Progress of constitutional change and irrigation management transfer in Pakistan: insights from a net-map exercise

Abstract

Two current processes of institutional reform – irrigation management transfer (IMT) and the 18th Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution – are expected to significantly impact agriculture and irrigation in Pakistan. Results are analyzed from a net-map exercise conducted with water-sector experts at the federal and provincial (Punjab) scales. The data suggest the potential for successful shifts of decision making under the 18th Amendment. However, weaker perceptions of the role of IMT in water governance were found than would be expected given its long history. This is further evidence that something new is necessary to help shift towards the decentralized IMT model.

Keywords:

• net-map
• social network analysis
• irrigation management transfer
• 18th Amendment
• Pakistan

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the interview participants for their time and insights; other IFPRI researchers who provided guidance and input, particularly Claudia Ringler; and Eva Schiffer, who provided guidance on application of the net-map method. Full results from this net-map exercise are available separately as an IFPRI Discussion Paper, “The Policy Landscape of Agricultural Water Management in Pakistan” (Aberman et al., 2013).

Notes

1. 1. In this paper, the term donors refers broadly to private funders, unilateral funders, multilateral development banks and international financial institutions. While all these institutions do not speak with one voice, they were often aggregated in discussions and interviews by sources for this paper.

2. 2. A typical net-map includes a fourth step that examines the primary goals or priorities of each actor. This step was dropped in the exercises used for this study due to the challenges of pinpointing and the political sensitivity of specifying the competing goals.

3. 3. While this link was largely used to indicate instances of actors pressuring others to take actions in their favour (excluding instances wherein formal authority was the means, and sometimes described as nepotism or clientelism), the interviewees appeared to be more comfortable describing this as influence.

4. 4. Figures created in UCINet (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002).