant features of an ideal water institution do not, however, imply that other institutional aspects are unimportant. In view of the intricate linkages among institutional aspects and the resultant difficulty in isolating the individual effects of various legal, policy, and administrative aspects, it is entirely possible that the effects of some aspects may be either picked up by or mixed up with those of the others. In the first case, the significant institutional aspects actually 40 capture also the joint effects of a set of other related institutional aspects. However, in the second case, institutional aspects, which are significant at an individual level, can become insignificant in a collective context where they are combined with other ineffective institutional aspects. From a policy perspective, therefore, it is necessary to recognize the institutional and performance linkages that the identified set of desirable institutional features has with others. Third, although all water institution components and its constituent institutional aspects are interrelated and hence, equally important, the observed variations in the size and significance of their estimated coefficients in different evaluation contexts clearly suggest that they differ in terms of their institutional linkages and performance impacts. Since their differential effects reflect essentially the role of both time lag and operational proximity, it is reasonable to order and sequence the institutional aspects in terms of their instantaneous effects and immediate linkages as indicated by the size, direction, and significance of the variables representing them. Such an ordering provides a very valuable basis both for institutional design as well as for its sequential implementation. Given an initial institutional design, the general guideline for its implementation involves the identification of institutional aspects having botlh the most immediate return in terms of improved water sector performance as well as the most intimate operational linkages with other institutional aspects which are next in thae hierarchy of importance. In this way, the implementation of each institutional aspect improves water sector performance even while creating a favorable climate for the implementation of subsequent institutional aspects. Fourth, the significant positive effect that the constant term has in most contexts suggests clearly the synergy that the institution-performance interaction can derive from the general socio-economic, political, and resource-related environment within which such an interaction occurs. With an overall pro-reform climate, it possible not only to minimize the overall transaction cost of institutional change but also to achieve more than proportionate improvement in water sector performance with a given level of institutional change. The significance of the exogenous factors also suggest that the institutional reforms within water sector need to be approached in a broader context to exploit well the synergy generated by prior, concurrent, and subsequent changes elsewhere in the economy. This also suggests the role that timing of water institutional changes play in determining their effectiveness and impact. Finally, the results are strongly in favor of a sequential strategy for institutional reform in general and water institution in particular. The main rationale for this strategy lies in the tremendous scope for gainfully exploiting the synergy emerging from both within and outside the water sector. While the strategy of institutional reform at-one-go is economically costly and politically difficult, effecting gradualistic changes within an ordered and sequential framework enhance the feasibility and effectiveness of institutional change in most situations. Since the institutional synergy reduces the transaction costs of subsequent reforms, and the immediate performance impacts of initial reforms ensures a steady flow of economic benefits, the sequential strategy enhances the prospects for institutional change by gradually weakening political resistance even while 41 precipitating an endogenous pressure for further reforms. The sequential strategy is also more suitable for international lending agencies such as the World Bank with an avowed interest in promoting institutional change in the water sector worldwide. Since this strategy provides a natural framework for temporally and operationally linked long-term lending programs in the institutional sphere of water sector, it is mutually advantageous for both the borrowing countries and the lending agencies. To conclude, the present study does break new grounds both in terms of its analytical approach and methodological innovation as well as in terms of its policy insights into the process of institution-performance interaLction. But, further research is needed to improve the policy value and credibility of this study by extending the analysis in two main directions. First, the empirical basis of the analysis has to be broadened by increasing the sample size--both by adding more countries and water sector experts--and incorporating, thereby, a greater diversity in the context and perception of the institution- performance interaction. Second, the evaluation has to be extended to cover also the layers of interaction among institutional aspects within each water institution component (e.g., the relationship among the legal aspects such as conflict resolution, water rights, and accountability). And, finally, the estimation procedure has to be refined to evaluate together the intricate linkages among various layers of the institution-performance interaction within a sequential or simultaneous system framework. Since a simultaneous estimation can isolate and trace the effects of any institutional aspects throughout the system, it allows the identification of a more accurate institutional design and implementation sequencing than that possible at present. With a well designed and sequential strategy that exploits better the institutional inter-linkages and synergy, the political economy constraint that persists because of an inadequate understanding of the process of institutional change, can be relaxed, and even, be turned into an imperative for change. 42 Table 1. Overall Performance of Water Law: Relative Role of Major Legal Aspects. Variable Name Acronym 7ype Coefficient t-Ratio Significance Intercept 1.367 1.381 0.176 Treatment of Surface and Sub-surface Water LTRWSA Dummy 1.055 2.098 0.043 Format of Surface Water Right LPRSRF Category 0.224 1.523 0.137 Effectiveness of Conflict Resolution Provisions LCRMEE Scale 0.328 3.371 0.002 Effectiveness of Accountability Provisions LACPRE Scale 0.011 0.095 0.925 Degree of Integration Within Water Law LINTRE Scale 0.173 2.300 0.028 Tendency for Centralization in Water Law LOECEN Scale -0.065 -0.757 0.454 Scope for Privatization in Water Law LOEPRV SScale 0.198 1.704 0.097 R2 - - 0.566 - - F-Value - 6.526 0.000 Table 2. Performance of Water Policy: Relative Role of Major Policy Aspects. Variable Name Acronym Type Coefficient t-Ratio Significance Intercept _ - 0.130 0.106 0.916 Project Selection Criteria PPSCRI Category -0.499 -3.132 0.003 Level of Cost Recovery PCOREC Category 0.994 3.153 0.003 Effectiveness of Water Transfer Policy PIRSWE Scale 0.108 1.190 0.242 Impact of Private Sector Participation Policy PGPIPP Scale -0.118 -1.583 0.122 Impact of User Participation Policy PGPIUP Scale -0.082 -0.894 0.377 Impact of Other Policies on Water Policy POPAWE Scale 0.242 1.788 0.082 Overall Linkage Between Law and Policy POELWL Scale 0.590 5.189 0.000 R2 - - 0.550 - - F-Value - - 6.118 0.000 Table 3. Performance of Water Administration: Relative Role of Major Administrative Aspects. Variable Name Acronym Type Coefficient t-Ratio Significance Intercept _ 1.758 1.339 0.189 Organizational Basis of Water Administration AORGBA Category 0.103 0.369 0.714 Balance in Functional Specialization ABALFS Dummy 1.587 2.452 0.019 Existence of Independent Water Pricing Body AIBDWP Dummy 1.055 1.565 0.127 Seriousness of Budget Constraint ASBUDC Scale 0.109 0.934 0.357 Effectiveness of Administrative Accountability AACCME Scale 0.072 0.482 0.633 Adequacy of Information AARINF Scale 0.141 1.057 0.298 Extent of Science/Technology Application AEXTST Scale 0.125 0.728 0.471 R2 - - 0.359 - - F-Value _ 2.799 - 0.020 43 Table 4. Water Institution Performance: Relative Role oi' Institutional Components. Variable Name Acronym _ Type Coefficient t-Ratio Significance Intercept _ 2.200 2.998 0.005 Overall Effectiveness of Water Law LOEFWI, Scale 0.100 0.675 0.504 Overall Effectiveness of Water Policy POEFWP Scale 0.393 2.366 0.023 Overall Effectiveness of Water Administration AOEFWA Scale 0.131 1.172 0.248 R2 _ 0.387 - F-Value _ 8.218 0 000 Table 5. Water Institution Performance: Relative Role of Major Institutional Aspects. Variable Name Acronym Type Coefficient t-Ratio Significance Intercept 0.914 0.585 0.564 Treatment of Surface and Sub-surface Water LTRWSA Dummy 0.348 0.516 0.610 Fornat of Surface Water Right LPRSRF Category 0.175 0.961 0.346 Effectiveness of Accountability Provisions LCRMEE, Scale -0.077 -0.663 0.513 Degree of Integration Within Water Law LINTRE Scale -0.021 -0.246 0.807 Tendency for Centralization in Water Law LOECEN Scale -0.057 -0.544 0.591 Scope for Privatization in Water Law LOEPRV Scale 0.174 1.421 0.167 Project Selection Criteria PPSCRJ Category 0.068 0.360 0.722 Level of Cost Recovery PCOREC| Category 0.446 1.037 0.309 Impact of Other Policies on Water Policy POPAWE Scale 0.396 2.494 0.019 Overall Linkage Between Law and Policy POELWL Scale 0.177 1.087 0.287 Organizational Basis of Water Administration AORGBA Category -0.288 -1.188 0.246 Balance in Functional Specialization ABALFS Dumrmy 1.166 2.138 0.042 Existence of Independent Water Pricing Body AIBDWP Dummy 0.970 1.614 0.119 Seriousness of Budget Constraint ASBUDC Scale -0.040 -0.370 0.714 Effectiveness of Administrative Accountability AACCME Scale -0.159 -1.226 0.231 Extent of Science/Technology Application AEXTST Scale -0.007 -0.039 0.969 R - - 0.543 - - F-Value _ _ 1.930 - 0.066 Table 6. Water Sector Performance: Relative Role of Institutional Components. Variable Name Acronym Type Coefficient t-Ratio Significance Intercept 1.969 3.042 0.004 Overall Effectiveness of Water Law LOEFWL Scale 0.310 2.362 0.023 Overall Effectiveness of Water Policy POEFWP Scale 0.192 1.306 0.199 Overall Effectiveness of Water Administration AOEFWA Scalb 0.090 0.916 0.365 R - -_ 0.416 - I F-Value = 9.247 0.000 44 Table 7. Water Sector Performance: Relative Role of Majoir Institutional Aspects. Variable Name Acronym Type Coefficient t-Ratio Significance Intercept 3.311 2.556 0.017 Treatment of Surface and Sub-surface Water LTRWSA Dummy 1.318 2.355 0.026 Format of Surface Water Right LPRSRF Category 0.106 0.705 0.487 Effectiveness of Accountability Provisions LCRMEE Scale -0.060 -0.624 0.538 Degree of Integration Within Water Law LINTRE Scale 0.057 0.792 0.435 Tendency for Centralization in Water Law LOECEN Scale -0.050 -0.579 0.568 Scope for Privatization in Water Law LOEPRV Scale 0.167 1.637 0.114 Project Selection Criteria PPSCRI Category -0.120 -0.767 0.450 Level of Cost Recovery PCOREC Category -0.247 -0.692 0.495 Impact of Other Policies on Water Policy POPAWE Scale 0.162 1.227 0.231 Overall Linkage Between Law and Policy POELWL Scale 0.056 0.413 0.683 Organizational Basis of Water Administration AORGBA Category -0.139 -0.692 0.495 Balance in Functional Specialization ABALFS Dummy 0.831 1.836 0.078 Existence of Independent Water Pricing Body AIBDWP Dummy 1.110 2.228 0.035 Seriousness of Budget Constraint ASBUDC Scale -0.117 -1.304 0.204 Effectiveness of Administrative Accountability AACCME Scale 0.017 0.155 0.878 Extent of Science/Technology Application AEXTST Scale 0.003 0.020 0.984 I R2 1 - - 0.614 - F-Value 2.589 0.015 Table 8. Effect of Water Institution on Water Sector Performance. Variable Name Acronym Type Coefficient t-Ratio Significance Intercept _ 1.722 2.867 0.007 Performance of Water Institution WIPOVL Scale 0.617 5.995 0.000 FVl - - 0.566 - - F-Value -- 6.526 -0.000 45 REFERENCES Adelman, Irma, and Jan-Berndt Lohmoller, 1994, "Instituitions and Development in The Nineteenth Century: A Latent Variable Regression Model", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2):329-359. Adelman, Irma, and Morris, C.T., 1974, "Growth, Income Distribution, and Equity- Oriented Development Strategies", World Development, 4(1):67-76. Archibald, Sandra 0, and Mary E. Renwick, 1998, "Expected Transaction Costs and Incentives for Water Market Development" in K. William Easter, Ariel Dinar, and Mark Rosegrant. Bos, M.G., 1997, "Performance Indicators for Irrigation and Drainage", Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 11 (2): 119-137. Brewer, J.D., R. Sakthivadivel, and K.V. Raju, 1997, Water Distribution Rules and Water Distribution Performance: A Case Study in the lambraparani Irrigation System, Research Report No: 12, International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI), Colombo. Brinkerhoff, D.W., 1994, "Institutional Developrnent in World Bank Projects: Analytical Approaches and Intervention Designs", Public Administration and Development, 14(l):135:151. Brinkerhoff, D.W., and A. Goldsmith, eds., 1990, Institutional Sustainability in Agriculture and Rural Development: A Global Perspective, Praeger, New York. Briscoe, John, et al., 1990, "Towards Equitable and Sustainable Rural Water Supplies: A Contingent Valuation Study for Brazil", The World Bank Economic Review, 4(2):115-134. Bromley, D.W., 1989a, Economic Interests and Institutions: The Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy, Basil Blackwell, New York. Bromley, D.W., 1989b, "Institutional Change and Economic Efficiency," Journal of Economic Issues, 23(September):735-59. Bromley, D.W., 1993, "Institutional Economics Revisited: Discussion", Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(August):83 7-839. Bromley, D.W., 1998, "Searching for Sustainability: The Poverty of Spontaneous Order", Ecological Economics, 24(2):231-240. Burt, C. M. and S. Styles, 1997, Irrigation Modernization Study (Appendix on Irrigation Indicators, World Bank-IPTRID-IIMI, Washington, D.C. Chang, Ha-Joon, 1994, "State, Institutions, and Structuiral Change", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2):293-313. Clague, Christopher, 1994, "Bureaucracy and Economic Development", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2):273-91. 