P RE R EFORM M ODALITIES AND D ISCURSIVE R EFORM P RESCRIPTIONS

Nowhere are the contradictions and issues of competing reforms better highlighted than in the instance of domestic water provision. Drinking water provision is a subject of State jurisdiction163 and till the last decade, was the responsibility of (variously) State departments of Public Health Engineering, Rural Development and Urban Development. Central assistance and incentives for attention to ‘problem’ areas has been extended through the Accelerated Rural Water Supply Program (later with an urban counterpart), and as a component of other programs such as the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns, which also included water supply and sewerage projects. While the programs were variously reformulated and grouped in a ‘mission’ mode by the Central Government (the Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission) for the rural areas in 1986, the responsibility for domestic water provision for both rural and non-metropolitan areas remained with the State governments.164

163

Functional responsibility and authority for policy-making and legislation functions on ‘subjects’ of governance attention are Constitutionally distributed between the Central and State governments, with a Concurrent List containing subjects on which both are enabled to legislate. The Central governments, however, can develop policy and legislation in State subjects (as was done in the instance of local government reform) if requested/ permitted by a specified proportion of State governments.

164

Funds for drinking water projects have been provided in state budgets from since the first Five Year Plan; Public Health Engineering Departments were set up for this purpose in all States. Limited effectiveness of this arrangement, with coverage only to readily ‘accessible’ villages and parts of urban areas, eventually led to introduction of the Accelerated Rural (and later, Urban) Water Supply Program by the Central Government in the 4th Five Year Plan, that provided full grants for ‘problem villages’

138

Reforms in the earlier governance arrangements for domestic water provision in India were undertaken in the context of increasing uncertainty and difficulty in accessing safe water for drinking and other domestic purposes for a large proportion of the households in both urban and rural areas in India. Though the figures vary across surveys, a regression of the various figures obtained shows that in 1990, only about 55% of the households in rural areas and 85% in the urban had access to safe sources of water. Despite the efforts of the National Drinking Water Mission, by 2000 this had improved to 65% in rural areas and 87% in urban (Planning Commission 2002: 31). A survey by the Joint Management Program of the WHO and UNICEF in 2004 reported that overall, 14% of the households in the country still had no access to safe drinking water. (WHO-UNICEF 2004)

Apart from bureaucratic sluggishness and inefficiency in implementing Central and State programs for universal coverage, other reasons for this situation are the degradation and drying up of traditional sources, excess water withdrawal,

contamination of ground and surface water sources by pollution, competing demand from other uses, increased seasonal variability in stocks and flows and inequity of access, rather than population increases. An absolute shortage in terms of overall water availability is not the prime issue in India, though there are significant regional

and urban areas; this continues still but now only matches allocations by States. In the attention focussed on the issue during the International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade, this program was grouped with a number of others under the National Drinking Water and Sanitation Mission in 1986. Fully funded by the GoI, the other programs involve district-based integrated projects, health information, treatment of special problems, appropriate technology to attain sustainable water supply with close intervention of NGOs and community in implementation, in 55 districts with unique problems. Adjunct sub-missions are oriented to eradication of guinea worm, desalination of water, control of fluorosis, removal of excess iron, water conservation and recharge of acquifers. The program design included cost recovery from users to develop ownership, feeling of partnership and self-

confidence, O&M by community including appointment of staff and collection of revenue with minimal help from government (except staff training). Communities were expected to assist the government (implementing department) in situation analysis and need assessment, formulating identification reports, concurring with/ modifying said report, assisting in Final Project Report and implementation, monitoring and evaluation of performance.

139

and temporal variations (Planning Comission 2002, Saleth 2004). Analysts have located the core of the problem in the relative neglect of domestic provision vis-a-vis other uses (primarily irrigation and power generation), misplaced regional-

development choices and the accompanying institutional frameworks that have been put in place over the years (Saleth, 2004).

Unanimously, the solutions are seen in reforming institutional arrangements at various levels; but most urgently at the local level, for in-situ water harvesting and aquifer recharge, repair and maintenance of traditional sources and protecting them from pollution, and equitable and sustainable use. But the proposals for institutional reform acutely reflect the discursive differences embedded in neoliberal and progressive views. Among the former are prescriptions for user financing to ensure sustainability of drinking water projects, particularly in the context of the poor resource position of States, with cross-subsidization to offset adverse effects on economically weaker groups (Pushpangadan and Murugan 1998, Saleth 2004). Propositions of the latter kind include providing resources to local governments while ensuring plebiscitary decision-making in Gram Sabhas (GS) as mandated in the constitution or devolving responsibility to democratic community organizations. As explained before165, both kinds of reforms have been instituted in the nineties.

