This dissertation, "Institutional Change and Intervention Outcome: Comparing Assistance Schemes for Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems in Nepal" by Pradyumna, Amatya, was obtained from The University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong) and is being sold pursuant to Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License. The content of this dissertation has not been altered in any way. We have altered the formatting in order to facilitate the ease of printing and reading of the dissertation. All rights not granted by the above license are retained by the author. Abstract: Abstract of thesis entitled Institutional change and intervention outcome: Comparing assistance schemes for farmer managed irrigation systems in Nepal submitted by Pradyumna Amatya for the degree of Master of Philosophy at the University of Hong Kong in July 2002 This study is built upon the idea of understanding and, hence, improving intervention outcome in common pool resources (CPR) in general and irrigation in particular. Drawing upon an institutional analysis framework, this study addressed two most fundamental questions in the context of irrigation management in Nepal- What explains intervention success? And, is institutional change a necessary condition for successful intervention? Two explanations, one mainstream and one alternative, were discussed in this thesis to verify the relationship among major variables in this study in a response to the identified questions. Major variables of the study were- intervention design, governing structure, and intervention outcome- the last variable being dependent on the first two. Mainstream explanation basically followed the assumption that once a good design of intervention schemes or conducive governance structure is there, good outcomes will follow automatically. Although this is very well accepted in the prior studies of this topic, this study in its alternative explanation challenged like assumptions. To address these explanations, a two-phase field-based case study was conducted. In the first phase carried out in the winter of 1999, study sites were finalized, eight irrigation systems selected from those sites, and a brief pilot study undertaken. In the second phase during the summer of 2000, a semi-structured interview was performed among the participants from those systems, four each from two most agriculturally potential districts of Nepal- Chitwan and Nawalparasi. Comparative analysis of empirical data sets revealed that institutional change is imperative to influence the outcome of intervention. Acknowledging both intervention design and governing structure as major causes of intervention outcome and the crucial avenues through which intervention can be made to influence existing institutions and outcome, this study constantly argued and analytically verified that intervention would succeed only when it could trigger off change in local institutions. This study, therefore, refuted the mainstream argument about the deterministic effect of intervention types and governance structures on intervention outcomes. Simply put, this implied that mainstream explanation would thrive only when the institutional change is taken into account. Although institutional change was shown to be a necessary condition to explain intervention outcome, such change per se was found inadequate to satisfy the explanation pertaining to successful outcome. Rather, the institutional change patterns- the consistency, magnitude, and level of institutional change- superseded mere institutional change. Broad and general notions of institutional change would do little to influence policies about improving outcome of external assistance in farmer managed irrigation systems. Rules not suited to system operation and management must be changed while emphasis should be placed on turning those changes on paper into real changes in practice. It was found that the following factors helped farmers