46 Coase, Ronald, H., 1937, "The Nature of the Firm", Fconomica, 4(2):386-405. Coase, Ronald, H., 1960, "The Problem of Social Cost", Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1):1-44. Colby, Bonnie, 1990, "Transaction Costs and Efficiency in Western Waters", American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, 72(5): 1184-1192. Commons, J.R., 1968, The Legal Foundation of Capitalism, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Cukierman, Alex, Steven B. Webb and Bilin Neyapti, 1998, "Measuring the Independence of Central Banks and its Effects on Policy Outcomes", The World Bank Economic Review, 6(3):353-398. Dinar, Ariel and J. Latey, 1991, "Agricultural Water Marketing: Allocative Efficiency and Drainage Reduction", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 20: 210-223. Dinar, Ariel and Ashok Subramanian, eds., 1997, Water Pricing Experience: An International Perspective, Technical Paper No: 386, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Dinar, Ariel, and David Zilberman, 1991, eds., The Economics and Management of Water and Drainage in Agriculture, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston. Douglas, M., 1987, How Institutions Think?, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Easter. K. William, Ariel Dinar, and Mark Rosegrant, eds., 1998, Markets for Water: Potential and Performance, Kluwer Academic Press (Forthcoming). Eggertsson, Thrainn, 1997, "The Old Theory of Economic Policy and the New Institutionalism", World Development, 25(8): 1187-1203. Engelbrecht, Hans-Jurgen, 1998, "A Comparison and Critical Assessment of Porat and Rubin's Information Economy and Wallis and North's Transaction Sector", Information Economics and Policy, 9:271-290. Frederiksen, Harald D., 1992, Water Resources Institutions: Some Principles and Practices, Technical Paper No: 191, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Garrido, Alberto, 1997, "A Mathematical Programming Model Applied to the Study of Water Markets within the Agricultural Sector", Paper presented in the 8th European Agricultural Economists Association Congress, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, September. Gazmuri, Renato, and Mark Rosegrant, 1994, "Chilean Water Policy: The Role of Water Rights, Institutions, and Markets", Paper prepared for the Irrigation Support Project for Asia and the Near East (ISPAN), International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. 47 Gorriz, Cesilia M., Ashok Subramanian, and Jose Simas. 1995, Irrigation Management Transfer in Mexico: Process and Progress, Technical Paper No: 292, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Gray, Cheryl W., and Daniel Kaufinann, 1998, "Corruption and Development", Finance & Development, 35(1):7-10. Griffin, Charles C., et al., 1995, "Contingent Valuation and Actual Behavior: Predicting Connections to View Water Systems in the State of Kerala, India", The World Bank Economic Review, 9(3):373-95. Groenewegen, John, Frans Kerstholt, and Ad Nagelkerke, 1995, "On Integrating New and Old Institutionalism: Douglas North Building Bridges", Journal of Economic Issues, 29(2):467-474. Guggenheim, Scott, 1992, "Institutional Arrangements For Water Resources Development" in Le Moigne, et al. Hartman, L.M., and D. Seastone, 1970, Water Transjfers: Economic Efficiency and Alternative Institutions, John Hopkins Press, Baltijmore. Hearne, Robert, and K. William Easter, 1997, "The Economic and Financial Gains from Water Markets in Chile", Agricultural Economics, 15:187-199. Hodgson, M. Geoffrey, 1998, "The Approach of Institutional Economics", Journal of Economic Literature, 56(1):166-192. Howitt, Richard, 1998, "Spot Prices, Option Prices, and Water Markets in California" in K. William Easter, Ariel Dinar, Mark Rosegrant. Hubbard, Michael, 1997, "The 'New Institutional Economics' In Agricultural Development: Insights and Challenges", Journal of Agricultural Economics, 48(2):239-249. Johnson, Sam H., 1997, "Irrigation Management Transfer: Decentralizing Public Irrigation in Mexico", Water International, 22(3): 159-167. Kanazawa, Mark, 1991, "Water Quality and the Econoimic Efficiency of Appropriative Water Rights" in Ariel Dinar and David Zilberiman. Kliot, Nurit, Shmueli, Deborah and Shamir, Uri, 1997, "Institutional Frameworks for Management of Transboundary Water Resources. Vol I: Institutional Frameworks as Reflected in Thirteen River Basins", Water Research Institute, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, October, 417 p. Kinnersley, David, 1992, "Privatization And The Water Environment In England", in Le Moigne, et al. Knack, Stephen, and Philip Keefer, 1986, "Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross-Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures", Economics and Politics, 7(3):207-227.Knoedler, T. Janet, 1995, "Transaction Cost Theories of Business Enterprise from Williamson and Veblen: Convergence, Divergence, and Some Evidence", Journal of Economic Issues, 29(2):385-395. 48 Landesmann, Michael, A., and Ugo Pagano, 1994, "'Institutions and Economic Change", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2):199-203. Le Moigne, Guy, Shawki Barghouti, Gershon Feder, Lisa Garbus, and Mei Xie, eds., 1992, Country Experiences with Water Resources Management: Economic, Institutional, Technological, and Environmental Issues, World Bank Technical Paper No: 175, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Le Moigne, Guy, Ashok Subramanian, Mei Zie, and Sandra Giltner, 1994, A Guide to the Formulation of Water Resources Strategy, Technical Paper No: 263, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Lo, Carlos Wing-Hung, and Shui-Yan Tang, 1994, "Institutional Contexts of Environmental Management: Water Pollution Control on Guangzhou, China, Public Administration and Development, 14(1):53-64. Matthews, R.C.O., 1986, "The Economics of Institutions and the Sources of Growth", Economic Journal, 96:903-918. North, Douglas, 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. North, Douglas, 1994, "Economic Performance Through Time", American Economic Review, 8(2):359-368. Olson, Mancur, 1971, The Logic of Collective Action, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts. Piccotto, Robert, 1995, Putting Institutional Economics to Work: From Participation to Governance, Discussion Paper: 304, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Porat, M., and M. Rubin, 1977, The Information Economy (Nine Volumes), Office of Communications, Special Publication: 77-1:2, US Department of Commerce, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Pratten, Stephen, 1997, "The Nature of Transaction Cost Economics", Journal of Economic Issues, 31(3):781-803. Rausser, Gordon C., and Pinhas Zusman, 1991, "Organizational Failure and the Political Economy of Water Resources Management" in Ariel Dinar and David Zilberman. Remmer, Karen L., 1998, "Does Democracy Promete Interstate Cooperation? Lessons from the Mercosur Region", International Study Quarterly, 42(l):25-52. Renault, Daniel, 1998, On Reliability in Irrigation Service: Conceptual Approach and Definitions, International Irrigation Management Institute, (mimeo). Rosen, Sherwin, 1996, "Institutional Transformation: Supply or Demand?", Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 152(l):275-94. Rubin, M., 1988, "The Secondary Information Sector: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Importance" in M. Jussawalla, M. Lamberton, and N. Karunaratne, eds., The Cost of Thinking: Information Economics of Ten Pacific Countries, Ablex, Princeton. 49 Rutherford, Malcolm, 1995, "The Old and the New Institutionalism: Can Bridges Be Built?, Journal of Economic Issues, 29(2):443-450. Ruttan, V.W., and Y. Hayami, 1984, "Toward a Theory of Induced Institutional Innovation", Journal of Development Studies, 20:203-23. Saleth, R. Maria, 1996, Water Institutions in India: Economics, law, and Policy, Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi. Saleth, R. Maria, John. B. Braden, and J. Wayland Eheart, 1990, "Bargaining Rules for Thin Spot Water Market", Land Economics, 67(3):326-339. Saleth, R. Maria, and Ariel Dinar, 1998, "Water Institutions and Water Sector Performance: Evaluating Their Linkages with Cross-Country Data", Project Completion Report, The World Bank, Washington, DC. (Draft). Saleth, R. Maria, and Ariel Dinar, 1999, Water Challenge and Institutional Response: A Cross-Country Perspective, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No: 2045, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Sampath, R.K., 1990, "Measures of Inequity for Distribution of Large Public Surface Irrigation Systems: A Welfare-Theorectic Approach" in R.K. Sampath and R. A. Young, eds., Social, Economic, and Institutional issues in Third World Irrigation Management, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Schwartz, Alan, 1996, "The Normnative Implications of Transactions Cost Economics", Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 152(1):287-94. Stein, Johan, 1997, "How Institutions Learn: A Socio-Cagnitive Perspective", Journal of Economic Issues, 31(3):729-39. Stiglitz, J., 1968, "The New Development Economics", World Development, 14(2):257- 265. Thomas, Gregory A., 1991, "Organizational Failure And The Political Economy of Water Resources Management" in Ariel Dinar and David Zilberman. Tsur, Yacov, and Ariel Dinar, 1997, "The Relative Efficiency and Implementation Costs of Alternative Methods of Pricing Irrigation Water", The World Bank Economic Review, 11(2):243-62. Vermillion, Douglas L., 1997, "Impact of Irrigation Management Transfer: A Review of Evidence", IIMI, Colombo. Vira, Bhaskar, 1997, "The Political Coase Theorem: I]dentifying Differences between Neoclassical and Critical Institutionalism", Journal of Economic Issues, 31(3):761-79. Wade, Robert, 1982, Employment, Water Control, and Water Supply Institutions: South India and South Korea, Discussion Paper: 182, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex. 50 Wallis, J., and D. North, 1986, "Measuring the Transaction Sector in the American Economy, 1870-1970" in S. Engerman and R. Gallman, eds., Long-Term Factors in American Economic Growth, NBER Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 51, The University of Chicago press, Chicago. Wallis, J., and D. North, 1988, "Should Transaction Costs be Subtracted from Gross National Product?", Journal of Economic History, 48(3):763-770. Williamson, O.E., 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, Free Press. Williamson, O.E., 1989, "Review of Ronald Coase's 'The Firm, the Market, and the Law"', California Law Review, 77:223-23 1. Williamson, O.E., 1990, "The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties: An Introduction" in M. Aoki, B. Gustafsson, and 0. Williamson, eds., The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties, Sage, London. Williamson, O.E., 1991, "The Logic of Economic Organization", in G. Williamson and S. Winter, eds., The Nature of the Firm: Origins, Evolution and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Williamson, O.E., 1993, "Transaction Cost Economics and Organization Theory", Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(2). Wittfogel, Karl A., 1957, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. World Economic Forum, 1997, The World Competitiveness Report, Geneva, Switzerland. Yang, Youngseok, 1997, "Crafting Institutions and thie Determination of Their Hierarchy in Environmental Policy-making: The Platte River as a Case Study", Journal of Economic Issues, 31(3):834-40. Zilberman, D., A. Dinar, N. MacDougall, M. Khanna, C. Brown, and F. Castillo, 1998, Private and Institutional Adaptation to Water Scarcity During the California Drought, 1987-1992. ERS Staff Paper Number 9802, USDA, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, July. 51 APPENDIX-A: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Table A.1. Mean and Standard Deviation for Legal Variables by Sample Countries. Country Legal Effectiveness of Provisions for Inter-govtl. Interinal Tendency for Evaluation Linkages W. Rights Conf. Resi Accountbity Responsbity Consistency Centralizatn Privatization LLIBWO LPRORE LCRMEE LACPRE LIGRES LINTRE LOECEN LOEPRV LOEFWL Australia 7.11 4.67 5.56 5.33 2.33 6.6 7 6.33 7.11 6.53 0.38 0.58 1.39 1.53 2.08 1.53 0.58 1.84 1.01 Brazil 7.42 4.75 5.92 3.38 2.10 5.00 3.00 7.50 6.60 1.66 2.63 2.25 3.09 0.62 3.83 1.41 2.25 0.95 Chile 1.73 3.20 4.13 5.30 1.28 0.80 4A0 6.47 5.20 1.30 1.92 2.01 0.97 0.52 1.79 2.30 2.47 2.75 China 6.11 4.67 5.11 6.33 1.60 4.33 6.00 4.89 5.53 1.64 0.58 1.39 1.89 0.72 4.04 1.00 3.17 0.50 India 5.98 3.60 4.27 1.50 2.20 2.20 6.40 3.00 3.40 1.32 1.34 2.42 1.27 0.45 0.45 2.07 1.43 1.29 Israel 2.92 7.25 5.17 4.38 1.80 7.25 6.25 3.50 6.65 2.91 2.22 3.55 3.35 0.57 2.22 2.87 2.53 1.45 Mexico 5.92 4.33 7.22 6.33 1.43 3.67 7.33 6.53 6.13 2.61 2.58 2.16 1.51 0.43 3.39 4.08 2.91 2.52 S. Africa 4.17 5.50 5.17 3.50 3.20 6.50 8.50 3.00 4.85 1.18 0.71 2.59 2.12 0.85 2.12 0.71 1.89 1.91 Spain 6.60 5.30 5.60 5.30 2.36 3.60 3.40 5.73 5.91 2.52 2.95 1.14 1.35 0.59 3.611 2.70 3.02 1.22 Sri Lanka 5.22 2.33 0.78 4.00 1.73 2.67 5.33 5.67 2.27 3.89 2.31 0.77 5.29 1.03 0.5l8 4.62 3.76 1.70 US 5.22 5.67 3.00 6.50 3.67 1.03 4.00 5.89 5.67 3.20 1.53 3.38 2.50 0.42 2.31 2.00 2.46 0.99 Overall 5.30 4.59 4.91 4.72 2.04 3.77 5.44 5.48 5.40 2.66 2.23 2.52 2.57 0.94 3.15 2.86 2.73 2.00 Table A.2. Mean and Standard Deviation for Legal Variables by Disciplinary Background of Sample Experts. Field of Legal Effectiveness of Provisions for Inter-govtl. Intemal Tendency for Evaluation Expertise Linkages W. Rights Conf. ResI Accountbty Responsbity Cons,istency Centralizatn Privatization LLIBWO LPRORE LCRMEE LACPRE LIGRES LINTRE LOECEN LOEPRV LOEFWL Economists 5.30 4.32 4.20 3.85 1.91 3.94 5.00 4.78 4.66 3.08 2.74 2.37 2.47 0.71 2.46 3.12 3.03 2.14 Engineers 5.43 4.55 5.73 5.38 2.10 4.15 5.80 6.16 6.10 2.62 1.54 2.62 2.65 1.13 3.50 2.67 2.48 1.79 Lawyers 4.83 7.00 4.50 6.13 2.30 2.25 5.50 5.58 5.75 1.93 1.83 2.25 1.11 1.15 4.50 2.65 1.42 0.97 Others 4.83 2.50 3.67 2.75 2.10 11.50 5.50 4.50 4.00 1.18 0.71 2.36 2.47 0.14 2.12 4.95 4.95 2.83 Overall 5.30 4.59 4.91 4.72 2.04 d.77 5.44 5.48 5.40 2.66 2.23 2.52 2.57 0.94 3.15 2.86 2.73 2.00 52 Table A.3. Mean and Standard Deviation for Policy Variables by Sample Countries. Country Prj Sel Crit Price/Cost Recovery Inter-Regional/Sectoral Water Transfer Policy PPSCRI PPRREV PCOREC PIRSWR PIRSWM PIRSWO PIRSWE Australia 6.00 3.08 3.00 4.00 4.33 1.33 6.67 0.00 0.14 0.25 0.00 1.15 0.58 1.38 Brazil 3.50 1.31 1.56 2.00 1.50 1.75 1.63 1.00 0.90 0.72 1.15 1.00 0.50 1.97 Chile 1.60 2.35 1.60 4.00 3.00 1.00 4.20 1.57 0.84 1.23 0.00 2.74 0.00 2.12 China 4.67 2.17 2.25 3.33 1.67 2.33 4.17 0.58 0.52 0.43 0.58 0.58 0.58 3.61 India 3.80 1.90 1.60 2.00 2.60 1.80 2.83 1.64 0.34 0.58 0.71 1.52 1.30 1.49 Israel 2.25 3.25 2.94 2.75 1.50 1.00 4.38 