Private-sector Participation (PSP) in the WASH sector – Don't Lose the Focus
Mixed outcomes from community management (CM) and its incapability for developing and managing hard WASH infrastructure (Hutchings, 2015), a WASH solution in the long term or in many densely populated urban areas, has led to the embracement of PSP (Golooba-Mutebi, 2012).
Fig.1 from Professor Page's (2023) lecture slides account in detail a typology of PSP, which ranges from the transfer of ownership to different forms of public-private partnership.
 |
Fig.1: Classifying PSP. |
Supports of PSP argue that, with increased competition, PSP delivers higher-quality WASH services with lower costs, thus improving efficiency. Additionally, in search of future profits, private firms would be willing to invest in the WASH sector to compensate for the public-sector resource shortfall (Adams et al., 2018; Kirkpatrick et al.). Meanwhile, it also receives criticism. Instead of fostering competition, private firms often obtain monopoly power, resulting in higher prices. Private firms would also feel reluctant to invest in areas with low expected returns. This raises concerns about the affordability and coverage of WASH services, especially for poorer households (Adams et al., 2018; Bayliss, 2003). However, taking a historical perspective, PSP is a legitimate attempt under existing WASH service system failures. Studies have suggested mixed practical outcomes for PSP in the WASH sector.
A case of success
Between 1999 and 2014, Silulumanzi, the water concessionaire in Mbombela City, South Africa (fig.1), improved the water supply. In formal areas, the proportion of households without 24-hour water supply dropped from 65% to 18%, while in informal areas, it dropped from 79% to 9%. A total of $1,100 was invested in previously unserviced areas. Additionally, there were improvements in training, skills, and troubleshooting, with decision-making within 30 minutes and responses within 3 hours. The public sector’s prudent management, planning, oversight, and monitoring are emphasised, with appropriate KPIs to ensure the fulfilment of contract terms and balance WASH objectives and profitability (Chatty & Luiz, 2014).
Fig.2: Locationing Mbombela.
A case of failure
In Masaka district, Uganda (fig.3), PSP in water supply started in 2000. Private contractors are involved in constructing, installing, protecting, and repairing various water facilities like wells, boreholes, and tanks, and in supplying the required parts. With failures in “supervision, inspection, monitoring and coordination”, partly due to district water departments' understaffing, there are deceptive practices involving parts, incomplete installations, and the awarding of tenders to unqualified companies, leading to a lack of quality in and rapid deterioration of the water facilities delivered (Golooba-Mutebi, 2012).
Fig.3: Locationing Masaka.
Refocusing - lessons from mixed outcomes
Echoing our CM discussions, ownership, whether private, public-private, or communal, does not itself constitute a panacea for WASH failures. The effective key remains the institutions, and governments and public sectors' role in management, planning, coordination, supervision, inspection, accountability mechanisms, policy and legal frameworks, etc. Started our journey with government and public-sector failures in WASH service provision, we may need to end by refocusing on them. They cannot be exempt from their responsibility for WASH service provision (Bayliss, 2003; Chatty & Luiz, 2014; Golooba-Mutebi, 2012).
Hi Lucas， you did an excellent combination of the lecture content and your case studies. Your article ends by arguing that institutional and governmental responsibilities
ReplyDeleteremain key roles in improving WASH facilities? What other factors do you think play a key role?
Hi Nia, thanks for following my blog! I am glad that you've raised this question. There are, indeed, other factors as well. The first is, clearly, finance. Without attention to the allocation of funding, investment, and financial sustainability, there are unlikely to be large-scale, thorough, and long-term WASH improvements. The second is that there might need a new model that collaborates and coordinates between the public and private sectors and the community, combining their strengths, since existing models have shown various degree of failures. This study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07900627.2017.1423282), by reviewing comprehensively the history of water supply in SSA, supports this view. However, I would like to stress that the role of governments and public sectors is still one of the most important factor, contributing to the two factors discussed above.
DeleteHi Lucas, nice to see you talk about the PSP in real life with examples beyond the lecture! The chosen two cases with a comparison of success and failure greatly help you to discus the outcomes.
ReplyDeleteHi Angel. Thank you for the feedback! It's great to hear that the real-life examples and the comparative analysis of success and failure in the context of Private-sector Participation (PSP) in WASH were helpful in illustrating the outcomes. Discussing these cases allows for a deeper understanding of the complexities and varying factors that contribute to the success or failure of such initiatives. If you have any more questions or need further insights on this topic, feel free to ask!
DeleteHi Lucas,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting blend of success and failure of PSP in the WASH sector of Africa, highlighting the conclusion that implementation is always compose of mix effects, and considerations must be taken when proposing the mitigation plan under different contexts of Africa communities. Good job!
As you have introduce both community-based solution and Public-sector participation solution, though each one has mixed effects, I am curious about how you think of these two types of solutions - Which one do you think works better? (pros exceed cons)
Thank you for the appreciation! When comparing community-based solutions and Public-sector Participation (PSP) in the WASH sector, it's important to recognize that each has its unique strengths and weaknesses, and their effectiveness can vary based on the specific context.
DeleteCommunity-based solutions often excel in ensuring local engagement, accountability, and sustainability. They are particularly effective in smaller or rural settings where community ties are strong. However, they might struggle with technical expertise and funding for larger infrastructure projects.
PSP, on the other hand, can bring in significant investment, technical expertise, and efficiency, especially in urban and densely populated areas. However, it may face challenges like maintaining affordable prices and ensuring equitable service distribution, especially in less profitable areas.
In essence, the "better" solution depends on the specific needs, socio-economic context, and scale of the area in question. A hybrid approach that combines the strengths of both community involvement and private-sector efficiency, guided by strong governmental oversight and policy frameworks, might often be the most effective strategy.