Decentralisation isn’t code for corrupt-free water provision

 

Decentralisation isn’t code for corrupt-free water provision

This entry will be centred around an article by Kenneth O. Nyangena, which examines privatisation of Kenyan water supplies, efforts here are to desegment the challenges and prospects privatisation has brought to Kenya. Opening water supplies up to market forces was once deemed the best solution to combating the lack of funds in developing countries such as Kenya and tackle corruption within the pubic management of water supplies, in the late 90s and onwards it was even part of negotiations and contractual for developing nations to adopt privatisation in order to receive international aid, a critical geographical political perspective on the economy would argue that privatisation agreements with developing countries had more to do with advancing the capitalist systems in the developed world.  Following a series of water management reformations from the introduction to a new political era in Kenya, notably the formation of the Ministry of Water Development (MWD) which was preceded by the revised National Policy on Water Resources Management and Development which drafted the first Water Act 2002. This legal framework came after the initial self-help, grassroot community water projects set out in the MWD failed to deliver due to insufficient government funds and management to meet the meets of communities.  However, the Water Act 2002 set out a framework to establish privatisation and a regulatory board which would encompass tariff guidelines, regulation management and relationship between local authorities and private companies throughout the country, setting in motion the commercialisation of water supplies.

O. Nyangena succinctly outlines the many challenges Kenya has faced in privatising water and sanitation services particularly where governance and politics interplay. Though the Water Act was created under a new governance, this in theory was supposed to tackle the ambiguities within water provision and tackle corruption, however in practice, what was seen was a framework lacking in proper establishment of legal parameters on water rights creating uncertainty and a policy vacuum within many municipalities and as we know where there is a vacuum there is high risk of corruption. Unsurprisingly, corruption is what occurred, the policy vacuum left room for conflict and competition over autonomy. Bad governance is a key aspect of hydropolitics, political interference by both councillors and members of Parliament severely affected the success of implementing such reforms. Politicians often appointed close political associates in crucial water committees instead of hiring based on merit, the disregard for education, status and competence to serve further divulged water privatisation efforts into failure. O. Nyangena argues that even in regions where commercialisation of water supplies had taken off on a sound basis such as Nyeri Water and Sewage Company, bad governance inherently diminishes the success of the operation, under bad governance autonomous companies are able to operate purely on a profit orientated manor which leaves the poor extremely vulnerable, stronger regulations to protect the social goals of privatisation were imperative to its success but once again failed to omit.  Decentralisation doesn’t automatically result in corrupt free practices, much of the water committee running the commercialisation reform included many civil servants from Provincial Commissioners (PC) to District Officers (DO) which really questions the accountability, transparency and competencies of Kenyan water management. O. Nyangena doesn’t limit the issues to governance and adequately covers the failures of the private companies, the international community, lack of funds and one-size-fits all approach as major issues in the legal reformations, implementation and commercialisation of Kenyan of water supplies. This begs the question of whether privatisation really is the solution to countering political instability and bad governance in the management of water supplies?

Reference: O. Nyangena, K. (2008) ‘Privatisation of Water and sanitation services in Kenya’. Africa Development, 33, 4, 117-131

Comments

  1. This is a great post Mary, it gives a detailed account of the complexities of water privatisation in Kenya and its really insightful. I think this post would be helped through clear paragraphs, such as an introduction and a conclusion, and some sign posting at the start. I feel there could be more engagement with literature, especially in the first paragraph. However, in general this is well-written and jam-packed with details. I look forward to following up on your blog as it comes to a close!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like your point on how governments hire their close friends rather than those best suited for the job... a problem that seems to be apparent in the UK too! I suppose privatisation works in conjunction with governance, rather than to take a "one-or-the-other" approach. Perhaps, that way they can regulate each other and corruption can be diminished?

    ReplyDelete
  3. i agree with both Heather and Nasir, this blog was insightful and was really detailed.

    areas for improvement:
    - paragraphing and signposting your points because it's a bit full and hard to read, they large paragraphs are quite daunting
    - split the beginning to show where the introduction is so it is clear and distinct from the main section and also a conclusion
    - engage with more literature, a wide variety of literature will help you flesh out your point and find different perspectives.
    - remember to use hyperlink citations (i think that is part of the criteria)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introductions; East African politics

The Future of the Nile