Water Resources Management

, Volume 29, Issue 14, pp 4945–4961 | Cite as

Scaling up of Policy Experiments and Pilots: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Lessons for the Water Sector

Article

Abstract

The use of experimentation by practitioners and resource managers as a policy instrument for effective policy design under complex and dynamic conditions has been well-acknowledged both in theory and practice. For issues such as water resource management, policy experimentation, especially pilot projects, can play an important role in exploring alternate courses of action when faced with long-term uncertainty. While the political aspects of experimentation design and outcomes have been alluded to by several policy scholars, there is lack of empirical evidence that explores their interplay with other factors that may also be critical for scaling up of policy experiments. This paper examines experiences with scaling up of different types of water policy experiments through a Qualitative Comparative Analysis of fifteen pilot initiatives in multiple sectors. Presence of political support is found to be necessary for scaling up in 97 % of the cases studied, followed closely by the need for synergies with ongoing policies and programmes. When in combination with effective pilot planning and strong monitoring and evaluation, both these factors create a sufficient condition for successful scaling up in nearly 60 % of the cases studied.

Keywords

Policy experiments Policy pilots Scaling up Water policy Water management Policy formulation 

References

  1. Akumu OAK, Appida PO (2006) Privatisation of urban water service provision: the Kenyan experiment. Water Policy 8(2006):313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubin D, Varone F (2013) Getting access to water: property rights or public policy strategies? Environ Plann C: Gov Policy 31(1):154–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabinet Office (2003) Trying it out: the role of ‘pilots’ in policy-making. Report of a Review of Government Pilots. Strategy Unit, Government of the United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  4. Callander S (2011) Searching for good policies. Am Polit Sci Rev 105(04):643–662, November 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farrelly M, Brown R (2011) Rethinking urban water management: experimentation as a way forward? Glob Environ Chang 21:721–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gillespie S (2004) Scaling up community-driven development: a synthesis of experience. Int Food Policy Res InstGoogle Scholar
  7. Hartmann A, Linn JF (2007) Scaling Up: a path to effective development. 2020 focus brief on the World’s poor and hungry people. IFPRI, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones K (2004) Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic review of qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review. Qual Rep 9(1):95–112Google Scholar
  9. Kent R (2008) Using fsQCA: a brief guide and workshop for fuzzy-Set qualitative comparative analysis. University of Stirling, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  10. Kirkevold M (1997) Integrative nursing research – an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and practice. J Adv Nurs 25:977–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kosamu IBM (2014) Conditions for Sustainability of the Elephant Marsh Fishery in Malawi. Sustainability 6:4010–4027Google Scholar
  12. Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2003) Shaping the next One hundred years: New methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. RAND, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  13. Margerum R (2012) Integrated water resources management in the United States: The rogue and willamette river cases. In Warner J, Warner JF, van Buuren A, Edelenbos J (eds) Making space for the river: governance experiences with multifunctional river flood management in the US and Europe, IWA PublishingGoogle Scholar
  14. McFadgen B (2013) Learning from policy experiments in adaptation governance. Paper presented at the international conference on public policy. Grenoble, FranceGoogle Scholar
  15. Moore M, von der Porten S, Plummer R, Brandes O, Baird J (2014) Water policy reform and innovation: a systematic review. Environ Sci Policy 38:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nastar M (2014) What drives the urban water regime? an analysis of water governance arrangements in Hyderabad, India. Ecol Soc 19(2):57. doi:10.5751/ES-06570-190257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Brien K, Pelling M, Patwardhan A, Hallegatte S, Maskrey A, Oki T, Oswald-Spring U, Wilbanks T, Yanda PZ (2012) Toward a sustainable and resilient future. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation, A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp 437–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pattanayak SK, van den Berg C, Yang J-C, Van Houtven G (2006) The use of willingness to pay experiments : estimating demand for piped water connections in Sri Lanka. Policy, Research working paper; no. WPS 3818. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2006/01/6530300/use-willingness-pay-experiments-estimating-demand-piped-water-connections-sri-lanka
  19. Ragin C (2006) Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political analysis advance access, Oxford University, pp 20Google Scholar
  20. Ragin C (2008) Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In Rihoux B, Ragin C (eds) Configurational comparative analysis, Sage Publications, 2007Google Scholar
  21. Rondinelli D (1993) Development projects as policy experiments: an adaptive approach to development administration, 2nd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt MBA (2001) More evolution than revolution. Transit Manag Public Policy Foresight 3(1):15–31Google Scholar
  23. Sabel C, Zeitlin J (2012) Experimentalist governance in David levi-faur. In: The oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–83Google Scholar
  24. Simmons R, Fajans P, Ghiron L (eds.) (2007) Scaling up health service delivery: from pilot innovations to policies and programmes. WHO, 2007Google Scholar
  25. Spicer N, Bhattacharya D, Dimka R, Fanta F, Mangham-Jefferies L, Schellenberg J, Tamire-Woldemariam, Walt G, Wickremasinghe D (2014) Scaling-up is a craft not a science’: catalysing scale-up of health innovations in Ethiopia, India and Nigeria. Soc Sci Med 121:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stoker G (2010) Translating experiments into policy. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 2010 628:47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Turton C, Bottrall A (1997) Water resource development in the drought-prone uplands. Overseas development institute. Number 18Google Scholar
  28. van der Heijden J (2013) Experimentation in policy-design: insights from the building sector. Policy Sci. doi:10.1007/s11077-013-9184-z Google Scholar
  29. Vreugdenhil H (2010) Pilot projects in water management: practicing change and changing practice. PhD thesis, Delft University, The Netherlands, pp 280Google Scholar
  30. Vreugdenhil H, Frantzeskaki N, Taljaard S, Ker Rault P, Slinger J (2009) The next step in policy transitions: diffusion of pilot projects. 13th annual conference of the international research society for public management. Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, April 6th – 8th, 2009Google Scholar
  31. Walker W, Marchau V, Swanson D (2010) Addressing deep uncertainties using adaptive policies. Technol Forecast Soc Chang, 77(6) Special Section 2Google Scholar
  32. Zhou Q, Quitzau M-B, Hoffmann B, Karsten A-N (2013) Towards adaptive urban water management: Up-scaling local projects. Int J Archit Eng Constr 2(1):63–72, March 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LKY School of Public PolicyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations