Back
 JWARP  Vol.10 No.1 , January 2018
Water Allocation Strategies: Experimental Evidence from Uzbekistan
Abstract: Irrigation water is a scarce common-pool resource in Uzbekistan, which leads to an increasing competition over its allocation among farmers. We examine how the management of this resource affects individual strategic behavior and how its availability (vis-a-vis scarcity vs. non-scarcity) impacts cooperation. We conduct a field experiment in Uzbekistan where two policies are analyzed: penalty and bonus. Our findings suggest that both penalty and bonus mechanisms are effective in reducing individual water appropriation compared to the case in which these policies are absent. However, in terms of reducing overall water appropriation, the bonus mechanism is the most effective in preserving the resource stock. Therefore, policymakers should have a degree of flexibility regarding the selection of a mechanism to reduce water consumption. We also find that subjects exhibit different appropriation behaviors depending on their location within the irrigation system, with upstream users being more sensitive to water reduction than downstream users.
Cite this paper: Zaikin, A. , Espínola-Arredondo, A. and Prera, A. (2018) Water Allocation Strategies: Experimental Evidence from Uzbekistan. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 10, 20-40. doi: 10.4236/jwarp.2018.101002.
References

[1]   Guadagni, M., Raiser, M., Crole-Rees, A. and Khidirov, D. (2005) Cotton Taxation in Uzbekistan. The World Bank, ECSSD Working Paper No 41. http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/Doc/Uzbek_TAX.pdf

[2]   Ostrom, E. (2006) The Value-Added of Laboratory Experiments for the Study of Institutions and Common-Pool Resources. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 149-163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.02.008

[3]   Ostrom, E. (2011) Reflections on Some Unsettled Problems of Irrigation. American Economic Review, 101, 49-63.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.49

[4]   Dinar, A. and Wolf, A. (1997) Economic and Political Considerations in Regional Cooperation: Economic and Political Perspective in the Western Middle East. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 26, 7-22.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500000794

[5]   Dinar, A. (2004) Cooperation in Managing Transboundary Water Resources: Evaluation Approaches and Experiences. Paper Presented at the 4th Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy, Ankara.

[6]   Abbink, K., Moller, L.C. and O’Hara, S. (2005) The Syr Darya River Conflict: An Experimental Case Study. Center for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, University of Nottingham, CeDEx Discussion Paper No. 2005-14.

[7]   Walker, J.M., Gardner, R. and Ostrom, E. (1990) Rent Dissipation in a Limited-Access Common-Pool Resource: Experimental Evidence. Journal of Environment Economics and Management, 19, 203-211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90069-B

[8]   Rutte, C., Wilke, H.A.M. and Messick, D.M. (1987) Scarcity and Abundance Caused by People or the Environment as Determinants of Behavior in the Resource Dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 208-216.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(87)90032-1

[9]   Budescu, D.V., Rapoport, A. and Suleiman, R. (1992) Simultaneous vs. Sequential Requests in Resource Dilemmas with Incomplete Information. Acta Psychologica, 80, 297-310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90052-F

[10]   Rapoport, A., Budescu, D.V. and Suleiman, R. (1994) Sequential Requests from Randomly Distributed Shared Resources. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37, 241-265.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1993.1015

[11]   Apesteguia, J. (2006) Does Information Matter in the Commons? Experimental Evidence. Journal of Economic & Behavioral Organization, 60, 55-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.08.002

[12]   Rapoport, A. and Tung Au, W. (2001) Bonus and Penalty in Common Pool Resource Dilemmas under Uncertainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 135-165.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2935

[13]   Casari, M. and Plott, C.R. (2003) Decentralized Management of Common Property Resources: Experiments with a Centuries-Old Institution. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51, 217-247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00098-7

[14]   Hackett, S., Schalager, E. and Walker, J. (1994) The Role of Communication in Resolving Commons Dilemmas: Experimental Evidence with Heterogeneous Appropriators. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27, 99-126.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1029

[15]   Gardner, R., Herr, A., Ostrom, E. and Walker, J.A. (2000) The Power and Limitations of Proportional Cutbacks in Common-Pool Resources. Journal of Development Economics, 62, 515-533.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(00)00095-X

[16]   McCusker, C. and Carnevale, P.J. (1995) Framing in Resource Dilemmas: Loss Aversion and the Moderating Effects of Sanctions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 190-201.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1015

[17]   Komorita, S.S. and Barth, J.M. (1985) Components of Reward in Social Dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 364-373.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.364

[18]   Yamagashi, T. (1986) The Provision of a Sanctioning System as a Public Good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 110-116.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.110

[19]   Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. and Walker, J. (1994) Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9739

[20]   Herr, A., Gardner, R. and Walker, J.M. (1997) An Experimental Study of Time-Independent and Time-Dependent Externalities in the Commons. Games and Economic Behavior, 19, 77-96.
https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1997.0541

[21]   Keser, C. and Gardner, R. (1999) Strategic Behavior of Experienced Subjects in a Common Pool Resource Game. International Journal of Game Theory, 28, 241-252.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001820050108

[22]   Walker, J.M., Gardner, R., Herr, A. and Ostrom, E. (2000) Collective Choice in the Commons: Experimental Results on Proposed Allocation Rules and Votes. The Economic Journal, 110, 212-234.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00497

 
 
Top