Dangers of Decentralisation in Urban Slums: A Comparative Study of Water Supply and Drainage Service Delivery in Kolkata, India

Abstract

Clientelism may lead to the underprovision of services which are deemed suitable for decentralisation. Water distribution and drainage services, managed from a lower level of municipal authority, are liable to be affected by clientelism and consequent underprovision. Water quality, maintained from a higher municipal layer, is not likely to be affected by clientelism. Capture by politically influential and dominant social and religious groups is likely to take place for important services like water supply. The article suggests that awareness, measurability, importance and resource intensiveness of service are additional factors to be considered for assessing the suitability of a sector for decentralisation.

Provision of basic services in slums: A review of the evidence on top‐down and bottom‐up approaches

“…Fox () investigated cross‐country variation in slums in sub‐Saharan Africa by demographic, economic and institutional factors, finding that underinvestment in urban infrastructure and ad hoc urban governance structures derive from the colonial era; the maintenance of the status quo in informal settlements because of strong incentives to cultivate political and instrumental patron–client networks and rent‐seeking opportunities; and internalization of an anti‐urbanization bias in policy‐making, resulting in a laissez‐faire approach to urban governance. De and Nag () argue that factors such as awareness, measurability, importance and resource inventiveness of urban services should be considered before deciding to decentralize them. They further mention that the level of management affects WSS service delivery in urban slums and water distribution and drainage services, managed at lower level, are likely to be affected by clientelism and inadequate provision.…”

A Multi-perspective Discourse on the Sustainability of Water and Sanitation Service Co-production in Global South Cities

“…On the one hand, the focus on decentralization of delivery functions, responsibilities and technology draws attention to system innovations and stakeholder participation as essential keys for ensuring a better quality and sustainability of WSS services (Leigh and Lee, 2019;Serageldin, 1995;Wilderer, 2004). On the other hand, concerns regarding difficult management of the services, health issues and inequality due to service fragmentation have left open questions over the sustainability of decentralized WSS solutions (De and Nag, 2016;Domenech, 2011;Faldi et al, 2019).…”

“…authors have pointed out the management, environmental end equity challenges associated with decentralization (De and Nag, 2016;Domenech, 2011;Dos Santos et al,…”

A comprehensive framework for analyzing co-production of urban water and sanitation services in the Global South

“…Studies on urban WSS in the Global South (Ali, 2010;De & Nag, 2016;Domenech, 2011;McGranahan, 2013;Opryszko, Huang, Soderlund & Shwab, 2009) mostly associate benefits of service decentralization within its capacity to ensure users' adaptability to contextual water stress problems and to reduce capital and distribution costs of the infrastructure. Shortcomings are found in relation to the challenges of guaranteeing a sustainable management of the system, maintaining service equity and efficiency, and ensuring water and environmental standards.…”

“…At the same time, the consequent service fragmentation has frequently been considered as a cause of economic, environmental and spatial injustice among the poorest inhabitants. It has contributed to increase the cost gap for WSS provision among inhabitants and areas (both in terms of price/unit and indirect cost for compensatory technology supply) and to environment degradation in high-density settlements (Andreasen & Møller-Jensen, 2016;De & Nag, 2016;Domenech, 2011;Dos Santos et al, 2017;Furlong, 2014).…”