1.52 0.00 0.31 0.50 0.58 0.00 3.75 Mexico 3.67 2.83 2.38 3.00 2.67 1.83 4.35 1.59 0.52 0.59 0.00 1.86 0.98 3.31 S. Africa 3.50 2.88 2.75 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.63 0.71 0.18 0.35 0.71 2.12 0.00 0.53 Spain 2.87 2.18 2.30 3.20 2.20 1.60 2.30 2.16 0.34 0.33 1.30 1.64 0.89 1.59 Sri Lanka 4.11 1.08 1.50 1.00 0.33 0.33 2.17 0.84 0.76 0.50 1.73 0.58 0.58 3.75 US 3.78 2.08 2.25 1.33 2.00 0.67 2.83 0.19 1.13 0.90 1.53 1.73 0.58 2.75 Overall 3.47 2.29 2.15 2.72 2.26 1.49 3.52 1.66 0.83 0.78 1.20 1.69 0.91 2.63 Table A.4. Mean and Standard Deviation for Policy Variables by Disciplinary Background of Sample Experts. Field of Prj Sel Crit Price/Cost Recovery linter-Regional/Sectoral Water Transfer Policy Expertise PPSCRI PPRREV PCOREC PIRSWR PIRSWM PIRSWO PIRSWE Economists 3.24 2.10 2.03 2.82 1.65 1.24 2.76 1.79 0.86 0.91 1.24 1.46 0.90 2.43 Engineers 3.83 2.34 2.20 2.56 2.60 1.65 4.28 1.57 0.84 0.66 1.19 1.76 0.93 2.67 Lawyers 3.33 2.63 2.50 3.00 1.75 1.75 3.25 1.56 0.72 0.54 1.41 0.96 0.96 3.12 Others 2.00 2.75 1.88 3.00 5.00 1.50 2.94 1.41 0.71 1.59 1.41 0.00 0.71 3.09 Overall 3.47 2.29 2.15 2.72 2.26 1.49 3.52 1.66 0.83 0.78 1.20 1.69 0.91 2.63 53 Table A.5. Mean and Standard Deviation for Policy Variables by Sample Countries, Country Privatization Policy User Participation Policy PGPIPP PEXTPP PUATPP PGPIUP PEXTUP POATUP Australia 6.92 6.67 4.33 3.47 3.50 5.00 1.46 1.38 0.58 4.10 1.50 0.00 Brazil 2.19 3.50 4.25 3.58 3.29 4.00 3.89 1.47 0.50 2.43 1.04 0.41 Chile 5.55 6.25 4.80 6.03 5.53 4.70 3.71 2.83 0.45 3.11 3.21 0.45 China 1.00 2.67 4.33 0.14 3.03 3.17 1.73 1.53 1.15 0.24 3.17 1.04 India 1.60 1.80 3.80 2.20 2.63 3.70 1.52 1.14 1.48 1.73 1.84 0.45 Israel 4.69 4.19 3.25 3.27 1.35 2.38 3.31 2.79 2.22 2.88 1.72 1.80 Mexico 6.25 4.48 4.33 4.78 4.96 3.67 2.52 3.07 0.82 3.02 1.87 1.40 S. Africa 5.25 1.75 3.00 5.58 2.54 4.50 2.47 0.71 1.41 0.82 0.06 0.71 Spain 5.40 3.50 3.80 5.46 4.59 4.10 3.56 2.74 0.45 2.02 2.10 0.55 Sri Lanka 0.00 1.42 2.33 2.75 2.50 4.00 0.00 1.23 0.58 1.52 1.34 1.00 US 6.17 4.75 4.00 4.28 3.78 3.00 2.27 0.66 1.73 3.84 3.36 2.65 Overall 4.20 3.85 3.93 3.90 3.62 3.83 3.32 2.53 1.18 2.81 2.29 1.22 Table A.6. Mean and Standard Deviation for Policy Variables by Disciplinary Background of Sample Experts. Field of Privatization Policy User Participation Policy Expertise PGPIPP PEXTPP PUATPP PGPIUP PEXTUP POATUF' Economists 3.09 2.54 3.53 2.98 2.56 3.74 2.89 2.01 1.28 2.11 1.81 1.37 Engineers 4.50 4.51 4.20 4.56 4.36 3.88 3.32 2.39 1.06 2.97 1.96 1.18 Lawyers 6.75 5.13 4.50 3.71 3.52 3.63 3.05 1.51 0.58 2.88 2.29 1.25 Others 5.50 5.75 3.50 5.46 5.42 4.50 6.36 6.01 2.12 6.42 6.48 0.71 Overall 4.20 3.85 3.93 3.90 3.62 3.83 3.32 2.53 1.18 281 2.29 1.22 54 Table A.7. Mean and Standard Deviation for Policy Variables by Sample Countries. Country NGO Participation Policy Effect of Other Evaluation Policies PNGOOP PNGOUG PNGOPS PNGOFA PNGOFP POPAWN POPAWE POELWL POEFWP Australia 6.10 2.87 2.90 0.00 0.97 6.33 6.00 8.00 6.87 044 0.12 0.10 0.00 1.00 2.08 1.50 0.00 0.31 Brazil 1.21 1.03 1.33 2.05 0.43 4.00 6.90 7.50 6.77 2.22 2.05 2.65 3.35 0.85 2.00 1.62 1.91 1.22 Chile 3.89 3.42 3.90 1.18 0.98 5.00 4.86 7.20 6.11 1.71 1.95 2.76 1.59 0.93 1.58 1.51 1.30 1.53 China 5.00 1.63 0.20 2.00 0.37 4.67 4.88 6.67 5.72 3.61 2.25 0.35 2.09 0.32 2.08 0.87 2.08 2.00 India 3.08 2.94 1.62 2.34 1.72 6.20 6.18 4.40 3.70 1.13 1.27 1.11 1.99 1.72 1.30 1.37 3.36 1.50 Israel 3.73 1.99 1.38 0.00 0.00 6.00 4.86 6.00 7.12 2.91 1.69 1.60 0.00 0.00 1.15 2.13 2.71 2.57 Mexico 4.44 2.67 4.07 1.87 0.98 3.17 6.68 6.83 5.00 1.97 1.84 2.42 2.70 1.23 0.98 0.96 1.94 1.80 S. Africa 4.29 3.15 5.55 0.50 0.50 7.50 3.38 8.00 4.60 4.48 2.47 6.29 0.71 0.71 0.71 2.30 0.00 0.75 Spain 5.49 4.16 4.44 2.36 3.28 4.80 5.13 7.40 5.79 2.67 2.06 2.14 2.86 2.89 1.92 1.34 1.34 1.16 Sri Lanka 4.19 4.77 1.50 3.40 1.43 2.67 4.97 4.33 1.94 1.82 2.90 1.05 1.44 1.36 0.58 3.27 3.06 0.62 US 1.45 1.37 1.43 0.00 0.00 4.67 6.50 8.33 5.49 1.30 2.37 1.69 0.00 0.00 2.08 1.80 0.58 1.21 Overall 3.89 2.76 2.66 1.53 1.09 4.86 5.62 6.70 5.41 2.41 2.01 2.48 2.11 1.57 1.88 1.73 2.22 1.94 Table A.8. Mean and Standard Deviation for Policy Variables by Disciplinary Background of Sample Experts. Field of NGO Participation Policy Effect of Other Evaluation FPolicies Expertise PNGOOP PNGOUG PNGOPS PNGOFA PNGOFP IPOPAWN POPAWE POELWL POEFWP Economists 3.70 3.13 2.21 1.32 1.38 4.71 5.59 5.41 4.70 2.35 2.14 2.11 1.52 1.73 1.79 1.67 2.53 2.27 Engineers 4.18 2.65 3.30 1.81 0.83 5.05 5.89 7.90 6.05 2.53 2.07 2.87 2.60 1.20 2.11 1.86 1.12 1.35 Lawyers 4.01 2.55 2.58 1.43 1.58 4.50 5.51 7.25 5.62 2.81 1.48 1.44 2.47 2.76 1.73 1.02 1.71 2.13 Others 2.50 1.25 0.25 0.85 0.25 5.00 3.50 4.50 4.73 2.12 1.06 0.35 0.49 0.35 1.41 1.41 2.12 3.21 Overall 3.89 2.76 2.66 1.53 1.09 4.86 5.62 6.70 5.41 2.41 2.01 2.48 2.11 1.57 1.88 1.73 2.22 1.94 55 Table A.9. Mean and Standard Deviation for Administrative Variables by Sample Countries. Country Influence of Govemment Layers Organizational Features AGBIWN AGBIWR AGBIWL AGBIWS ADOMID AACORI) AORGBA Australia 3.56 7.67 4.67 5.11 8.67 7.00 3.00 1.39 2.33 0.67 2.04 0.58 1.73 1.00 Brazil 5.83 6.50 5.42 1.92 6.00 3.25 4.00 1.60 1.55 2.41 2.32 4.08 2.50 1.63 Chile 3.93 2.27 1.33 1.47 7.20 5.60 1.20 2.73 2.58 1.55 2.33 4.21 1.14 0.45 China 7.22 7.11 7.67 2.00 8.33 6.00 4.00 2.67 1.54 2.31 3.46 1.53 1.00 0.00 India 2.90 5.63 2.67 4.53 7.40 4.40 1.20 1.37 2.19 3.37 2.64 0.55 1.52 0.45 Israel 7.58 3.92 2.79 1.17 0.00 1.75 1.00 1.85 0.79 1.81 2.33 0.00 3.50 0.00 Mexico 6.17 5.28 3.89 4.44 2.50 4.33 3.17 1.59 2.28 2.41 3.42 3.02 4.23 0.98 S. Africa 5.83 3.83 3.83 3.34 8.00 5.50 2.00 3.06 2.12 0.71 0.47 1.41 0.71 0.00 Spain 4.20 4.20 4.47 2.13 4.70 2.20 3.40 1.50 2.27 1.76 3.75 3.19 2.17 0.89 Sri Lanka 5.00 4.44 3.56 3.44 3.33 4.33 1.67 2.89 2.52 2.46 2.27 4.16 1.15 0.58 US 5.33 6.67 4.11 2.33 6.00 5.33 2.67 1.00 1.15 2.36 2.52 5.20 4.62 1.53 Overall 5.14 5.10 3.86 2.91 5.36 4.26 2.47 2.26 2.39 2.49 2.80 3.77 2.77' 1.35 Table A.10. Mean and Standard Deviation for Administrative Variables by Disciiplinary Background of Sample Experts. Field of Influence of Government Layers Organizational Features Expertise AGBIWN AGBIWR AGBIWL AGBIWS ADOMID AACORD AORGBA Economists 4.44 4.13 2.78 2.53 4.50 3.71 2.24 2.09 1.70 1.74 2.11 3.64 2.42 1.20 Engineers 5.67 5.87 5.06 3.48 6.50 4.85 2.70 2.23 2.84 2.65 3.37 3.53 2.9,2 1.45 Lawyers 6.17 5.50 4.17 2.42 4.00 3.25 3.00 2.29 1.82 1.45 2.79 4.69 3.95 1.41 Others 3.67 4.84 0.50 1.33 4.00 5.00 1.00 3.30 1.65 0.71 1.89 5.66 1.41 0.00 Overall 5.14 5.10 3.86 2.91 5.36 4.26 2.47 2.26 2.39 2.49 2.80 3.77 2.77 1.35 56 Table A.11. Mean and Standard Deviation for Administrative Variables by Sample Countries. Country Functional Capacity Finance Regulation and Accountability AOFCAP ABALFS ASREPU ASBUDC AREGMN AREGME AACCMN AACCME Australia 6.93 0.67 6.33 6.67 9.00 7.75 5.67 5.75 0.93 0.58 2.08 1.15 0.00 1.09 4.16 1.52 Brazil 4.68 0.25 3.00 2.75 3.50 3.91 1.25 2.50 1.43 0.50 3.83 3.20 2.89 3.27 1.89 3.32 Chile 4.03 0.60 0.00 3.60 4.00 5.64 2.80 6.78 2.88 0.55 0.00 3.05 2.00 3.37 1.30 2.84 China 4.67 0.33 4.00 0.00 6.33 5.42 6.00 5.14 4.08 0.58 3.61 0.00 2.52 0.80 2.00 2.83 India 4.15 0.20 5.60 7.00 6.00 3.11 5.80 3.58 1.50 0.45 2.07 1.22 1.73 1.16 2.49 0.93 Israel 3.82 0.75 0.00 4.25 5.00 6.36 3.50 3.63 2.63 0.50 0.00 3.50 1.83 2.51 2.52 3.33 Mexico 4.46 0.67 4.83 1.50 7.50 5.52 6.67 6.55 2.52 0.52 2 04 2.07 1.64 2.07 2.16 1.31 S. Africa 5.00 1.00 6.00 6.00 5.50 6.48 7.50 7.46 1.10 0.00 2.83 1.41 3.54 1.15 3.54 0.41 Spain 5.52 0.40 2.70 3.60 6.00 5.42 5.20 4.56 1.64 0.55 1.86 3.91 2.24 1.11 3.42 2.59 Sri Lanka 5.04 0.00 3.00 4.00 2.67 3.89 4.33 4.58 1.83 0.00 2.65 3.61 3.06 2.78 4.16 0.63 US 5.61 1.00 0.00 2.33 4.67 6.53 1.67 3.00 1.73 0.00 0.00 4.04 0.58 1.33 2.08 3.00 Overalli 4.79 0.51 3.13 3.70 5.53 5.32 4.56 4.86 2.12 0.51 2.96 3.20 2.49 2.29 3.02 2.57 Table A.12. Mean and Standard Deviation for Administrative Variables by Disciplinary Background of Sample Experts. Field of Functional Capacity Finance Regulation and Accountability Expertise AOFCAP ABALFS ASREPU ASBUDC AREGMN AREGME AACCMN AACCME Economists 4.16 0.41 2.74 4.24 4.94 4.55 4.88 4.52 2.04 0.51 2.48 3.35 2.54 2.48 3.08 2.16 Engineers 5.65 0.60 3.90 3.70 6.15 5.96 4.80 5.78 1.46 0.50 3.26 2.99 2.68 2.00 3.12 2.56 Lawyers 4.75 0.75 0.75 2.00 5.00 5.85 2.00 2.08 3.41 0.50 1.50 4.00 1.41 1.97 2.31 2.83 Others 1.61 0.00 3.50 2.50 5.50 4.42 4.50 4.08 2.28 0.00 4.95 3.54 0.71 3.65 0.71 1.53 Overall 4.79 0.51 3.13 3.70 5.53 5.32 4.56 4.86 2.12 0.51 2.96 3.20 2.49 2.29 3.02 2.57 57 Table A.13. Mean and Standard Deviation for Administrative Variables by Sample Countries. Country Information, Research, and Technological Capabilities Evaluation MRINF AILINK AILWRI AILWES AILWUR ARELWR AEXTST AOEFWA Australia 4.67 5.94 6.17 5.83 5.83 6.33 4.17 6.67 4.16 1.23 161 1.04 1.04 0.58 3.61 2.08 Brazil 6.38 3.88 4.13 2.50 5.00 5.25 3.75 4.25 2.69 2.64 3.28 2.35 3.72 3.77 3.08 1.71 Chile 5.00 2.97 3.10 2.90 2.90 4.00 5.72 5.60 3.08 1.82 1.98 1.85 1.85 3.39 1.82 3.05 China 7.33 6.06 6.17 6.17 5.83 6.00 4.97 7.00 1.61 0.63 0.29 2.02 0.29 1.00 1.79 1.73 India 5.00 3.41 3.24 3.80 3.20 4.20 2.97 4.80 1.77 1.26 1.35 1.40 1.44 1.30 1.34 2.17 Israel 6.75 4.25 4.13 4.50 4.13 6.25 5.35 5.75 2.90 3.19 3.28 3.70 2.59 2.63 2.61 2.75 Mexico 7.08 5.83 6.42 5.67 5.42 5.00 5.17 5.50 1.11 1.74 1.93 1.99 1.59 2.61 1.65 2.07 S. Africa 6.75 8.17 8.25 7.75 7.00 7.50 6.20 4.50 1.77 0.94 1.06 0.35 0.7i 0.71 1.84 0.71 Spain 6.00 4.63 4.80 4.40 4.70 4.80 4.14 5.00 2.85 1.69 2.17 1.82 2.22 2.39 1.41 2.55 Sri Lanka 4.67 5.28 5.00 5.50 5.33 4.00 2.93 2.33 2.52 3.40 3.61 3.50 3.21 3.46 2.22 0.58 US 6.50 6.06 6.17 5.67 6.33 7.33 4.93 7.67 3.46 1.71 1.53 1.04 2.57 0.58 0.76 0.58 Overall 6.00 4.86 4.98 4.71 4.81 5.21 4.53 5.35 - 2.46 2.21 2.43 2.33 2.25 2.44 2.07 2.28 Table A.14. Mean and Standard Deviation for Administrative Variabics by Disciplinary Background of Sample Experts. Field of Information, Research, and Technological Capabilities Evaluation Expertise AARINF AILINK AILWRI AILWES AILWUR ARELWR AEXTST AOEFWA Economists 5.32 3.86 3.69 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.81 3.94 2.31 2.28 2.33 2.31 2.42 2.41 2.36 2.30 Engineers 6.65 5.78 6.15 5.48 5.58 6.20 5.30 6.05 2.41 1.96 2.13 2.34 1.96 2.21 1.70 1.82 Lawyers 5.63 5.42 5.50 4.75 6.00 5.75 4.00 7.25 3.33 1.49 1.68 2.22 0.82 2.22 1.39 1.71 Others 6.00 3.00 3.25 3.50 2.25 5.00 4.10 6.50 2.83 0.71 1.77 0.00 0.35 0.00 2.83 0.71 Overall 6.00 4.86 4.98 4.71 4.81 5.21 4.53 5.35 2.46 2.21 2.43 2.33 2.25 2.44 2.07 2.28 58 Table A.15. Mean and Standard Deviation for Performance Variables by Sample Countries. Country Performance of Water Sector Performance Water Physical Financial Economic Equity Overall Institution Performance WSPPHY WSPFIN WSPECO WSPEQU WSPOEV WIPOEV Australia 6.53 5.83 6.33 5.56 6.06 8.33 0.97 1.61 1.61 3.37 1.31 0.58 Brazil 6.20 5.00 5.13 4.00 5.08 6.50 0.20 1.15 0.48 1.52 0.29 1.29 Chile 6.50 7.20 6.50 4.60 6.20 6.20 0.31 0.57 1.84 1.46 0.85 0.84 China 6.00 5.75 5.75 6.50 6.00 5.50 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.10 0.50 India 3.26 2.85 1.45 3.47 2.76 4.00 0.71 0.82 0.45 0.90 0.52 1.58 Israel 7.45 7.25 6.38 7.75 7.21 6.50 1.18 0.87 1.11 1.13 0.79 0.58 Mexico 5.70 4.78 4.56 5.41 5.11 4.90 0.55 0.82 2.23 1.41 1.16 1.45 S. Africa 5.53 3.00 1.00 2.67 3.05 4.00 0. 8i 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 Spain 5.57 4.39 3.73 6.20 4.97 4.93 0.67 1 1.11 2.29 0.79 1.00 0.90 Sri Lanka 4.42 2.75 1.00 4.83 3.25 3.00 0.16 0.25 0.00 0.83 0.23 1.00 US 6.03 7.83 6.50 6.78 6.79 8.00 0.12 1.26 0.00 2.01 0.79 1.00 Overall 5.71 5.17 4.48 5.28 5.16 5.57 2.36 2.42 2.37 2.34 2.27 2.47 Table A.16. Mean and Standard Deviation for Performance Variables by Disciplinary Background of Sample Experts. Field of Performance of Water Sector Performance Water Expertise Physical Financial Economic Equity Overall institution ______ _ ____ __ ___ ____ _ _____ ______ P e,rformnance WSPPHY WSPFIN WSPECO WSPEQU WSPOEV WIPOEV Economists 5.29 4.59 3.56 5.14 4.64 4.79 1.38 1.83 2.71 1.65 1.64 1.65 Engineers 5.89 5.41 4.99 5.43 5.43 6.08 1.03 1.88 2.16 2.10 1.50 1.52 Lawyers 6.33 5.69 5.06 6.04 5.78 6.63 1.37 1.55 1.51 0.93 0.94 1.11 Others 5.35 5.00 3.00 4.33 4.42 4.00 1.48 2.83 2.12 1.41 1.96 2.83 Overall 5.67 5.10 4.35 5.32 5.11 5.53 1.23 1.85 2.41 1.81 1.55 1.71 59 APPENDIX-B: THE QUESTIONNAIRI, COMPARATIVE STUDY OF WATER INSTI[TUTIOCNS AND THEIR IMPACT ON WATER SECTOR PERFORMANCE INF SELECT COUNTRIES (A World Bank-funded Research P'roject) REQUEST to RESPONDENIE Knowing fully well the value of your time and informaition, it is our intention to use them as efficiently as we can and, of course, with full acknowledgement of your specific views and contributions (unless stated specificah I to the contrary). Thanks, in advance, for your interest, co-operation, and active support to this pioneering study. (A) Definitions 1. Water Institution = An entity defined interactively by both formal and informal as well as macro and micro level water law, water policy, and water administration. 2. Water Sector Covers all consumptive uses of water like irrigation, domestic consumption, and industrial processing from both surface and sub-surface sources as well as reclaimed or recycled sources. Non-consumptive uses like hydro-power generation, navigation, and in-stream and ecological needs are considered only to the extent they affect consumptive uses either directly or indirectly. 3.Water Sector Performance = Covers physical perfornnance (Demand vs. Supply), operational performance (allocational ease and its efficiency), and financial performance (cost recovery and pricing efficiency) (B) Notes 1. This questionnaire is intended essentially to highlight major issues as a starting point to initiate discussion and elicit gut-feeling response of country experts, specialists, and policy-makers. Since it does not exhaust all issues (especially the country- specific ones), additional issues are most welcome to be brought to our attention. Your valuable comments/suggestions on arid modifications/refinements of specific issues are of utmost value as we plan to further fine-tune this questionnaire and mail/email/fax it to many experts worldwide subsequent to this initial survey. 2. Given the nature of the subject under study, questions with straightforward quantitative answers are inter-related with questions that allow only qualitative or judgmental response. The latter set of questions can be quantified by carefully 60 choosing a value on a 1 to 10 scale (1 = the least and 10 = the best) along with the reason(s) justifying the choice of the assigned value. 