Governance of complex social-ecological systems is partly characterized by processes of autonomous decision making and voluntary mutual adjustment by multiple authorities with overlapping jurisdictions. From a policy perspective, understanding these polycentric processes could provide valuable insight for solving environmental problems. Paradoxically, however, polycentric governance theory seems to proscribe conventional policy applications: the logic of polycentricity cautions against prescriptive, top-down interventions. Water resources governance, and large-scale water infrastructure systems in particular, offer a paradigm for interpretation of what Vincent Ostrom called the “counterintentional and counterintuitive patterns” of polycentricity. Nearly a century of philosophical inquiry and a generation of governance research into polycentricity, and the overarching institutional frameworks within which polycentric processes operate, provide context for this study. Based on a historically- and theoretically-grounded understanding of water systems as a polycentric paradigm, I argue for a realist approach to operationalizing principles of polycentricity for contribution to policy discourses. Specifically, this requires an actor-centered approach that mobilizes subjective experiences, knowledge, and narratives about contingent decision making.

I use the case of large-scale water infrastructure in Arizona to explore a novel approach to measurement of polycentric decision making contexts. Through semi-structured interviews with water operators in the Arizona water system, this research explores how qualitative and quantitative comparisons can be made between polycentric governance constructs as they are understood by institutional scholars, experienced by actors in polycentric systems, and represented in public policy discourses. I introduce several measures of conditions of polycentricity at a subjective level, including the extents to which actors: experience variety in the work assigned to them; define strong operational priorities; perceive their priorities to be shared by others; identify discrete, critical decisions in the course of their work responsibilities; recall information and action dependencies in their decision making processes; relate communicating their decisions to other dependent decision makers; describe constraints in their process; and evaluate their own independence to make decisions. I use configurational analysis and narrative analysis to show how decision making and governance are understood by operators within the Arizona water system. These results contribute to practical approaches for diagnosis of polycentric systems and theory-building in self governance.

ABSTRACT

Intermediating between farmers and development projects, farmers’ organizations (FOs) have the potential to improve rural market access and promote equitable growth by reducing transaction costs, strengthening producer bargaining power, and enabling collective action. Capacity building of FOs is a cornerstone of rural development policies and programs, such as the United Nations World Food Programme’s Purchase for Progress (P4P) project, which partnered with 830 FOs representing 1.7 million farmers from 2008 through 2014.

Despite significant donor investment, a unifying framework defining the concept and measurement of capacity building has eluded development practitioners. The core challenge originates from the paradigm shift away from top-down development toward participatory capacity building. Motivated by the practical difficulties encountered in ceding control to beneficiaries to enable their empowerment and self-determination, this study seeks to clarify conceptualizations of FO capacity and FO capacity building, to refine monitoring and evaluation of capacity building initiatives, and to develop and validate indicators and indices of organizational maturity and capacity.

Drawing on a critical review of the capacity building literature, this study develops an integrated, multi-level, capacity building framework and elaborates different levels of FO participation at each stage of the capacity building process. Through this lens, the research analyzes 11 organizational capacity assessment (OCA) tools and methodologies, and constructs 33 indicators of functional organizational capital to address OCA content gaps in conflict resolution, member participation, adaptive capacity, and the drivers of organizational change and collective action. The research further proposes methodological changes for increasing member participation in OCA to reduce reporting bias, to build knowledge and planning capacities, and to engender empowerment.

The indicators developed are tested on primary data gathered from P4P (treatment) and non-P4P (control) FOs in Ghana and Malawi. Results show that P4P has positively impacted the organizational capacity of participating groups, although there are regional differences. The statistical analysis validates most of the indicators and indices developed from this study’s participatory capacity building framework. Overall, this research contributes to the understanding of what FO capacity building means and how to measure it.