Research contribution

In this thesis, I offer a theoretical conceptualisation of hybrid water governance and employ empirical material to demonstrate what hybridity is and how it functions. This research makes several important contributions to development and water governance scholarship. These are in regard to the difficulties in implementing integrated water resource management, the role of institutions in regulating urban water resources, and the implications for households of private sector participation in urban water supply.

The case presented in this thesis and findings concerning the difficulties in governing groundwater have implications for other cities. Numerous cities in the Philippines and

elsewhere rely on groundwater for urban water needs and are confronted with rapid population growth. For instance, Foster et al (1998) identified more than 40 cities globally that utilise groundwater for urban consumers and for which water quality and quantity concerns have arisen. This research acknowledges, along with Foster et al (1998), Burke et al (1999), and Morris et al (2003) the significance of groundwater in urban development and, following Lundqvist et al (2003) and Foster et al (1998), the importance of considering groundwater in smaller urban centres and the implications of urbanisation. Following Burke et al (1999), this research seeks to make visible the difficulties associated with implementing integrated water resource management in taking into account groundwater resources. In so doing, this research endorses the proposition put forward Rahaman and Varis (2005) of the need to reduce the gap between universal, theoretical agreed policies about integrated water resource management and contextual implementation lest integrated water resource management becomes meaningless jargon.

This thesis also seeks to extend scholarship concerning the role of institutions in regulating water resources by focusing on urban water resources. There has been a tendency to focus on formal institutions or those informal institutions which have emerged to regulate collective management over water resources (see, for example, Araral, 2005; Fujiie, Hayami and Kikuchi, 2005; Meinzen-Dick, 1997), with little attention given to the institutions present in urban areas. Where research has looked at urban institutional arrangements, the emphasis has been on collective water groups, mega-cities, or informal settlements. However, in this research I set out to challenge a collective action approach to water since a collective may be absent and also because such an approach does not adequately address issues of social differentiation and power or acknowledge the diversity and heterogeneity of interests within collective groups. In this regard, this research resonates with the work of Mehta (2003), Mehta et al (1999) and Cleaver (1998; 2001; 2000; 2002) in acknowledging the importance of informal institutions and conceptions (in this case, property) and the significance of context.

This thesis extends the scholarship on private sector participation in urban water provision in three important ways: firstly, by presenting findings of a private sector undertaking as the result of a partial divestiture; secondly, by refuting the assumption that private sector participation is confined only to large multinationals; and, thirdly, by critically examining the implications for household consumers of private sector participation. In particular, this thesis echoes the stance of Budds and McGranahan (2003a; 2003b), who claim that the polemical debate over privatisation is a ‘red herring’ since many of the arguments mobilised to support/refute the benefits and/or ills of public and/or private sector provision are based on misconceptions and assumptions. Moreover, as this research will demonstrate, water is a highly politicised resource even when provided by a public utility. The contestability of water as a multifaceted entity is intensified by debates over its properties as a public good and a commodity which arises because of the privatisation of water utilities and the perception of

privatised (public) water. However, following Mehta (2003), I suggest that water is an impure public good based on the definition of a public good given in Chapter 3. Additionally, I challenge overly simple conceptualisations of commodification as offered by authors such as Barlow and Clarke (2002) or Shiva (2002), for example. Instead, I extend work of Castree (2003; 2004) and Bakker (2005) among others by resisting the temptation to conflate commodification with privatisation, or to position household consumers as helpless in the face of the private sector.

In this research I identify the importance of providing access to safe drinking water in urban areas and move beyond the polemical debate in order to explore whether private sector participation can assist in achieving this. I do not seek to advocate private sector participation over the public sector or vice versa since there is evidence to suggest that both public and private waterworks utilities can provide good and bad services. Rather, I argue it is important to carefully consider the ways in which water service provision can be made better so as to ensure access to all, particularly the poor. Therefore, this research aligns with the work of authors arguing for effective, independent regulatory bodies to protect the interests of water consumers, especially the poor, as well as ensuring the sustainable use of water resources (see, for example, Bayliss, 2002; Budds and McGranahan, 2003b; ECLAC, 1996; Foster, et al., 1998; Johnstone, Wood and Hearne, 1999; Lee and Floris, 2003; Loftus and McDonald, 2001; Nickson and Vargas, 2002; Rees, 1998).