3. Inter-connectivity among issues makes the questions not only inter-related but also repetitive. The repetition of the same questions in different contexts is deliberately intended to cross-check the response as well as to capture the multifarious effects of the same aspect in different institutional and performance contexts. 4. Kindly try to answer all the questions iin all the three section of this questionnaire. Since we aim at evaluating the inter-linkages among the three components of water institution (water law, water policy, and water administration), a completely responded questionnaire is critical. 5. Besides the structural questionnaire and open-ended discussion, we also seek your help/direction in obtaining published/unpublished materials and data on water institution and water sector performance. RESPONDENT'S NAME AND BACKGROUND 1. Respondent's Name (Optional) .................................................................... 2. Specialization Economist/Engineer/Legal expert/ Others (specify). 3. Affiliation ..................................................................... 4. Address ..................................................................... .1................................................................. .. ..............................I....................................... .................................................................... Email:............................................... Phone:............................................... Fax:................................................... 5. Any Other Relevant Information: ....................................................... 61 1. WATER LAW 1.1. Legal Treatment of Different Water Sources (Tick one or more) (a) Surface and groundwater are treated alike ........... (b) They are treated differently ........... (c) Laws discriminate water development/use by public and private parties ........... (d) Law distinguishes water development/use across sectors like irrigation, domestic, and industrial uses ........... (e) Differential priority and treatment of consumptive and non-consumptive uses. .......... 1.2. Legal Linkages Between Water and Water-related Resources 1.2.1. In your perception, how strong are the legal linkages (on a 0 to 10 scale) (a) Between land and groundwater (b) Between land and surface water (c) Between forest/environment and water 1.3. Property Rights Status (Local Level) 1.3.1. Whether water law allows private water rights Yes/No 1.3.2. If yes, is it is in the form of (Tick one or more): (a) Individual rights (b) Group/collective rights (c) Other forms (specify) 1.4.3. If no, what are the constraints (Tick one or more)? (a) Public control is needed for equity .............. (b) Administration of private rights is socially difficult .............. (c) Gaps in water measuring technology and water control institutions ............ (d) Others (specify) 62 1.5. Property Rights Status (General) 1.5.1. Basis for general rights in surface water (Tick one or more) (a) None or not clear ........... (b) Common/state property ........... (c) Riparian system ........... (d) Appropriative system ........... (e) Correlative system (Equal or proportional sharing) ........... (f) Any other, please specify 1.5.2. Basis for general rights in groundwater (Tick one or more) (a) Open access ........... (b) Common/state property ........... (c) Appropriative system ........... (d) Correlative system (Equal or proportional sharing) ........... (e) Any other, please specify ............................................... ................... 1.5.3. Is there legalized inter-sectoral prioritization? Yes/No 1.5.3.1. If yes, specify the priority order (by placing rank number) (a) Domestic use ............ (b) Irrigation ............ (c) Industrial/commercial uses ............ (d) Power generation ............ (e) Navigation ............ (f) Environmental purpose (e.g., in-stream needs) ............ 1.5.3.2. What is the main basis of such prioritization? (Tick one. Ifyou tick more than one, indicate the relative importance on a 0 to 10 scale) (a) Equity concems ............ (b) Resource conditions ............ (c) Economic considerations ............ (d) Any other, specify (e.g., historical reasons) ............................................... .............. ...... ............................................... .............. ...... 63 1.6. Conflict Resolution/Co-ordination 1.6.1. Are the conflict resolution mechanisms explicitly specified in law? Yes/No/Not Clear 1.6.2. If yes, indicate the kind of conflict resolution mechanisms (Tick) (Tick) (a) Administratively/bureaucratically rooted system (Water Resource Dept., Irrigation Dept., etc.) (i) Local administration/govt. (ii) National Water Council (b) Relatively more decentralized system (i) River boards (ii) Basin organization (iii) Any others, specify (e.g., WUA) (c) Tribunals (d) Judicial/legislative/constitutional (e) Any Others, specify ............................................................................... 1.6.3. What are the legally specified mechanisms for trans-boundary conflicts (inter-state and international)? (a) River boards .......... (b) Basin organizations ............ (c) Tribunals ............ (d) Others specify .............................................. .............. ...... 1.6.4. In your learned judgement, how effective are the legal provisions for conflict resolution/co-ordination mechanisms (on a O to 10 scale)? (a) Local level (among users) .......... (b) National level (among regions/sectors) .......... (c) International level (among nations) .......... 64 1.7. Accountability of Water Sector Officials and Water Users 1.7.1. Are there explicit legal provisions for ensuring the accountability of officials/water suppliers/users? Yes/No/Not Clear 1.7.2. If yes, specify the legal instruments for the accountability of (Tick one or more in each case) (a) Officials (i) Indemnity clause in water law (ii) Penalty provisions in water law (iii) Other administrative actions (b) Users (i) Sanctions/tortiuous liabilities (ii) User-oriented/decentralized Mechanisms (e.g., Water user Associations) (iii) Actions by local govt./ irrigation department/ water supply agency, etc. 1.7.3. In your learned judgement, how effective are the accountability provisions? (on a 0 to 10 scale) (a) For the officials ....... (b) For the users .......... 1.7.4. Do the accountability provisions vary by (a) Water sources ......... (b) Use Categories .......... (c) User groups ....... (d) None ....... 1.8. Intra-governmental Responsibility in Wate]r Law 1.8.1. Please indicate (by ticking) current intra-governmental responsibility Govt. Surface Ground Recycled Water Environ Layer Water Water Water Quality -ment N ational ........... ............ ............ ............ ............ State ............ ............ ........... ............ ............ Local .... ........ ............ ............ ........I ... ............ 1.8.2. Does the existing division of legal responsibility favor an integrated treatment of water planning/development? Yes/No 1.8.3. If yes, how strong is such favorable effect (on a O to 10 scale)? 65 1.8.4. Is there a legally conceivable property righlts in water quality (i.e., pollution permits)? Yes/No 1.8.5. Please specify the legal provisions for pollution Control. (a) Quality standards (b) Pollution control legislations (c) Any other, Specify 1.8.6. In your opinion, how effective are the overall legal provisions in protecting water quality (on a 0 to 10 scale)? .......... 1.9. Overall Evaluation 1.9.1. Does the present law tend to contribute to centralization? Yes/No 1.9.2. In your opinion, how strong is the tendency towards centralization (on a 0 to 10 scale) ? 1.9.3. How favorable are the legal provisions for private sector/Non- Governmental Organization (NGO)/community participation in water planning/development/managemenlt (on a 0 to 10 scale)? Private sector .......... NGO .......... Community .......... 1.9.4. In your opinion, how synergetic (or integrated are water laws and other laws related to land, forest, and environment (on a O to 10 scale)? .......... 1.9.5. In your opinion, how relevant are the water and related laws for the current situation (on a 0 to 10 scale) 1.9.6. How strong is water law in addressing new challenges in the sphere of (a) Water sharing conflicts (on a 0 to 10 scale) .......... (b) Environmental concerns (on a 0 to 10 scale) .......... (c) New water technologies (on ,2 0 o 10 scale) .......... 66 2. WATER POLICY 2.1. Water Policy Implications in Other Policies and Law (Tick one or more) (a) water law (b) agricultural policy (c) fiscal policies (d) credit/investment policies (e) environmental policies 2.2. Priority of Uses 2.2.1. If inter-sectoral use priority is not explicit in water law, is it stated--explicitly or implicitly--in other policies? Yes/No 2.2.2. If yes, specify the order (By placing a rank) (a) Domestic use (b) Irrigation (c) Industrial/comnnercial use (d) Power generation (e) Navigation (f) Environmental purpose (in strearm use, etc.) 2.2.3. Is such prioritization rooted more in (Tick one or more) (a) Equity concerns (b) Resource conditions (c) Economic considerations (d) Any other, specify (e.g., historical reasons) 2.3. Project Selection Criteria 2.3.1. Indicate (by ticking) the dominant criteria used in water project selection Criterion Irrigation Urban Multi-purpose Project Project Scheme (a) Benefit-cost ratio ............ ............ ............ (b) Internal rate of return ............ ............ ............ (c) Equity factors ............ ............ ............ (d) Ecological factors ............ ............ ........... (e) Other specify 67 2.3.2. In case more than one criterion is used, please indicate your judgmental percentage (or proportion) of projects using each criteria Criterion Irrigation Urban Multi-purpose Project Project Scheme (a) Benefit-cost ratio (b) Internal rate of return ............. . (c) Equity factors. (d) Ecological factors (e) Other specify 2.3.3. In case the project selection criteria vary bly the type of projects, please indicate (by ticking). Criterion Local Foreign New Improv Managerial/ Fund Fund/aid Constr -ing old Institutional uction projects Improvement (a) Benefit-cost ratio ........ ......... (b) Internal rate of return ........ ......... (c) Equity factors ........ ......... (d) Ecological factors ........ ......... (e) Other specify 2.3.4. Do you feel that the recent trend in project selection criteria is towards economic orientation? Yes/No 2.4. Pricing and Cost Recovery 2.4.1. How often water prices/charges are revised (Please tick)? Irrigation Domirestic Use Industrial Urban IRural (a) Often (b) Infrequently (c) Rarely (d) Not revised 68 2.4.2. Is water pricing based on (Please tick) Irrigation Domestic Use Industrial Urban I Rural (a) Fullcost recovery (b) Partial recovery (Operating cost only) (c) Full subsidy 2.5. Inter-regional and inter-sectoral water transfers 2.5.1. Are there well established policies or precedent for (a) Inter-regional water transfers Yes/No (b) Inter-sectoral water transfers Yes/No 2.5.2. If yes, what is the dominant basis for such transfers (Tick one or more)? Inter-regional Inter-sectoral (a) Equity concerns (b) Resource conditions (c) Economic considerations (d) Any other, specify 2.5.3. What is the dominant means for such water transfers (Tick one or more)? Inter-regional Inter-sectoral (a) Purely a political decision (b) Administrative dictates (c) Negotiation (d) Water Market (i) macro (ii) micro (e) Any other, specify. 2.5.4. What is the organizational basis for such water transfers (Tick one or more)? Inter-regional Inter-sectoral (a) River Boards ........... (b) Basin Level Organizations ........... (c) Tribunals ........... (d) Other Decentralized systems . (Stakeholders, WWUAs, etc.) 69 2.5.5. Efficiency and extensiveness of water transfers (in your learned judgement) (on a 0 to 10 scale) Inter-regional Inter-sectoral Transfers Transfers (a) How extensive are they? (i) Macro level ........... (ii) Micro level ........... (b) How smooth are they? (i) Macro level ........... (ii) Micro level ........... 2.6 Other Policies Affecting Water Development/U se 2.6.1 Please indicate (Tick) and evaluate (on a 0 to 10 scale) the effects of other policies affecting water development/use. Tick (O to 10) (a) Agricultural policies .......... .......... (b) Energy/power policies .......... .......... (c) Soil Conservation policies .......... .......... (d) Pollution control/environmental policies .......... .......... (e) Fiscal policies (structural adjustment) .......... .......... (f) Credit/investment policies .......... .......... (g) Foreign investment/aid policies .......... .......... (h) Others, specify (e.g., trade policies) 2.7 Privatization and Decentralization Tendencies 2.7.1 Are government policies favorable for private sector participation in water sector? Yes/No 2.7.2 If yes, how favorable are those policies (on a 0 to 10 scale)? (a) Irrigation (b) Urban domestic use (c) Rural domestic use (d) Industrial/commercial use 70 2.7.3 How extensive is private sector participation (on a 0 to 10 scale)? (a) Irrigationo (b) Urban domestic use (c) Rural domestic use (d) Industrial/cormercialuse.. 2.7.4 In your opinion, how well are users disposed towards private sector involvement in water sector (Tick one)? (a) Favorable overall .......... (b) Favorable in particular sector .......... (c) Not favorable .......... (d) Indifferent .......... (e) Opposed .......... 2.7.5 Are government policies favorable for users participation and decentralization? Yes/No 2.7.6 If yes, how favorable are these policies (on a 0 to 10 scale)? Planning Development Management (a) Irrigation (b) Urban domestic use (c) Rural domestic use (d) Industrial/commercial/use 2.7.7 How extensive is users participation (on a 0 to 10 scale)? Planning Development Management (a) Irrigation .......I.... ............ ........... (b) Urban domestic use ............ ............ ........... (c) Rural domestic use ............ ............ ........... (d) Industrial/commercial use ............ . ........... ........... 2.7.8 In your opinion, how well are government officials disposed towards users participation and decentralization (Tick one)? User Participation Decentralization (a) Favorable overall ............. ............... (b) Favorable in selective contexts .............. ............... (c) Not favorable ............ . ............... (d) Indifferent ............. ............... (e) Opposed ............. ............... 