Power in the Governance of Common‐Pool Resources: A comparative analysis of irrigation management decentralization in Turkey

Abstract

The global trend in common-pool resource (CPR) governance is to decentralize resource use management to local user groups. Since the survival and sustainability of self-governing organizations are closely linked to the satisfaction of its members, listening to users who have the largest stake in CPR sustainability is crucial. The literature on CPR governance has two shortcomings: its analyses are restricted to the local community, excluding higher institutional and government levels; and power asymmetry among users is neglected, even though it can undermine collective action and hinder effective CPR management. In this study, multiple governance levels were linked, and the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) frameworkwhich contextualizes how interactions among local actors lead to institutional outcomes that shape both individual and collective actionswas extended by controlling for the impact of power relations on institutional performance. The outcomes of irrigation management decentralization were assessed via three case studies on locally managed irrigation institutions from two provinces in Turkey. It was found that power asymmetries have a significant impact on user satisfaction across the cases, albeit in different directions. The implication of this finding is that, in contexts where land distribution is highly unequal, inequalities may have contradictory effects depending on how power operates and is reflected in CPR management.able to effectively manage common-pool resources (CPRs). In particular, the high operation and maintenance costs of CPR management caused financial problems that resulted in the collapse of topdown, centrally planned and managed systems (Meinzen-Dick, 2007). As an alternative to the prevailing

An Empirical Study on Sustainable Agriculture Land Use Right Transfer in the Heihe River Basin

“…In particular, the power balance has a significant impact on user satisfaction by affecting the sustainability of self-governing organizations [44]. Therefore, the power imbalance needs to be taken into consideration when devising and modifying institutional structures governing common resources [44,45].…”

Comparative studies of water governance: a systematic review

“…For these publications, data were collected mainly using qualitative methods such as interviews and document analysis. In addition, a few publications are based on large-N surveys (e.g., Lebel et al 2013, Kadirbeyoglu and Özertan 2015, Harris et al 2017, Zingraff-Hamed et al 2017. We also identified one publication for which the authors conducted field experiments (Ibele et al 2017).…”

Water Management Across Borders, Scales and Sectors: Recent developments and future challenges in water policy analysis

“…They illustrate the tool's usefulness for understanding the impacts of governance on collaboration by applications in five different countries. Balsiger and Ingold (2015) relate the procedural aspects of collaborative governance to sustainable development, arguing that the knowledge of how sustainability is interpreted differently by local communities impacts upon the further design of collaborative management schemes in flood prevention (for a comparable study focusing on decentralized irrigation management in Turkey, see Kadirbeyoglu and Özertan, 2015). They use a combination of survey-data and social network analysis to assess actors' sustainability perceptions and their relational embeddedness in decision-making and implementation.…”