With devolution of responsibilities for domestic water provision to local governments after 1992 (Pal 2004, Mishra 2008), they are now required to plan and implement measures for extending access to unserved households. The roles of the local government and the State bureaucracy in the planning, implementation and

management of the service has been reconfigured by State legislation, but unlike many

165

140

other functions devolved, the transfer of the necessary technical personnel from the State organizations166 has not been undertaken in most States. Despite this, water supply projects are among the top priorities in local government plans, and allocated substantial proportion of the untied funds devolved to local governments. The

participation of women in local government functioning remains uneven, though it has improved with time (Buch 2000a, b; Jayal 2006, 2008; GoI 2008).

The Sector Reform (later Swajaldhara) Program of the DDWS, on the other hand, was initiated with the explicit aim of changing ‘the basic premise that provision of safe drinking water is the responsibility of the Government’, promoting perception of water as a ‘socio-economic good’, attracting more funds for repair and rehabilitation of existing systems from users, ensuring the sustainability of the systems and sources, and preserving quality of water through effective monitoring and surveillance (GoI 1999, 2002, 2003). The AWRSP also continues, but has been revised along the same principles. The involvement of women is emphasized in the revised program, because it was ‘more important to them’, but was to be implemented ‘without antagonizing men’ (GoI 1999) as this could undercut program achievements. The program

guidelines mandated attention to their needs; developing women-oriented technology; training and certifying women as maintainers/ mechanics, educating them to create ‘demand’ for better sanitation; setting up exclusively women’s Pani Panchayats or Village Water Supply Committees (VWSC) or at least ensuring that 50% of the members in such committees were women. However, in reformed arrangements under Swajaldhara, there is no specific stipulation for the proportion of women to be

included (GoI 2003).167 166

Public Health Departments or parastatals. As will be described later in the case studies, these have been the most difficult to restructure, even where most other departments have been, such as in Kerala.

167

There are other Central and State government programs that also address water provision, as well as donor-supported ones, but in terms of coverage and resources, provision by local governments and

141 3.3. THE SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Since the distinct characteristics of progressive and neoliberal reforms are embodied in the devolution to local governments and liberalization of State systems respectively, the question of the relative suitability of marketization and democratization reforms to different kinds of developing contexts could suitably be investigated in this setting. By comparing the functioning of the institutional architectures for water provision by local governments and in the Sector Reform Program (SRP) in the same location, their relative suitability to that kind of context could be assessed. Moreover, since the same reforms have been applied across States, which vary in the political, economic and socio-cultural characteristics, the functioning of both types of reformed arrangements could be compared across State contexts, which vary systematically on these

dimensions. This provided an answer not only to the question of context-

appropriateness of local government and SRP arrangements in a specific kind of location, but also provided a picture of their relative suitability to different kinds of contexts.

It was necessary also to define what constituted the ‘local’ context for a reformed governance configuration. The reformed arrangements stretch from the Central Government, which instituted the reforms and provides substantial funds for water provision, to the local government jurisdictions where water is actually provided to households. There are two significant contexts which affect the functioning of the

through the Swajaldhara program are the most significant and applicable country-wide. Drinking water supply projects assisted by multilateral and bilateral donors continue in various locations across many States, channeled through both Central and State governments and including projects in both rural and urban areas. Many have some elements of participation by beneficiaries, though the extent and nature of such participation differs across projects. Local governments have not been enabled to initiate or directly interact with donors for project funding, except in the case of metropolitan bodies though even they have to seek the assent of State governments.

142

reforms designed and instituted by the Government of India (GoI) - at the State-level, and in the localities where it is expected to deliver desired results, and both are

pertinent to their functioning and performance. The efficacy of the reforms in terms of its potential to achieve the desired results is determined to a large extent by the State- level transformations of the institutional designs mandated by the GoI. The realization of the potential of the de-jure architecture set in place by the State, that is, its

effectiveness and inclusiveness result from the intersection of the designed arrangements and institutional characteristics of the locality, that is, the emergent institutional architecture. Both the State and locality are therefore relevant contexts.

What are the important variables in the context that affect governance institutions? Turner and Hulme (1997) list a large number that are pertinent, as do authors studying women’s inclusion in governance structures (see section 2.3). However, for this study, these can fruitfully be grouped as political, economic and socio-cultural. Extent and design of decentralization has been observed to be politically determined (Manor 1999), therefore at the State level, political factors are expected to be the most

pertinent. However, at the local level, all three could be expected to affect functioning of governance structures, though with regard to women’s inclusion, socio-cultural features have been found to be most influential.

With these considerations, the specific research question(s) for the study were:

What is the relative efficacy, effectiveness and inclusiveness of devolved (Panchayat) and liberalized (Sector Reform-Swajaldhara) arrangements for water provision,

(a) in the same type of context, and

(b) in the three contexts with different degrees of economic, political and social development?

143

Answers to these could provide indications for reform choices by policy designers, an important objective of this study. While answers to these questions are theoretically important, for application, policy makers in any location require answers to the question of ‘which type of reform is most suitable (or appropriate) for this specific context?’ and this can be derived from the findings.