71 2.7.9 How effective are NGO (users, private coiporate sector, and foreign funding and technical agencies) participation in water sector (oni a 0 to 10 scale)? Resource Development Distribution Management Planning I Finance I Execution. I. Irrigation (a) User Groups .......... .. ......... .. (b) Private sector .......... .. ......... .. (c) Foreign Aid/ Funding Agency .. ........... (d) Foreign private technical firms ......... .. ......... .. Resource Development Distribution Management Planning I Finance I Execution. II Domestic Use (a) User Groups .......... .. ......... .. (b) Private sector .......... .. ......... .. (c) Foreign Aid/ Funding Agency ... ........... (d) Foreign private technical firms ... ........... 2.8. Policies Towards Water Technologies/Extension/Recycling 2.8.1. In your learned judgement, how effective are these policies (on a 0 to 10 scale)? (a) Water technology policies (i) Measuring devices .......... (ii) Recycling technologies .......... (iii) Drip systems .......... (iv) Sprinkler systems .......... (v) Any other, specify (b) Water technology policies (i) Water saving methods (ii) Climate/rain forecasts (iii) Drought resistant crops ancl farming practices (iv) Water quality/sanitation (v) Any other, specify 72 (c) Water technology policies (i) Regulatory policies (ii) Incentives policies (iii) Research/extension/education (iv) Any other, specify (d) Technological application policies (i) Satellites/Remote sensing ......... (ii) Computers .......... (iii) Geographical informatiJon system .......... (iv) Management information system .......... (v) Any other, specify 2.9 Linkage Between Water Law and Water Policy 2.9.1 In your opinion, how well water policy refleci s water law (on a 0 to scale)? .......... 73 3. WATER ADMINISTRATION 3.1 Government Branches and Departments Influencing Water Sector 3.1.1 Indicate your judgement on the relative role and influence of government branches on water sector (on a 0 to 10 scale or percentages) Irrigation Domestic Industrial Use Use (a) Central/Federal Govt. ......... (b) State/Regional Govt. .......... (c) Local Govt. (Municipalities countries, precincts, etc.) .......... (d) Statutory Bodies/Authorities .......... 3.1.2 Is there an exclusive department for water or the responsibility is dispersed? Yes/No 3.1.3 If dispersed, indicate your judgmental weights on the selective role of government departments influencing water sector (on a 0 to 10 scale or percentage). (a) Water Resources/Irrigation Department ........... (b) Agricultural Department ............ (c) Environment and Forest Department ............ (d) Urban/Local Admin. Dept. ............ (e) Legal Department ............ (f) Others, specify (e.g., Economic Affairs/finance) ............ 3.1.4 To what extent administrative co-ordination is achieved? (on 0 to 10 scale) ............ 3.1.5 Is there a specialized agency for different sub-sectors? Yes/No 3.16 If yes, name the agency for each sub-sector: Surface water Groundwater Water Quality Recycling Irrigation Urban Use Rural Use Hydro Power 74 3.1.7 If there is no exclusive Department for water sector or specialized agencies for different sub-sector, indicate your judgmental value as to how this lacuna deter better water administration (on a 0 to 10 scale) ............ 3.2. Organizational Basis and Structure of Walter Administration 3.2.1. How the water administration is organized (Tick) (a) On administrative division (mere geographical basis) ............ (b) On Hydro-eological regions ............ (c) River Basins ............ (d) Mixture of all ............ 3.2.2 In your opinion, how strong is the capacity on the following functional spheres (on a O to 10 scale)? (a) Planning and design ............ (b) Implementation ............ (c) Financial Management ............ (d) Operation and maintenance ............ (e) Rehabilitation and resettlement ............ (f) Environmental monitoring ............ (g) Research and training ............ (h) Extension/education ............ (I) Inter-agency/dept. relationships ............ (j) Others, specify (e.g., public relations/accountability) ............ 3.2.3 In your judgement, does the water administration have a balanced functional specialization? Yes/No 3.2.4 If no, what are the gaps in the existing administrative set-up (Please list them with its priority ranking)? (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 75 3.3 Financing and Staffing Pattern 3.3.1 Do you feel that the water administration budget is adequate to meet its modernization and strengtheni:ng objectives? Yes/No 3.3.2 If yes, how serious is the budget constraint (on a 0 to 10 scale)? ............ 3.3.3 Is the water administration overstaffed? Yes/No 3.3.4 If yes, how strong is the scope for staff reduction (on a 0 to 10 scale)? 3.3.5 Can privatization and community participation reduce redundancy in water administratiorn? Yes/No 3.3.6 If yes, how strong is the staff reduction effect (on a 0 to 10 scale) (a) Privatization (b) User participation 3.3.7 If no, do you think privatization and users participation is a complement but not substitutes in staffing context? Yes/No 3.4. Water Pricing and Fee Collection Bodies 3.4.1. Is there an independent. body for determining water price Yes/No 3.4.1. 1. If yes, state the name of the body and its relationship with water administration (a) Name ......................................................................... (b) Its Administrative Relationship ................ 3.4.1.2. If no, what are the agencies involved in price determination (please list them for various water uses like irrigation, urban and rural domestic use, etc. separately). 3.4.2. Are the price determination and fee collection functions in the same agency? Yes/No 3.4.3. If no, which agency performs fee collection? 76 3.5. Regulatory and Accountability Mechanisms 3.5.1. What are the regulatory mechanisms and how effective are they at the implementation stage Mechanisms Effectiveness (Tick) (on a 0 to 10 Scale) (a) Legal Regulations ............ (b) Administrative directions ............ (c) Pollution control agencies ............ (d) River Boards ............ (e) Basin Organizations ............ (f) Groundwater Regulations (i) Depth Restrictions ........... (ii) Spacing regulations ........... (g) Withdrawal restrictions ............ (Water rights, quota) (h) Limits on moving water across ............ regions (surface water) (i) Any other, specify ............ 3.5.2. In what way, the legal provisions of accountability is administratively (or organizationally) translated and how effective are they in practice? (Tick) (on a 0 to 10 scale) (a) Within formal water administration (i) Administrative Supervision ........... (ii) Financial Auditing ........... (Public Accounts Committees) (iii) Work Auditing ........... (iv) Grievance cells ........... (v) Monitoring procedure for sectoral/regional water allocation ........... (vi) Inter-ministerial committees ........... (vii) Any other, specify .......... (b) Outside Formal Water Administration (i) Local User Groups (ii) NGOs (iii) Local Administration (Govt.) .......... (iv) Any other, specify (statutory Bodies).......... 77 3.6. Information Basis of Water Sector 3.6.1. Is there a separate wing within water administration for water sector data collection/updating/maintenance? Yes/No 3.6.1.1. If yes, please state the name of the agency 3.6.1.2. If no, which other agency or agencies maintain water data (Please list them) 3.6.2. Are water data published regularly? Yes/No 3.6.3. Are water data computerized? Yes/No 3.6.4. In you opinion, how adequate and reliable are water sector data for planning purpose (or a 0 to .10 scale) (a) Adequacy (b) Reliability 3.6.5. How strong the information flow between irrigation/water department and water and land research institutes/experiment stations/universities (on a 0 to 10 scale)? (a) Research Institutes (b) Experiment Stations (c) Universities/experts 3.6.7. How strong the influence of water administration (or irrigation/water department) in deterrmirning the research agenda of the research institutes/experiment stations/universities/experts (on a 0 to 10 scale) (a) Research Institutes (b) Experiment Stations (c) Universities/experts 3.6.8. Do you feel the ongoing research adequately address the emerging issues in the water sector (on a 0 to 10 scale) ........... 78 3.7. Use of Science and Technology in Water Administration 3.7.1. Please judge the extent of the use of the following science/technology components (on a 0 to 10 scale) (a) Computers (b) Remote sensing and satellite (c) Research/experimental information (d) Modem accounting/auditing techniques (e) management information system (f) Geographic information system (g) Wireless communication (h) Water measuring technology (i) Computerized dynamic regulation of canal/water delivery networks (j) Any other, specify 3.8. Overall Evaluation 3.8.1. How strong is the administrative and technical linkages between water administration and research institutes/ experiment stations/universities (on a 0 to 10 scale) ............. 3.8.2. How adequate is the administrative set up to operationalize the water policy and water law (on a 0 to 10 scale)? .............. 3.8.3. Do you feel that the extension/education wing of the water administration is weak/ineffective? Yes/No 79 4. WATER SECTOR PE]RFORMIANCE: OVERALL SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION NB: This section tries to enlist your overall subyective perception on few key components of overall water sector (covering all sub-sectors) performance. Please feelfree to place a number in the 0 to 10 scale (O being the least and 10 being the best) that represents best your subjective judgement. 4.1. Physical Performance (on a 0 to 10 scale) (a) Ability to bridge overall demand-supply (b) Physical Health of Water Infrastructure. (c) Conflict resolution efficiency (low-cost and less time) (d) Smoothness of water transfers across sectors/regions (e) Smoothness of water transfers among users 4.2. Financial Performance (on a 0 to 10 scale) (a) Actual investment vs. investment requirements, (b) Cost recovery vs. expenditure 4.3. Economic Efficiency (on a l to 10 scale) (a) Extent water prices cover supply cost (b) Extent water prices cover scarcity value 4.4. Equity Performance (on 0 to 10 scale) (a) Equity between regions (c) Equity between sectors (d) Equity among social groups 4.5. Progressiveness of Water Institution (on 0 to 10 scale) (Key Considerations here include factors such as adaptive capacity, scope for innovation, openness for change, and and ability to handle future water challenges). 80 APPENDIX-C: THE DATA SET Table C.i. Survey Data on Legal Variables. Basic Details Legal Treatment of Water Forms of Righlts in Water Sources & Quality Conflict Resolution SL CID RID EXP LTRWSA LTRWSD LLIBWO LPRLRF LPRSRF LPRGRF LPRQRF LPRORE LCRMEF LCRMEE 1 AU 1 2 1 3 7.33 3 6 2 4 5.00 4 6.67 2 AU 2 2 0 3 6.67 2 2 2 2 4.00 7 4.00 3 AU 3 1 0 4 7.33 3 5 5 2 5.00 9 6.00 4 BR 1 2 0 2 6.33 3 1 2 2 1.00 2 3.00 5 BR 2 2 0 3 9.00 1 4 3 1 6.00 2 7.33 6 BR 3 2 0 2 5.67 1 2 2 2 5.00 7 8.00 7 BR 4 1 0 3 8.67 1 2 2 2 7.00 2 5.33 8 CL 1 2 0 1 1.00 3 1 1 3 5.00 3 1.67 9 CL 2 4 1 0 4.00 3 4 1 1 3.00 8 5.33 10CL 3 1 0 0 1.00 2 4 3 0 0.00 8 6.67 11 CL 4 2 1 1 1.00 2 4 3 2 4.00 8 2.67 12 CL 5 1 0 1.67 3 5 3 1 4.00 6 4.33 13CN 1 2 1 i 8.00 0 2 2 2 4.00 2 6.67 14 CN 2 3 0 3 5.33 2 2 2 2 5.00 7 4.00 1 5CN 3 2 0 3 5.00 0 2 2 1 5.00 4 4.67 16 IN 1 4 0 2 5.67 0 2 2 3 2.00 8 2.00 17 IN 2 1 0 2 5.00 0 2 0 2 3.00 1 6.33 18 IN 3 1 0 3 7.67 0 3 1 3 3.00 6 2.33 19 IN 4 1 0 3 4.55 0 2 3 2 5.00 3 3.33 20 IN 5 2 0 4 7.00 0 2 2 3 5.00 9 7.33 21 IS 1 1 1 1 1.00 0 0 2 2 10.00 3 0.00 22 IS 2 1 1 0 0.67 0 0 2 2 5.00 2 5.67 23 IS 3 2 1 1 1300 0 0 2 2 6.00 1 7.33 24 IS 4 3 1 3 7.00 0 0 4 2 8.00 2 7.67 25 MX 1 1 1 4 5.50 1 2 2 2 2.00 8 5.67 26 MX 2 2 0 2 1.67 3 2 2 2 1.00 8 10.00 27 MX 3 2 1 0 4.33 3 4 3 2 4.00 7 6.00 28 MX 4 1 1 3 7.67 1 2 2 2 8.00 7 6.00 29 MX 5 2 0 4 8.33 1 2 2 2 6.00 2 5.67 30MX 6 2 0 2 8.00 2 1 1 2 5.00 8 10.00 31 SAl 2 0 3 5.00 3 3 1 2 5.00 1 7.00 32 SA 2 2 0 2 3.33 3 3 1 2 6.00 1 3.33 33 SP 1 1 0 4 9.00 3 5 1 2 2.00 8 6.67 34 SP 2 2 1 3 7.00 3 2 2 3 3.00 3 6.67 35 SP 3 3 1 2 2.33 3 1 1 2 9.00 3 4.00 36 SP 4 1 1 2 7.00 3 2 2 2 5.00 7 5.67 37 SP 5 1 1 3 7.67 4 2 2 2 7.50 9 5.00 38 SL 1 1 0 2 6.00 0 5 2 3 5.00 0 0.33 39 SL 2 1 0 0 1.00 0 0 1 1.00 0 1.67 40 SL 3 1 0 1 8.67 2 0 1 2 1.00 0 0.33 41 CO 1 2 1 2 8.67 3 4 2 1 7.00 0 6.67 42 CO 2 3 1 1 4.67 3 4 3 1 6.00 5 2.33 43 IL 1 2 1 2 2.33 1 3 _ _3 1 2 4.00 0 0.00 Note: In this and all subsequent tables in this section the first four variables (SL, CID, RID, and EXP) are respectively the serial number, country identification number, respondents identification number, and filed of expertise. The codes for the field of expertise are: 1 for economist, 2 for engineers, 3 for lawyers, and 4 for others (hydro-geologists, social scientists, etc.). For other variables, see the variable definition in the main body of the report. 81 Table C.1. Survey Data on Legal Variables (Cont'd). Basic Details Accountability Inter-govtl. Overall Jud,rmental Evaluation Responsibility SL CID RID EXP LACPRF LACPRE LIGRES LINTRE LOECEN LOEPRV LOEFWL 1 AU 1 2 4.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 7.60 2 AU 2 2 1.00 7.00 4.00 8.0(1 7.00 8.00 5.60 3 AU 3 1 1.00 4.00 3.00 7.0t) 6.00 8.33 6.40 4 BR 1 2 0.50 3.00 1.60 8.00 2.00 10.00 6.00 5 BR 2 2 2.00 7.50 3.00 8.00 3.00 8.67 8.00 6 BR 3 2 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 5.00 6.33 6.40 7 BR 4 1 2.50 3.00 1.80 4.00 2.00 5.00 6.00 8 CL 1 2 1.50 5.00 1.00 0.01 8.00 4.00 1.00 9 CL 2 4 1.50 4.50 2.20 0.01) 2.0t) 8.00 6.00 10 CL 3 1 3.00 5.00 1.20 0.00 3.00 10.00 8.40 11 CL 4 2 2.50 7.00 1.00 0.00 5.0(] 5.33 6.20 12 CL 5 1 1.50 5.00 1.00 4.003 4.00 5.00 4.40 13 CN 1 2 2.00 5.50 1.40 8.00 6.01) 1.67 5.00 14 CN 2 3 2.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 5.01) 5.00 6.00 15 CN 3 2 1.50 8.50 2.40 5.00 7.00 8.00 5.60 16 IN 1 4 -1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 9.00 1.00 2.00 17 IN 2 1 1.50 3.50 2.00 2.00 8.00 4.00 2.80 18 IN 3 1 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 6.00 2.33 3.80 19 IN 4 1 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 20 IN 5 _ 2 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.67 5.40 21 IS 1 1 0.50 4.00 1.00 8.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 22 IS 2 1 0.00 0.00 2.20 4.00 2.005 3.67 4.60 23 IS 3 2 2.00 8.00 1.80 8.00 8.0D 4.33 8.00 24 IS 4 3 2.00 5.50 2.20 9.00 8.00 6.00 7.00 25 MX 1 1 2.50 4.50 2.00 2.00 9.00 2.00 2.00 26 MX 2 2 2.50 6.00 1.20 7.C0 10.00 8.50 6.60 27 MX 3 2 2.50 6.50 1.00 0.00 5.00 8.00 6.20 28 MX 4 1 3.00 6.50 1.60 6.00 10.()0 4.67 5.40 29 MX 5 2 3.00 5.50 1.80 0.00 10.10 6.00 6.80 30 MX 6 2 3.00 9.00 1.00 7.00 0.00 10.00 9.80 31 SA 1 2 2.50 5.00 2.60 5.00 8.00 4.33 6.20 32 SA 2 2 0.00 2.00 3.80 8.00 9.00 1.67 3.50 33 SP 1 1 2.00 4.50 3.40 3.00 0.00 6.33 4.80 34 SP 2 2 2.00 4.00 2.20 0.00 3.C00 5.00 6.20 35 SP 3 3 1.00 7.50 2.20 0.00 7.00 7.33 4.80 36 SP 4 1 2.00 5.00 2.00 9.