ABSTRACT
In an earlier part of this volume, colleagues explored the relationship between institutional performance and the characteristics of ‘good institutions’ proffered by Pagan (Chapter 2) and others. The upshot of this analysis was that institutional performance varied markedly in different settings. Moreover, the components of an institutional design were observed to fluctuate in their relative impact on performance. However, even highly successful institutions can produce outcomes that are less than optimal in a global sense. For example, the performance of ground-water partnerships and cooperatives was highly rated on performance grounds when viewed through the eyes of participating farmers. After all, without these institutional innovations farmers would not have been able to assemble the necessary capital and operational resources to access ever-decreasing water tables. Yet the very success of these institutions arguably manifests in increased extraction of ground water, often in areas where withdrawals already exceed sustainable yields. Similarly, the performance of some rain-water harvesting institutions was categorized as being ‘successful’ although the impacts of this ‘success’ on downstream users was not captured in the analysis. The ability of check dams to retard water in one location presumably has impacts on others and there is no way of using the extant analysis to adjudge the broader efficacy of these arrangements.
