An Empirical Examination on the Role of Water User Associations for Irrigation Management in Rural China

Abstract

Water user associations (WUAs) are commonly considered a beneficial institution to improve irrigation management. As one of the core components of irrigation reform in China, the number of WUAs has increased from a few in 1995 to nearly 100,000 today. This study examines the performance of irrigation management between villages with WUAs and villages without WUAs, with a set of 15,566 households collected in 941 randomly selected villages from 22 provinces in China. It finds that WUAs do not show overall superiority in almost all aspects in terms of improving irrigation management performance compared with traditional management institutions. Using the institutional analysis and development framework, it further demonstrates the diverse factors that jointly contribute to irrigation management performance, among which the WUAs play small role. The unsatisfactory performance of WUAs may be attributed to the absence of the conditions to support the WUAs functioning in China's centralized political system. To activate the WUAs, policies are recommended such as organizing WUAs based on hydrologic boundary, declining the overlap between the leadership of WUAs and that of the villages, endowing the WUA with more autonomy, and encouraging farmers to participate in the decision-making process. A broader implication of this study is that there are diverse policy options to address water management challenges, which can be selected according to the specific condition. Achieving the congruence between institutional design and local context holds the key for sustainable water management.

How does context affect self-governance? Examining Ostrom’s design principles in China

“…The WUA was initially introduced to China by the World Bank in 1995 as an experiment in farmers' participatory irrigation management (World Bank 2003), and subsequently promoted by top-down policy implementations throughout the country in 2005 5 (Wang and Wu 2018). By the end of 2016, a total of 83,400 WUAs had been established to manage 20 million hectares of irrigated land, accounting for 29.8% of China's total irrigated area (Ministry of Water Resources 2017).…”

“…On one hand, explaining outcomes by diverse measurements is needed to help analyse social dilemmas (Agrawal 2014). Instead of vague measurements, multiple dimensions can enhance the understanding of the characteristics of social dilemmas, such as provision and appropriation problems (Wang and Wu 2018). On the other hand, it also requires more comparative case-by-case studies to understand various configurations of design principles in specific conditions, since no single principle is necessary and sufficient condition for success (Cox 2011;Baggio et al 2016).…”

“…As a result, the number of WUA dramatically increased from 20,000 to 83,400 within the following 10 years (Ministry of Water Resources 2017). However, outcomes of most WUAs in China have not presented any advantages compared with other management institutions (Wang and Wu 2018). How to understand such an under-performance of self-governance in China?…”

Enhancing Performance of Participatory Water Institutions in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains: What Can We Learn from New Institutional Economics and Governance Theories?

“…Although the physical development of irrigation has made considerable progress in India, the efficient distribution and management of water for agriculture is posing many difficulties [1,2]. Engineering solutions are by themselves unable to provide the answer since the problems are substantially rooted in poor institutional development and design [1,[3][4][5][6][7]. The consequences of weak posing many difficulties [1,2].…”

“…The consequences of weak posing many difficulties [1,2]. Engineering solutions are by themselves unable to provide the answer since the problems are substantially rooted in poor institutional development and design [1,[3][4][5][6][7]. The consequences of weak institutions are frequently poor efficiency in water use, low crop productivity, environmental cost, inequity, disputes and substantial under-utilization of the potential.…”