(0 5.00 9.00 7.75 37 SP 5 1 3.00 5.50 2.00 6.1)0 2.t0 1.00 6.00 38 SL 1 1 -1.00 2.00 2.00 3.1)0 8.(0 3.67 4.20 39 SL 2 1 -1.00 0.00 0.60 2.1)0 8.00 3.33 1.60 40 SL 3 1 1.00 10.00 2.60 3.00 0.00 10.00 1.00 41 US 1 2 2.00 9.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 8.67 6.80 42 US 2 3 2.00 6.50 3.80 0.00 2.1)0 4.00 5.20 43 US 3 2 1.50 4.00 3.20 4.00-6.()0 5.00 5.00 82 Table C.2. Survey Data on Poli'y Variables. Basic Project Pricing and Inter-Rec ional/Sectoral Water Transfer Policy Details Selection Cost Recovery SL CID RID EXP PPSCRI PPRREV PCOREC PIRSWT PIRSWR PIRSWM PIRSWO PIRSWE 1 AU 1 2 6.00 3.25 3.00 1 4 5 1 8.00 2 AU 2 2 6.00 3.00 3.25 1 4 5 1 5.25 3 AU 3 1 6.00 3.00 2.75 1 4 3 2 6.75 4 BR 1 2 4.00 0.00 0.50 1 1 1 2 4.00 5 1 BR 2 2 4.00 1.75 1.75 1 1 3 1 2.50 6 BR 3 2 4.00 2.00 2.00 1 3 1 2 0.00 7 BR 4 1 2.00 1.50 2.00 1 3 1 2 0.00 8 CL 1 2 4.33 2.75 2.50 1 4 5 1 3.75 9 CL 2 4 1.00 3.25 3.00 1 4 5 1 0.75 10 CO L 3 1 0.33 1.00 0.75 1 4 0 1 5.25 11 CL 4 2 1.33 2.25 1.75 1 4 5 1 5.00 12 CL 5 1 1.00 2.50 0.00 1 4 0 1 6.25 13 CN 1 2 4.00 2.75 2.75 1 3 1 2 6.25 14 CN 2 3 5.00 2.00 2.00 1 4 2 2 0.00 15 CN 3 2 5.00 1.75 2.00 1 3 2 3 6.25 16 IN 1 4 3.00 2.25 0.75 1 2 5 2 5.13 17 IN 2 1 5.00 1.75 2.00 1 3 2 1 2.50 18 IN 3 1 3.00 1.75 1.25 1 2 3 1 2.50 19 IN 4 1 2.00 1.50 2.00 1 2 2 4 3.00 20 IN 5 2 6.00 2.25 2.00 1 1 1 1 1.00 21 IS 1 1 4.00 3.25 3.00 1 3 2 1 0.00 22 IS 2 1 1.33 3.25 3.25 1 3 2 1 2.50 23 IS 3 2 0.67 3.25 3.00 1 2 1 1 7.50 24 IS 4 3 3.00 3.25 2.50 1 3 1 1 7.50 25 MX 1 1 1.00 3.25 3.25 1 3 5 1 0.00 26 MX 2 2 5.00 3.25 1.50 1 3 4 3 7.75 27 MX 3 2 5.00 2.75 2.50 1 3 1 2 3.75 28 MX 4 1 4.67 2.50 2.50 1 3 1 1 3.50 29 MX 5 2 2.67 2.00 2.00 1 3 1 1 2.38 30 MX 6 2 3.67 3.25 2.50 1 3 4 3 8.75 31 SA 1 2 4.00 3.00 2.50 1 3 4 3 4.00 32 SA 2 2 3.00 2.75 3.00 1 2 1 3 3.25 33 SP 1 1 4.00 2.25 2.75 1 4 1 1 0.75 34 SP 2 2 0.67 1.75 2.00 1 1 4 1 0.75 35 SP 3 3 1.33 2.00 2.25 1 4 1 3 2.50 36 SP 4 1 2.33 2.25 2.50 1 3 4 1 4.50 37 SP 5 1 6.00 2.67 2.00 1 4 1 2 3.00 38 SL 1 1 4.00 1.25 1.00 1 3 1 1 6.50 39 SL 2 1 5.00 1.75 2.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 40 SL 3 1 3.33 0.25 1.50 0 0 0 0 0.00 41 US 1 2 3.67 2.00 2.00 1 3 3 1 5.50 42 US 2 3 4.00 3.25 3.25 1 1 3 1 3.00 43 US 3 2 3.67 1.00 1.50 0 0 0 _° 0 0.00 83 Table C.2. Survey Data on Policy Variables (Cont'd). Basic Details Privatization Policy User Participation Policy SL CID RID EXP PGPTPP PGPIPP PEXTPP PUATPP PGPTUP PGPIUP PEXTUP POATUP 1 AU 1 2 1 8.00 8.00 5.00 1 8.00 5.17 5.00 2 AU 2 2 1 5.25 5.25 4.00 1 0.00 3.08 5.00 3 AU 3 1 1 7.50 6.75 4.00 1 2.42 2.25 5.00 4 BR 1 2 1 8.00 3.50 5.00 1 0.00 4.00 3.50 5 BR 2 2 1 0.75 4.00 4.00 1 4.25 4.25 4.00 6 BR 3 2 1 0.00 5.00 4.00 1 4.75 2.92 4.50 7 BR 4 1 1 0.00 1.50 4.00 1 5.33 2.00 4.00 8 CL 1 2 1 1.00 7.50 5.00 1 7.50 6.67 5.00 9 CL 2 4 1 10.00 10.00 5.00 1 10.00 10.00 5.00 10 CL 3 1 1 2.50 2.25 5.00 - 1 1.83 1.25 5.00 11 CL 4 2 1 7.50 5.75 4.00 _ 1 6.50 5.50 4.00 12 CL 5 1 1 6.75 5.75 5.00 1 4.33 4.25 4.50 13 CN 1 2 1 0.00 1.00 3.00 1 tl.00 1.58 3.50 14 CN 2 3 1 3.00 3.00 5.00 1 0.42 0.83 2.00 15 CN 3 2 1 0.00 4.00 5.00 1 0.00 6.67 4.00 16 IN _1 4 1 1.00 1.50 2.00 1 0.92 0.83 4.00 17 IN 2 1 1 1.00 2.25 4.00 1 2.92 3.08 3.00 18 IN 3 1 1 4.00 2.25 4.00 1 0.58 1.67 4.00 19 IN 4 1 1 2.00 3.00 3.00 1 1.75 2.00 4.00 20 IN 5 2 1 0.00 0.00 5.00 1 4.83 5.58 3.50 21 IS 1 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 IS 2 1 1 5.25 5.50 4.00 1 2.83 0.00 4.00 23 IS 3 2 1 7.75 5.50 5.00 1 7.00 1.83 2.00 24 IS 4 3 1 5.75 5.75 4.00 1 .3.25 3.58 3.50 25 MX 1 1 1 6.75 4.00 5.00 1 '3.67 1.75 4.00 26 MX 2 2 1 10.00 7.25 5.00 1 S.00 6.00 5.00 27 MX 3 2 1 7.50 5.75 4.00 1 4.75 5.17 4.00 28 MX 4 1 1 5.75 0.63 4.00 0 0.00 3.83 1.00 29 MX 5 2 1 5.00 1.25 3.00 1 5.00 6.33 3.50 30 MX 6 2 1 2.50 8.00 5.00 1 9.25 6.67 4.50 31 SA 1 2 1 7.00 2.25 4.00 1 6.17 2.58 4.00 32 SA 2 2 1 3.50 1.25 2.00 1 5.00 2.50 5.00 33 SP 1 1 1 5.50 3.00 3.00 1 6.33 4.17 4.00 34 SP 2 2 1 6.00 6.00 4.00 1 6.83 5.83 3.50 35 SP 3 3 1 10.00 6.50 4.00 1 3.75 3.25 4.00 36 SP 4 1 1 0.00 0.00 4.00 1 7.50 7.50 5.00 37 SP 5 1 1 5.50 2.00 4.00 _ 1 2.89 2.22 4.00 38 SL 1 1 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 3.75 2.92 5.00 39 SL 2 1 0 0.00 2.25 2.00 1 3.50 3.58 3.00 40 SL 3 1 0 0.00 2.00 3.00 1 1.00 1.00 4.00 41 US 1 2 1 6.50 5.00 5.00 1 5.42 4.92 4.00 42 Us 2 3 1 8.25 5.25 5.00 1 _ 7.42 6.42 5.00 43 Us 3 2 1 3.75 4.00 2.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 Table C.2. Survey Data on Policy Variables (Cont'd). Basic Details NGO Participation Policy Effects of Other Overall _ _ Policies Evaluation SL CID RID EXP PNGOOP PNGOUG PNGOPS PNGOFA PNGOFP POPAWN POPAWE POELWL POEFWP 1 AU 1 2 6.42 2.80 2.90 0.00 2.00 8 6.00 8.00 7.22 2 AU 2 2 5.60 2.80 2.80 0.00 0.00 4 4.50 8.00 6.62 3 AU 3 1 6.27 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.90 7 7.50 8.00 6.77 4 BR 1 2 4.53 4.10 5.30 7.00 1.70 3 7.14 9.00 5.43 5 BR 2 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 9.00 7.00 8.33 6 BR 3 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 6.33 9.00 7.00 7 BR 4 1 0.30 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 3 5.14 5.00 6.33 8 CL 1 2 4.20 3.50 6.00 0.50 0.50 3 6.33 9.00 5.80 9 CL 2 4 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 4 2.50 6.00 7.00 10 CL 3 1 5.56 3.50 1.30 0.20 0.00 5 4.67 7.00 8.22 11 CL 4 2 4.14 3.60 5.60 0.70 1.70 7 6.00 8.00 5.20 12 CL 5 1 4.58 6.00 6.10 4.00 2.20 6 4.80 6.00 4.33 13 CN 1 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 7 5.43 6.00 7.07 14 CN 2 3 1.39 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.50 4 5.33 5.00 3.42 15 CN 3 2 8.60 4.20 0.00 4.40 0)00 3 3.88 9.00 6.67 16 IN 1 4 4.00 2.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 6 4.50 3.00 2.46 17 IN 2 1 2.80 1.40 1.10 1.50 1.60 4 6.86 4.00 3.87 18 IN 3 1 2.38 3.80 2.10 2.20 1.40 7 6.83 1.00 2.00 19 IN 4 1 1.75 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 7 5.00 4.00 4.50 20 IN 5 2 4.45 4.50 2.90 5.80 4.60 7 7.71 10.00 5.67 21 IS 1 1 0.40 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 6.00 7.00 8.67 22 IS 2 1 2.20 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 4.33 2.00 3.29 23 IS 3 2 6.50 3.50 3.00 0.00 0.00 7 2.13 8.00 8.14 24 IS 4 3 5.80 3.30 2.50 0.00 0.1)0 7 7.00 7.00 8.40 25 MX 1 1 5.80 1.60 1.30 0.00 0.(0 2 7.29 3.00 2.53 26 MX 2 2 1.90 2.50 3.50 1.60 0.()O 4 5.13 8.00 3.13 27 MX 3 2 6.50 1.70 6.10 0.00 0.00 4 6.00 7.00 5.20 28 MX 4 1 2.30 3.10 2.50 1.20 2.40 3 6.75 8.00 5.94 29 MX 5 2 4.20 1.00 3.20 1.20 0.90 2 7.75 7.00 6.06 30 MX 6 2 5.93 6.10 7.80 7.20 2.60 4 7.14 8.00 7.13 31 SA 1 2 7.45 4.90 10.00 0.00 0.00 8 1.75 8.00 4.07 32 SA 2 2 1.12 1.40 1.10 1.00 1.tI) 7 5.00 8.00 5.13 33 SP 1 1 6.67 5.70 7.20 0.00 7.10 7 3.00 8.00 7.07 34 SP 2 2 4.50 6.40 4.70 5.80 1.10 2 6.00 5.00 6.73 35 SP 3 3 7.00 2.10 3.90 5.10 5.70 4 4.71 8.00 4.66 36 SP 4 1 8.00 4.70 5.10 0.00 1.40 5 6.33 8.00 5.93 37 SP 5 1 1.30 1.90 1.30 0.90 1.10 6 5.60 8.00 4.56 38 SL 1 1 3.70 2.40 0.40 3.00 1.60 2 8.00 5.00 2.47 39 SL 2 1 2.67 3.90 1.60 2.20 2.70 3 5.40 1.00 1.25 40 SL 3 1 6.20 8.00 2.50 5.00 = _O 3 1.50 7.00 2.10 41 US 1 2 2.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 o.Mo 4 6.00 8.00 4.10 42 US 2 3 1.85 4.10 3.30 0.00 0.00 3 5.00 9.00 6.00 43 US-3 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 7 8.50 8.00 6.36 85 Table C.3. Survey Data on Administrative Variables. Basic Details Influence of Government Layers Organizational Features SL CID RID EXP AGBIWN AGBIWR AGBIWL AGBIWS AEXCLD ADOMID AACORD ASADSS AORGBA 1 AU 1 2 2.00 10.00 5.33 4.67 1 9.00 8.00 1 2 2 AU 2 2 4.00 7.67 4.67 7.33 1 8.00 5.00 1 4 3 AU 3 1 4.67 5.33 4.00 3.33 I 9.C0 8.00 1 3 4 BR 1 2 7.33 6.33 7.33 3.00 1 8.00 3.00 1 4 5 BR 2 2 5.00 5.00 3.33 0.00 1 7.00 6.00 1 2 6BR 3 2 7.00 8.67 7.67 0.00 0 9.00 0.00 1 3 7BR 4 1 4.00 6.00 3.33 4.67 1 0.00 4.00 0 4 8 CL 1 2 7.00 0.00 3.00 5.33 1 10.00 5.00 1 1 9 CL 2 4 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 6.00 0 1 10 CL 3 1 3.33 1.67 0.67 0.00 1 10.00 6.00 1 1 11 CL 4 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 9.()0 7.00 0 1 12 CL 5 1 3.33 3.67 3.00 2.00 1 7.1)0 4.00 0 2 13 CN 1 2 10.00 8.00 9.00 6.00 0 10.00 6.00 0 4 14 CN 2 3 4.67 5.33 5.00 0.00 1 7.00 5.00 0 4 15 CN 3 2 7.00 8.00 9.00 0.00 1 8.30 4.00 1 4 16 IN 1 4 1.33 3.67 1.00 2.67 0 8.00 4.00 1 1 17 IN 2 1 2.33 6.50 1.00 5.33 0 7.00 5.00 1 2 18 IN 3 1 3.33 3.33 1.67 4.00 1 7.00 2.00 1 1 19 IN 4 1 2.50 6.00 1.00 2.00 0 8.00 6.00 1 1 20 IN 5 2 5.00 8.67 8.67 8.67 1 7.00 5.00 1 1 21 IS 1 1 9.00 3.33 1.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 22 IS 2 1 6.33 3.33 1.67 0.00 1 0 00 0.00 0 1 23 IS 3 2 5.67 4.00 3.50 0.00 1 0.00 7.00 0 1 24 IS 4 3 9.33 5.00 5.00 4.67 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 25 MX 1 1 7.33 4.33 3.00 4.00 1 0.00 2.00 1 4 26 MX 2 2 6.33 7.00 4.67 10.00 1 7.00 10.00 0 2 27 MX 3 2 6.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 _ 1 0.00 0.00 0 4 28 MX 4 1 3.67 3.33 4.67 5.33 1 3.00 7.00 0 3 29 MX 5 2 5.00 2.67 3.67 5.33 0 5.00 7.00 0 4 30 MX 6 2 8.00 8.67 7.33 2.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 2 31 SA 1 2 8.00 2.33 3.33 3.67 1 7.00 5.00 1 2 32 SA 2 2 3.67 5.33 4.33 3.00 1 _1.00 6.00 1 2 33 SP 1 1 3.67 5.67 6.33 2.00 _ 1 IW0O 3.00 0 4 34 SP 2 2 6.00 7.33 6.00 8.67 _ 1 8.00 5.00 0 4 35 SP 3 3 4.33 3.67 4.67 0.00 _ 1 0.00 0.00 0 3 36 SP 4 1 5.00 2.33 2.67 0.00 0 6.50 0.00 1 4 37 SP 5 1 2.00 2.00 2.67 0.00 1 6.00 3.00 1 2 38 SL 1 1 8.33 7.33 6.33 2.67 0 0.00 5.00 1 2 39 SL 2 1 3.33 2.67 2.67 6.00 1 3.00 3.00 1 1 40 SL 3 1 3.33 3.33 1.67 1.67 1 .2.00 5.00 0 2 41 CO 1 2 4.33 6.00 3.67 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 3 42 CO 2 3 6.33 8.00 2.00 5.00 1 9.00 8.00 0 4 43 IL 1 2 5.33 6.00 6.67 2.00 0 ° 9.00 8.00 1 1 86 Table C.3. Survey Data on Administrative Variables (Cont'd). Basic Details Functional Capacity Pricing and Finance Regulation Capacity SL CiD RID EXP AOFCAP ABALFS ASREPU AIBDWP APFCSA ASBUDC AREGMN AREGME 1 AU 1 2 8.00 1 8.00 1 0 8.00 9 8.00 2 AU 2 2 6.50 1 7.00 1 0 6.00 9 6.56 3 AU 3 1 6.30 0 4.00 1 1 6.00 9 8.70 4 BR 1 2 4.56 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 4 2.75 5 BR 2 2 6.50 0 8.00 0 1 6.00 7 7.57 6 BR 3 2 3.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 BR 4 1 4.67 1 4.00 0 0 5.00 3 5.33 8 CL 1 2 5.33 1 0.00 0 0 5.00 5 9.00 9 CL 2 4 0.00 0 0.00 1 1 0.00 6 7.00 10 CL 3 1 7.71 1 0.00 0 0 8.00 1 0.00 11 CL 4 2 4.33 0 0.00 1 1 2.00 5 6.20 12 CL 5 1 2.78 1 0.00 0 1 3.00 3 6.00 13 CN 1 2 7.56 1 5.00 1 0 0.00 4 6.00 14 CN 2 3 0.00 0 0.00 1 1 0.00 6 4.50 15 CN 3 2 6.44 0 7.00 1 1 0.00 9 5.75 16 IN 1 4 3.22 0 7.00 0 0 5.00 5 1.83 17 IN 2 1 4.10 1 8.00 0 0 7.00 5 3.00 18 IN 3 1 2.22 0 4.00 0 1 8.00 6 2.17 19 IN 4 1 5.33 0 6.00 0 0 8.00 5 4.00 20 IN 5 2 5.90 0 3.00 0 1 7.00 9 4.56 21 IS 1 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 7 7.67 22 IS 2 1 4.14 1 0.00 1 1 3.00 4 2.60 23 IS 3 2 5.63 1 0.00 1 0 6.00 6 7.50 24 IS 4 3 5.50 1 0.00 1 0 8.00 3 7.67 25 MX 1 1 2.00 0 2.00 0 1 0.00 6 1.67 26 MX 2 2 6.17 1 6.00 0 0 3.00 9 7.22 27 MX 3 2 5.89 0 8.00 0 1 1.00 9 5.13 28 MX 4 1 1.50 1 4.00 0 1 0.00 6 6.17 29 MX 5 2 3.44 1 5.00 0 0 0.00 6 5.67 30 MX 6 2 7.78 1 4.00 1 0 5.00 9 7.29 31 SA 1 2 4.22 1 4.00 1 0 5.00 8 7.29 32 SA 2 2 5.78 1 8.00 0 1 7.00 3 5.67 33 SP 1 1 5.33 1 2.00 0 1 9.00 9 5.56 34 SP 2 2 4.56 0 5.00 1 1 6.00 3 4.86 35 SP 3 3 8.11 1 3.00 0 1 0.00 6 3.83 36 SP 4 1 5.80 0 0.00 0 1 0.00 7 6.57 37 SP 5 1 3.78 0 3.50 0 0 3.00 5 6.29 38 SL 1 1 4.33 0 0.00 0 0 7.00 0 3.00 39 SL 2 1 3.67 0 5.00 0 0 0.00 6 1.67 40 SL 3 1 7.11 0 4.00 0 0 5.00 2 7.00 41 CO 1 j 2 4.00 1 0.00 0 1 0.00 5 7.20 42 CO 2 3 5.38 1 0.00 1 1 0.00 5 7.40 43 IL 1 2 7.44 1 0.00 0 0 7.00 4 5.00 87 Table C.3. Survey Data on Administrative Variables (Cont'd). Basic Details Accountability Information, Research, eind Technological Capabilities Evaluation SL CID RID EXP AACCMN AACCME MRINF AILINK AILW'RI AILWES AILWUR ARELWR AEXTST AOEFWA 1 AU 1 2 1.00 4.00 8.00 7.33 8.001 7.00 7.00 5.00 0.00 9.00 2 AU 2 2 9.00 6.55 0.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 6.00 6.10 6.00 3 AU 3 1 7.00 6.71 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.40 5.00 4 BR 1 2 0.00 0.00 3.00 5.83 8.00 1.00 8.50 9.00 6.90 2.00 5 BR 2 2 4.00 7.00 9.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 6.00 5.50 6.00 6 BR 3 2 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 4.00 7 BR 4 1 1.00 3.00 7.00 5.17 4.00 4.50 7.00 6.00 0.00 5.00 8 CL 1 2 2.00 10.00 5.00 5.33 5.50 5.50 5.00 9.00 6.50 8.00 9. CL 2 4 4.00 5.17 8.00 3.50 4.50 3.50 2.50 5.00 6.10 7.00 10 CL 3 1 4.00 9.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 7.80 8.00 11 CL 4 2 3.00 5.75 7.00 3.50 3.00 3.00 4.50 4.00 5.30 4.00 12 CL 5 1 1.00 3.50 5.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.90 1.00 13 CN 1 2 6.00 8.00 8.50 6.50 6.00 8.00 5.50 7.00 5.90 8.00 14 CN 2 3 4.00 2.33 5.50 5.33 6.CO 4.00 6.00 5.00 2.90 8.00 15 CN 3 2 8.00 5.10 8.00 6.33 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.10 5.00 16 IN 1 4 5.00 3.00 4.00 2.50 2.00 3.5C 2.00 5.00 2.10 6.00 17 IN 2 1 10.00 4.92 5.50 3.67 2.50 5.00 3.50 5.00 2.30 7.00 18 IN 3 1 4.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.5CI 2.00 2.00 2.10 3.00 19 IN 4 1 6.00 4.00 6.00 2.90 3.20 2.50 3.00 4.00 3.10 2.00 20 IN 5 2 4.00 3.50 7.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.25 6.00 21 IS 1 1 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.33 0.00 0.0(0 1.00 4.00 7.90 4.00 22 IS 2 1 4.00 1.63 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.70 3.00 23 IS 3 2 6.00 6.88 9.00 7.17 7.30 8.00 6.50 9.00 6.00 7.00 24 IS 4 3 4.00 6.00 7.50 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.00 8.00 5.80 9.00 25 MX 1 1 7.00 4.10 5.00 3.17 3.50 3.50 2.50 1.00 2.90 2.00 26 MX 2 2 8.00 7.38 7.50 4.33 5.00 3.0) 5.00 3.00 3.80 5.00 27 MX 3 2 4.00 7.17 7.00 6.83 6.50 7.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 28 MX 4 1 6.00 6.25 7.00 6.33 7.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.10 6.00 29, MX 5 2 5.00 6.67 8.00 6.50 7 50 6.50 5.50 6.00 5.70 5.00 30 MX 6 2 10.00 7.75 8.00 7.83 9.00 8.00 6.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 31 SA 1 2 10.00 7.75 8.00 8.83 9.00 8.CO 6.50 8.00 7.50 5.00 32 SA 2 2 5.00 7.17 5.50 7.50 7.50 7.5.0 7.50 7.00 4.90 4.00 33 SP 1 1 9.00 5.25 8.00 6.83 6.00 7.00 7.50 8.00 5.80 8.00 34 SP 2 2 6.00 5.88 7.00 4.67 7.00 4.00 3.00 6.00 5.10 6.00 35 SP 3 3 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.33 3.00 2.00 5.00 3.00 2.90 5.00 36 SP 4 1 7.00 6.42 7.50 2.67 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 4.40 1.00 37 SP 5 1 4.00 5.25 6.50 5.67 6.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 2.50 5.00 38 SL 1 1 3.00 5.25 7.00 4.50 4.00 5.50 4.00 2.00 1.60 3.00 39 SL 2 1 9.00 4.50 2.00 2.33 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.70 2.00 40 SL 3 1 1.00 4.00 5.00 9.00 9.00 9.30 9.00 8.00 5.50 2.00 41 CO 1 2 1.00 3.00 2.50 4.17 4.50 4.50 3.50 7.00 4.60 8.00 42 CO 2 3 0.00 0.00 8.50 6.50 6'.50 6.00 7.00 7.00 4.40 7.00 43 IL 1 2 4.00 6.00 8.50 7.50 7.50 6.50 8.50 8.00 5.80 8.00 88 Table CA. Survey Data on Performance Variables. Basic Details Performance of Water Sector Overall Physical Financial Economic Equity Overall Performance of _Water Institution SL CID RID EXP WSPPHY WSPFIN WSPECO WSPEQU WSPOEV WIPOEV 1 AU 1 2 7.60 7.00 7.50 7.33 7.36 9.00 2 AU 2 2 6.30 4.00 7.00 1.67 4.74 8.00 3 AU 3 1 5.70 6.50 4.50 7.67 6.09 8.00 4 BR 1 2 6.50 4.00 5.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 5 BR 2 2 6.10 4.00 5.00 4.33 4.86 7.00 6 BR 3 2 6.10 6.00 5.50 2.67 5.07 8.00 7 BR 4 1 6.10 6.00 4.50 3.00 4.90 6.00 8 CL 1 2 6.00 6.50 5.00 2.33 4.96 7.00 9 CL 2 4 6.40 7.00 4.50 5.33 5.81 6.00 10 CL 3 1 6.70 7.00 9.00 6.00 7.18 6.00 11 CL 4 2 6.70 8.00 6.50 5.33 6.63 5.00 12 CL 5 1 6.70 7.50 7.50 4.00 6.43 7.00 13 CN 1 2 6.40 5.50 5.50 6.33 5.93 6.00 14 CN 2 3 5.80 5.75 5.75 6.50 5.95 5.50 15 CN 3 2 5.80 6.00 6.00 6.67 6.12 5.00 16 IN 1 4 4.30 3.00 1.50 3.33 3.03 2.00 17 IN 2 1 3.40 4.00 1.50 4.67 3.39 4.00 18 IN 3 1 3.40 3.00 2.00 2.33 2.68 5.00 19 IN 4 1 2.50 1.75 0.75 3.00 2.00 3.00 20 IN 5 2 2.70 2.50 1.50 4.00 2.68 6.00 21 IS 1 1 5.70 7.00 6.00 7.67 6.59 7.00 22 IS 2 1 7.80 6.50 7.00 7.33 7.16 6.00 23 IS 3 2 8.00 8.50 7.50 9.33 8.33 6.00 24 IS 4 3 8.30 7.00 5.00 6.67 6.74 7.00 25 MX 1 1 6.00 3.75 2.00 4.00 3.94 3.00 26 MX 2 2 4.70 4.50 3.50 4.50 4.30 4.50 27 MX 3 2 6.15 6.00 8.00 7.67 6.95 7.00 28 MX 4 1 5.90 4.13 2.75 4.25 4.26 3.75 29 MX 5 2 5.43 5.25 5.75 6.08 5.63 5.75 30 MX 6 2 6.03 5.06 5.38 5.96 5.61 5.38 31 SA 1 2 5.65 3.00 1.00 2.67 3.08 4.00 32 SA 2 2 5.40 3.00 1.00 2.67 3.02 4.00 33 SP 1 1 5.00 5.00 2.00 6.00 4.50 4.00 34 SP 2 2 5.13 4.73 4.17 6.50 5.13 5.17 35 SP 3 3 5.13 3.50 3.00 6.33 4.49 6.00 36 SP 4 1 6.20 5.70 7.50 7.17 6.64 5.50 37 SP 5 1 6.40 3.00 2.00 5.00 4.10 4.00 38 SL-1 1 4.60 2.50 1.00 4.00 3.03 2.00 39 SL 2 1 4.30 3.00 1.00 5.67 3.49 4.00 40 SL 3 1 4.35 2.75 1.00 4.83 3.23 3.00 41 US 1 2 6.10 8.00 6.50 7.00 6.90 7.00 42 US 2 3 6.10 6.50 6.50 4.67 5.94 8.00 43 US 3 2 5.90 9.00 6.50 8.67 7.52 9.00 89 APPENDIX-D: THE ENTIRE LIST OF EMPIRICAL VARIABLES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER AACCME =Effectiveness of the accountability arrangements evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AACCMN =Number/type of accountability arrangements; AACORD =Extent of administrative coordination evident within water administration evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AARINF =Adequacy/relevance of the information base evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; ABALFS =Balance in functional specialization, a dummy with 1 if balanced and 0 otherwise; ADOMID =Extent of irrigation segment's domination within water administration evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AEXCLD =Existence of an exclusive department for water sector, a dunmmy with I for existence and 0 otherwise; AEXTST =Extent of science/technology application in water administration evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AGBIWL =Extent of the influence/role of municipal or local governments evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AGBIWN =Extent of the influence/role of federal or national government evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AGBIW1R =Extent of the influence/role of state or regional governments evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AGBIWS =Extent of the influence/role of statutory bodies in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AIBDWP =Existence of an independent body for price determination/revision, a dummy with 1 for existence and 0 otherwise; AILINK =Overall strength of the linkage that water administration has with research/extension agencies, universities, and researchers evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AILWES =Strength of the linkage that water administration has with experiment stations and extension bodies evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AILWRI =Strength of the linkage that water administration has with research bodies evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AILWUR =Strength of the linkage that water administration has with universities and researchers evaluated in ternns of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AOEFWA =Overall operational ability of water admLinistration evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; 90 AOFCAP =Overall functional capacity of water administration evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AORGBA =Spatial organization of water administration taking a value of 0 for non- response, I if organized in terms of administrative divisions, 2 for the hybrid basis, i.e., in terrns of both geographic divisions and hydro-geologic regions, 3 for broad hydro-geological regions, and 4 for river basins; APFCSA -Existence of a functional linkage between pricing, fee collection, and service provision wings, a dummy with 1 for existence and 0 otherwise; AREGME =Effectiveness of the regulatory arrangements evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; AREGMN =Number/type of regulatory arrangements; ARELWR =Relevance of ongoing water research to current water sector challenges evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; ASADSS =Existence of specialized agencies for different water sub-sectors, a dummy with 1 for existence and 0 otherwise; ASBUDC =Seriousness of budget constraint for water administration evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; ASREPU =Staff reduction potential through private sector/user participation evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; LACPRE =Overall effectiveness of accountability provisions evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a 0-10 scale; LACPRF =Average number of effective accountability provisions for both officials and users with a value range of 0-7; LCRMEE =Effectiveness of conflict resolution nechanism(s) captured in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a 0-10 scale; LCRMEF =Legal forns of conflict resolution mechanism(s) with value ranging from -1 to 9 where -I for none, 0 for unclear situation, 1 for bureaucratic systems, 2 for National Water Council and the like, 3 for Tribunals, 4 for Water Courts, 5 for judicial/legislative mechanisms, 6 for River Boards, 7 for Basin Organization and the like, 8 for WUAs, and 9 for multiple arrangements; LIGRES =Legally specified inter-governmental responsibility in the water sector as a whole with a value range of 0-6 where 0 for none/no water law, 1 for national government alone, 2 for national+state/regional governments, 3 for national+state/regional+local governments, 4 for state/regional government alone, 5 for state/regional+local governments, and 6 for local government alone; LINTRE =Overall ability of the water law to provide a legal framework for an integrated treatment of water from various sources evaluated on a scale of 0-10; LLIBWO =Legal linkages that water--both surface and sub-surface--has with land, environment, and inland fishing. It is a scale variable with a range of 0-10 and is obtained by averaging the judgmental values given for each of these three linkages; LOECEN =Extent of centralization tendency evident in water law evaluated on a scale of 0-10; LOEFWL =Overall effectiveness of water law evaluated on a scale of 0-10; 91 LOEPRV =Legal scope for private sector participation irr water sector evaluated on a scale of 0-10; LPRGRF =Form of groundwater rights with a value range of 0-5 where 0 for open access regime, 1 for unclear/unauthorized/scattered rights, 2 for common/state property, 3 for capture or appropriative rights; 4 for correlative (proportional) rights, and 5 for licenses/permits; LPRLRF =Form of local level property/use rights in water with a value range of 0-4 where 0 for no rights, 1 for unclear/unauthorized/scattered rights, 2 for recognized group/collective rights, 3 for clear individual rights, and 4 for multiple forns of rights; LPRORE =Overall effectiveness of property/use rights system in water evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a 0-10 scale; LPRQRF =Form of rights in water quality having a value range of 0-4 with 0 for none, 1 for unclear rights, 2 for quality standards, 3 for pollution permits and the like, and 4 for multiple forms of rights; LPRSRF =Form of surface water rights with a value range of 0-6 where 0 for no rights, 1 for unclear/unauthorized/scattered rights, 2 for conrmon/state property, 3 for riparian system, 4 for appropriative system, 5 for correlative (proportional sharing) system, and 6 for licenses/permits; LTRWSA =Legal treatment of surface and subsurface sources. It is dummy variable with 1 if both sources are treated alike but 0 otherwise; LTRWSD =Layers of legal discrimination in water use. It takes a value in the range of 0- 4 with 0 for no discrimination and counting one for each category of discrimination like water source, sector, user, and use; PCOREC =Cost recovery status with 0 for non-response, 1 for full subsidy, 2 for partial recovery, and 3 for full-cost recovery; PEXTPP =Extent of private sector participation in the water sector evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PEXTUP =Extent of users' participation in the water sector evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PGPIPP =lmpact of private sector promotion policy evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PGPIUP =Impact of the policy for promoting users' participation evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PGPTPP =Existence of government policy for promoting private sector participation, a dummy with 1 for existence and 0 otherwise; PGPTUP =Existence of government policy for promoting users' participation, a dummy with 1 for existence and 0 for otherwise; PIRSWE =Smoothness of inter-regional/sectoral water transfers evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PIRSWM =Means for inter-regional/sectoral water transfers with 0 for none, 1 for pure political dictate, 2 for administrative decision,, 3 for judicial injunction/order, 4 for negotiation, and 5 for water markets; PIRSWO =Organizational basis for inter-regional/sectoral water transfers with 0 for none, with 1 for tribunals, 2 for River Boards, 3 for basin level organizations, 92 and 4 for other decentralized systems (e.g., stakeholder and water user organizations and water markets); PIRSWR =Reasons for inter-regional/sectoral water transfers with 0 for none, 1 for historical or political reasons, 2 for equity concerns, 3 for resource conditions, 4 for economic considerations, and 5 for multiple reasons; PIRSWT =Existence of inter-regional/sectoral water transfers, a dummy with 1 for existence and 0 otherwise; PNGOFA =Extent of participation/influence by donors/lenders evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PNGOFP =Extent of participation/influence by foreign private technical/investment firms evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-1 0; PNGOOP =Extent of NGO (user groups, private sector, donors/lenders, and foreign private technical/investment firms) participation evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PNGOPS =Extent of private sector participation evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; PNGOUG =Extent of User groups' participation evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; POATPP =Officials' attitude towards user participation with 0 for non-response, I for opposition, 2 for indifference, 3 for non-favorable, 4 for favorable in select sector, and 5 for favorable overall; POEFWP =Overall effectiveness of water policy evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-1 0; POELWL =Extent of linkages between water law and water policy evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; POPAWE =Extent of influence of these policies on water sector evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; POPAWN =Number of other policies affecting water resource development and use; PPRREV =Frequency of water charge revision with 0 for non-response, 1 for no revision, 2 for rare revision, 3 for infrequent or cdelayed revision, and 4 for frequent revision; PPSCRI = Project selection criteria having a value range of 0-6 with 0 for non-response, I for political dictate, 2 for equity factors, 3 ecological factors, 4 for benefit- cost ratio, 5 for internal rate of return, and 6 for multiple criteria; PUATPP =Users' attitude towards private sector participation with 0 for non-response, 1 for opposition, 2 for indifference, 3 for non-favorable, 4 for favorable in select sector, and 5 for favorable overall; WIPOEV =Progressiveness or the overall adaptive capacity of water institution taken as a whole evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10. WSPECO =Economic Performance of water sector evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; WSPEQU =Equity Performance of water sector evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; 93 WSPFIN =Financial performance of water sector evaluated in terms of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; WSPOEV =Overall performance of water sector obtained by averaging WSPPHY, WSPFIN, WSPECO, and WSPEQU., and WSPPHY =Physical performance of water sector evaluated in terns of judgmental perception and expressed on a scale of 0-10; Distributors of World Bank Group Publications Prices arid credit terms vary from CZECH REPUBLIC INDIA Eulyoo Publishing Go.. Ltd. PERU SWEDEN country o country. Consult yur USIS, NIS Prodeina Allied Publishers Ltd 46-1, Susong-Donn Editorial Desarrollo SA Wennergren-Williams AB local dihsributor before placing an Havelkova 22 751 Mount Road Jongro-Gu Apartado 3824, lca 242 OF 106 P. . Box 1305 order. 13000 Prague3 Madras- 600 002 Seoul Lima 1 S-171 25 Solna Tel: (4202(24231486 Tel: (91 44) 852-3938 Tel: (022) 734-3515 Tel: (51 14) 285380 Tel: (46 8 705-97-50 ARGENTINA Fa:(4202) 2423 1114 Fax: (9144)852-0649 Fax: (22)732-9154 Fax: (51 14)286628 Fax' (468)27-00-71 World Pablications SA URL: http:u/wwwenes.cz/ INDONESIA LEBANON PHILIPPINES E-mall: mail@wwi.se 1120 Cordoan d1Bone7 Am DENMARK Pt. Indira Limited Libraitie do Liban International Bookasource Center Inc. SWITZERLAND AY120 Gicrdbad de Buenos Aires SamtundsLitteratur Jalan Btrobudur 20 P0 Boa 11-9232 1127-A Aotipoin St, Barangay, Librairie Payot Service Institutionnel Tel: (5411 4815-8156 Rosenoers A116 11 PO. Box 181 Beirut Venezuela C(tm)tes-de-Montbenon 30 Fax: (541b) 4815-8156 8a-1970 Frederiksberg C Jakarta 10320 Tel: (951 217 944 Makati City 1002 Lausanne E-mail:p sopbokstoialavia.cam.ar Tel (4535)351942 Tel: (62 21) 390-4290 Fa: (9619)217434 Tel: (632) 896 6501; 6505, 6507 Tel: (41 21) 341-3229 AUSTRALIA, FIJI, PAPUA NEW Fax: (45 35) 357822 Fax: (62 21) 390-4289 E-mail: hsayeghglibrairie-du- Fax: (63 2) 8961741 Fax (41 21) 341-3235 GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, URL: htp:/!wtwwmsl cbs.dk IRAN liban.comrlt POLAND ADECO Van Diermen VANUATU, AND SAMOA ECUADOR Ketab Sara Go. Publishers URL: httlp:/w/nw.Iibrairie-du- International Publishing Service EditionsTechniques A. Wnltrmasan ernice Libn Mundi Khaled Eslamboli Ave., lth Street Ul. Piekna 31/37 CE. de Lacuez 41 648 clhn bo132e Roa Libreria lnternacional Delatroo Alley No. a MALAYSIA 00-677 Warzawsa CH1807 Blonay Miete alt 312 0Victora RO, Box 17-01-3029 PO. Box 15745-733 University of Malaya Cooperatioe Tel: (482) 628-0089 Tel: (41 21) 943 2673 Tel: (61) 39218 7777 Jaun Leon Morn 851 Tehran 15117 Fokokhop, Limited Fax: (48 2)621-7255 Fax: (41 2) 943 3605 F-ais: (6rvce392137788 ,au Quito Tel: (98 2118717819; 8716184 RU. Boo 1127 E-mai:E ho%p@kp.atm.comn p1 URL: http.1www.dadinect.com.au Tel 593 2)521-606; (593 2)544- Fax:(982W)8712479 Jalan Pantae Baru ERL: CTrAILbD IJ ~ ~~~~~~E-mai: ketab-sararneda.rnet.ir 89703 Keela Lunipur hltp:iinruoveipscg.waw.pldps/export 306nSro) RoaksDisfbo AUSTRIiA Fax: (5932( 584-289 Kowlnab Publiahans Tel: (62 3 756-5118, 06PUSL B lgok 10580 WelGaurodand Ca6 E-mail: librimuol66ibrimundi.com.ec TeOr. Fax1975:1 (6 755-4424 Livraria Portugal Tel: (66 2) 2336930-9 Aib1 ggassen26 E-email: ibrma2@lmundbi.cmnc PD Sos 19575-511 E-mail umkooptm.net.my Apartade 2881, Rue Do Germ Fae: (682 237-8321 Tel' (43 1( 5122-47-31 -0 ODUTel:, (98 21) 258-3723 MEXICO 704 TRINIDAD & TOBAGO Fan: (4:11(512-47-31-29 Raiz de Castilla 763, Edif. Expoconir FaxP (98 2i) 258-3723 ISnFOTEG 1200 Lisbon AND THE CARBIBBEAN URL: hlrp:llwww.gerold.colatonline Primer pis, Of. #2 IRELAND A. San Fernaodc No. 37 Tel: (1)347-4982 Systemaucs Studies Ltd QuiooorenSupisAac Col. Toriellc Guei raPen: (1347-0284 8.AgenorpioCne BANGtADESH TeVFax: (5932 507-383; 253-091 Otavenm hant ir 14058 Mexico, O. Eastern Main Read,ie Aaguseine Micro ndustries Development E-mal co nunpsat.neLoec 45HronRadTel: (525) 624-2600 Eaterinidad n Robago. Wean Agsinden Assistantce Society (MIDAS) 4n acu odI~)6422 OAI Trnida (98 645-8466 sInie doused.~ ReadS 16 EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF Dahlia 2 Fmaal: (52o 624-2822mxRompaniA 1eLrr uuet .. Tl 8T6586 Al Abram Distribution Agency Tel: (353 1) 661-3111 E-al:iax:c@nenm Cmai nL8rri6caeb A 645-8467 Dbannriondi 8/Area Al Galee Street Fan' (353 1( 475-2870 SRL: htOpIrtn.nst mo Str, Lipscani ne. 26, sector 3 .-ai (86) iidd.e Dhaka 1209 BucharesLt0-minI: .nt Tel:,(8302 32Tel:(202 56-609 ISRAEL Mundi-Prensa Meoico SA. de CV Tel: (40 11313 9645 UGANDA Fax:(802)8111E8 T 202 5786$ Yozmot Literature Ltd. c/Rio Panuco, 1-11-Colonia Fan.(401(3124000 GuatnoLtg BELGIUM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~eabeo PO Boo 9987. Madhvani Building Pus: (08 (81118 Fah: Mi20l Eas 579-6933 R3 Rhnan 56055 arStee 08500 Mexico, lip. RUSSIAN FEDERIATION Pint 16/4 Jinja Rtd. Jeas tie Lunnoy The Middle East Observer 3 YtbTnan - d152 Ste Te: (52 51 53375658 l3sdetelsos ses MiKm Avs do Rol 202' 41KheiaSretTlavsl15 1080 hrusseIn Cairo Te:(7 ~585-397 Faa: (525(51496799 Ba, Kslpachniy Pereolok Tampla 264) 5 Tel: 132 2) 538-5169 Tel: (2 20 393-9732 Fax (972 ) 5285-397 NEPAL Tel: (7 05) 917 87 49 Fax: (258 41) 251 468 Fey: (:12 2) 538-0841 ~Fan' 2 393g9732 Moscow 181831ioTel.a (27,01 2517467 Fax: (32 2)538-0841 Fax(202)393-9732 R.D.YintemationaiEverest Media International Servites FTe: (70S )g 72 49 E-mail: gus4swiftuganda.com BRAZ,L ~~~~~~~~~~~~FINLAND PO Boo 13056 1F.)Ld BRAZIL Akaleminen Kirakauppa Tel Aviv 61130 GPO Box 5443 ozimarin@glasnet.ru UNITED KINGDOM PuLblicacRes TeUnicas Bnte3nacionais e 6498469 Kathmandu SINGAPORE; TAIWtAN, CHINA Microinfo Ltd. LtdE. . ,Bx Tl Tel:(0771 45428MYANAR;BRUNP.R. Eon 3, Omega Park, Altos, Rue FleixotolGomide, 209 FIN-00101 Helsinki Faa: (972 ) 648 6839 ye: 971~4 2 YNA;BUE Hampshire G034 2P5 31408 Sa Paulo, SPR Tel: (3586121 4418 E-mail: roylnetvisiorinet.il Faa (977 (224 431 Hemisphere Publication Services land Faa: (258 0( 121-4435 URL' btlp.llwww.royint.co.!i NEHRAD Go,atlden W Roauidin Te:044140)864 Fa.(611 259-6644 Fax: (44 142 (8988 Pus. (55 11)258-90 E-mail:ANaShatelausTel,oc4e142sn8680 a-mil: aStmse25 o659 b0 E-URalb akpatilwwsistockmanmin Pafestinian AuthoritytMiddle East De Lindeboom/tnternationafe Singapore 349316 Fai: (4 k c42 ri89 oca E-rnaii: URL, htIpWwww.akateenimen.com lIdex slairmaeion Services Pablicaties flu.- Tel: (65) 741 -516a D-ail: wbap//nkwmicroisfo.ca.uk URL: htfp:/Iwwwuol.br FRANCE PO,B. 19502 Jerusalem PO. Box 202,7498 AE Haaksbergen Fax: (65) 742-9356 . p. ^wwwmjc n .co.u CANADA Ediions Eska: DBJ Tel: (972 2) 6271219 Tel: (31 53) 571-0004 E-mail: ashgbateasianconnecf.com Toe Stationery Office Renout Publishing Co. Ltd, 48 rue Gay Lussac Faa: (972 2) 6271634 Faa: (31 53) 572-9298 sLoveNI 51 Nine Elms Lane Reneot Publishing Cs. LId. 75005 Paris E-mail: lincleboo@worldonline.rnl LondnVENI50 5368 Canotek Read ITALY, LIBERIA GopSrk eti ubisng Ldo W5D DOtawa, Ontario KId 9,I3 Tel:: 33-fll55-42-73-08 Lictsa Commissionaria Sansnoni SPA SRL: btlp://wowwrl.vrdonliTne.sl/-lin- Gouspsdrh vsikP oiTel: (44 1711873-8400 Tel: (613) 745-2665 Fax: (33- l43-29-91-67 Via Ouca Di Celabria, 1/1 deboo Duska cesta SrFaP: ( 17 v) 872-8242 Fax: (613) 745-7660 GERMANY Casella Postale 652 NEUELN ao)k ot RL: http'l//wwwthe-stutionery- E-m uil: UNO-Verlag 50125 Firenze Tel: (386 61) 133 83 47;13212 30 ° triier.dept4renoulbooks.com Poppelsdorter Alle 55 Tel: (39 55)645-415 SC 62 Ltd. T (386611132834 VENEZUE URL http://wwwrenoulbooks.com 53115 Bonn Fax (39 55) 641-257 rivate aiBag 9914 Fax: pN 61) 133 80 30 VeneZUELA CHIIIA Tel: (49 228 949820 E-mail: licoaa@ftbcc.iI ~New Market E-maiL: repansnk(@goaslnik.si Tecni-Ciancia Libres, S.A. CHIlIA Tel : (49 228) 949020 E- maid: li cosa@htbcc. it ewMreSUHARC OSAA Centro Cui dad Co mercial Tamnanco China Fisancaia & Economic Faa: (49 22 17492 URL: hftp://wwmacfthcc.tAicssa Auckland SOUITH AFRICA, BOTSWANA Nioel C2, Gardens URL: hbDp://www.uno-vedlag.de JMIATel: (849 524 -6119 For aingle tidles Tl(8(554,0501 Publishing Hosie E-mail ogverlagaa Fax: 54 52-067 Oxerd Uiversy Press Southern PNblitb5ra Ld . 8, Os Fs Si Dong Jie EFma: (64 9) 524-9057c msIardRaniversiliyherssLtd.uAberc Fax: (58 2( 959 5636 Beijing GHANA 206 Old Hope Road, Kingston 6 Oasis Official Vasco Bsulevard, Goodwood ZAMBIA Tel: (86 10 6401-7365 Epp Books Services Tel: 876-927-2095 PRO. Box 3627 PRO. Box 12119, 61 City 7463 Univnersity Bonksbnp. OnNersity ot Fax: (8610) 6401-7365 P.O. Box 44 Fax: 876-977-0243 Wellington Cape Town Zambia Chh Book Import Centre TUC E-mail: irpl@colis.com Tel: (64 4 49951551 Tel: (27 21 595 4400 Great East Road Campus Pia Eok 2m8 Accra Fax: (644) 409 1972 Fax: (27 21) 595 4430 RO. Box 32379 Beijing Tel: 223 21 778843 J~~~~AttrsBokA rvc E-mail: easisuAactrix.gen.nz E-mail: setordAloup conea Lusaka Belilog ~~~~~~~~Faa. 223 21 779099 3-13er Bosok 3-rvcsie, BRLunlPqww'o-kbac Pen Foasbscdipton orders: T. 1260 1) 250 576 Chisese Corporation for Promotion GREECE T ok 1c13 Fao' 1260 () 253 95 52, Hsumangte HoTn,RaaEbECE A Tel:o (113 81-61NIGERIA International Subncription Service Fx 20~ 5 5 52 ou HFangiuTin g,Ppssro ..Te 9(13 830 P.O. Ban 41095 ZIMBABWE Ouvo Nel Da on ~~~~~~~~35, Stoarnara Str. Faa: (81 1) 3618-0884 Ulnioersity Poriss Limited Xu5n Nei Da JHie 9 35tournaraStrThree Crowns Building Jericho Craighall Academic and Baobab Books (Pvt.) Boilinig 10 C6 2 Athens E-mail: oerdem@nt-ebs.cu.jp Private Mail flag 5895 JahanneSbUrg 2024 Ltd. Tel 86 10 680 72 494 Tel: (301364-1826 URL: hvadan Tel: (2711 880-1448 4 Conald Road, Graniteside Far (81)66072494 Fax: (305)364-8254 http:lhwww.bekkoame.or.jp/-svt- Tel: (23422 41-1358 FaxR (27D.880-6248 PD Bo 567 COLOMBIA 66744HAITI ebs Fax: (234 22)41-2058 E6mai: (25s1s,co.za4 Karate lntoenlace LIda. Culture Dilutsion KENYA SPAIN Tel. 263 4 755035 Cetera 6 No. 51-21 5, Rue Capois Africa Book Service (E.A.) Ltd. PAKISTAN Mundi-Prensa Libros, S.A Fax: 2634781913 Apartado Aereo 34270 C.P 257 Quaran House, Mfangano Street Mirza Book Agency Castello 37 Saptaf de Bogor D.C3 Port-au-Prince PO. Box 45245 65, Shahrah-e-Ouaid-e-Azam 28001 Madrid Tel: (57 1 285-2798 Tel: (509) 23 9260 Nairobi Lahore 54000 Tel: (34 91 4 36358O Fa: (57() 285-2798 Fax: (509) 23 4858 Tel: (254 2 223 641 Tel: (92 42) 7'35 3601 Fax: (34 91) 5 753998 CCITE D'IVOIRE ~ HONG KONG, CHINA; MACAO Fax: )25d 2) 330 272 Faa: (92 42) 576 2714 E-mail: libreria@mundiprnnsa no WISE 01801 RE Diffusion Asia 2000 Ltd. Legacy Bouks odOiaat rs URL: htP71emwwv.mundinransa,coml Coaler d'Edibson et doeSalesfusircnetxforepdrUnsivLonitoeoPreTow Mandi-Prensa Barcelona CtrdEicatne deDA fuso Sales &Circulation Department Fiax(5z House F Banglor Tow Conseil deCGent,391 04ricone (CE4 A 362 Seubird Houne Mezzanine 1 Sharue Faisoal CoIl e 9 A3id(an 04 22-28 Wyndham Street, Central P.O Box 68077 POU ox 13033 06009 Barcelona Tel (225( 24 6510: 2483511 Hong Kong, China NairobiKach750Te:3438849 Fay: 1225) 25 0567 Tel: (852) 2530-1409 Tel: (254 2-330853, 221426 Karachi-75350 Fan: (34 3) 487-7659 CX.PRUS -Fax: e852)i2526-1107 Fax:25 E ) 2-330854,L5i 1654 Fax (9221)4547640 E-mail: barcelona@mundiprensa.es C'IPRUS Email: saIs§asia200.com.hk -mail: Lgacy~iormTiet.com E-m'ail: ouppllekThnUflice.not SRI LANKA, THE MALDIVES Cunter for Applied Research URL: 0Jp1/wnw.asia2000.com.hk KOREA, REPUBIC OfF Lake House Bookshop 6Pres Cogenerewt Engoml HUNGARY Dayang Books Trading Go. Pak Book Corporabon 100, Sir Chittampalam Gardiner P8 iog 200t Euro Info Service International ivision AizcChambers 21, Queens Foad Mawatha NRcosBoa 9 Marg8szgeti Europa Haz 783-20, Pangba Bon-Dong, Lahore ColJmbo 2 Tli: (357 2 59-0730 H-1138 Budapest Socho-ku Tel: (92 42) 636 3222; 636 0.385 Tel: (941 32105 Fix: (3S7 2) 66-2051 Tel: (361 350 80 24, 350 80 25 Seoui Fax: (92 42) 636 2328 Fax: (949) 432104 Fax: (36?) 350 90 32 Tel: (822 536-9555 E-mail: pbcbrain.net.pk E-matl: LHL@sn.1anka.net E-mai: euroinfo@mail.maLav.hu Fax: (82 1) 536-0025 E-mail: seamap@chollian net Recent World Bank Technical Papers (continued) No. 401 Benson and Clay, The Impact of Drought on Sub-Saharar African Economies: A Preliminary Examination No. 402 Dinar, Mendelsohn, Evenson, Parikh, Sanghi, Kumar, McKinsev, and Lonergan, Measuring the Impact of Climate Change on Indian Agriculture No. 403 Welch and Fremond, The Case-by-Case Approach to Privatization: Techniques and Examples No. 404 Stephenson, Donnay, Frolova, Melnick, and Worzala, Improving Women's Health Services in the Russian Federation: Results of a Pilot Project No. 405 Onorato, Fox, and Strongman, World Bank Group Assistancefor AMinerals Sector Development and Reform in Member Countries No. 406 Milazzo, Subsidies in World Fisheries: A Reexamination No. 407 Wiens and Guadagni, Designing Rulesfor Demand-Driven Rural ;nvestment Funds: The Latin American Experience No. 408 Donovan and Frank, Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 409 Heggie and Vickers, Commercial Management and Financing of Roads No. 410 Sayeg, Successful Conversion to Unleaded Gasoline in Thailand No. 411 Calvo, Optionsfor Managing and Financing Rural Transport Infrastructure No. 413 Langford, Forster, and Malcolm, Toward a Financially Sustainable Irrigation System: Lessonsfrom the State of Victoria, Australia, 1984-1994 No. 414 Salman and Boisson de Chazoumes, International Watrcourses: Enhancing Cooperation and Managing Conflict, Proceedings of a World Bank Seminar No. 415 Feitelson and Haddad, Identification of Joint Management Structuresfor Shared Aquifers: A Cooperative Palestinian-Israeli Effort No. 416 Miller and Reidinger, eds., Comprehensive River Basin Development: The Tennessee Valley Authority No. 417 Rutkowski, Welfare and the Labor Market in Poland: Social Policy during Economic Transition No. 418 Okidegbe and Associates, Agriculture Sector Programs: Sourcebook No. 420 Francis and others, Hard Lessons: Primary Schools, Community, and Social Capital in Nigeria No. 421 Gert Jan Bom, Robert Foster, Ebel Dijkstra, and Marja Tummers, Evaporative Air-Conditioning: Applications for Environmentally Friendly Cooling No. 422 Peter Quaak, harrie Knoef, and Huber Stassen, Energyfrom Biornass: A Review of Combusion and Gasification Technologies No. 423 Energy Sector Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank, Non-Payment in the Electricity Sector in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union No. 424 Jaffee, ed., Southern African Agribusiness: Gaining through Regional Collaboration No. 425 Mohan, ed., Bibliography of Publications: Africa Region, Z993-98 No. 426 Rushbrook and Pugh, Solid Waste Landfills in Middle- and Lower-Income Countries: A Technical Guide to Planning, Design, and Operation No. 427 Marifno and Kemper, Institutional Frameworks in Successful Water Markets: Brazil, Spain, and Colorado, USA No. 428 C. Mark Blackden and Chitra Bhanu, Gender, Growth, and Poveriy Reduction: Special Program of Assistance for Africa, 1998 Status Report on Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 429 Gary McMahon, Jose Luis Evia, Alberto Pasc6-Font, and Jose Miguel Sanchez, An Environmental Study of Artisanal, Small, and Medium Mining in Bolivia, Chile, aad Peru No. 430 Maria Dakolias, Court Performance around the World: A Comparative Perspective No. 431 Severin Kodderitzsch, Reforms in Albanian Agriculture. Assessing a Sector in Transition No. 432 Luiz Gabriel Azevedo, Musa Asad, and Larry D. Simpson, Management of Water Resources: Bulk Water Pricing in Brazil No. 433 Malcolm Rowat and Jose Astigarraga, Latin American Insolvency Systems: A Comparative Assessment No. 434 Csaba Csaki and John Nash, editors, Regional and International Trade Policy: Lessonsfor the EU Accession in the Rural Sector- World BankIFAO Workshop, June 20-23, 1998 No. 436 Roy Prosterman and TIme Hanstad, ed., Legal Impedimients to Effective Rural Land Relations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A Comparative Perpective No. 437 Csaba Csaki, Michel Dabatisse, and Oskar Honisch, Food and Agriculture in the Czech Republic: From a "Velvet" Transition to the Clhallenges of EU Accession THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Telephone: 202-477-1234 Facsimile: 202-477-6391 Telex: MCI 64145 WORLDBANK MCI 248423 WORLDBANK World Wide Web: http://wwwworldbank.org/ E-mail: books@worldbank.org ISBN 0-8213-4561-3