Empowerment and public service delivery of water supply and sanitation facilities. Case studies: Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru

(1)

EMPOWERMENT AND

PUBLIC SERVICE

DELIVERY OF WATER

SUPPLY AND SANITATION

FACILITIES

Case Studies: Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru

Alexandra Uribe Mejia

s1334581

Supervisor: Dr. Brendan Carroll

Second Reader: Dr. Sarah Giest

(2)

C O N T E N T S

1 i n t r o d u c t i o n 8

1.1 Service delivery of water supply and sanitation

facilities . . . 8

1.2 Service Delivery in Latin America . . . 9

1.3 Structure of the Research . . . 11

2 l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w 13 2.1 Introduction . . . 13

2.2 Provision of Public Services . . . 14

2.3 Participation, Co-production and Empowerment . 15 2.4 Participation . . . 16

2.4.1 Potential Benefits of Citizen Participation in Decision Making . . . 17

2.4.2 Failure of Public Participation . . . 17

2.5 Co-production . . . 18

2.6 Empowerment . . . 19

2.7 Quality of Public Service Delivery . . . 20

2.8 Conceptual Framework for Empowerment . . . . 21

2.9 Conclusion . . . 25

3 r e s e a r c h d e s i g n 28 3.1 Research Methodology . . . 28

3.2 Variables and Operationalization . . . 30

3.2.1 Independent Variable - Degree of Empow-erment . . . 31

3.2.2 Dependent Variable Quality of Public Ser-vice Delivery . . . 34

3.3 Case Selection and Data . . . 35

3.4 Limitations . . . 37

4 s i n g l e c a s e s t u d y- ecuador 38 4.1 Background of the country . . . 39

4.2 Description of the situation before PRAGUAS . . 39

4.3 PRAGUAS . . . 40

4.4 Degree of Empowerment: Project PRAGUAS . . . 41

4.4.1 Access to Information . . . 41

4.4.2 Participation . . . 43

4.4.3 Accountability . . . 44

4.4.4 Local Organizational Capacity . . . 45

4.5 Impact and Outcomes pf PRAGUAS: Goal Model 46 4.6 Conclusion . . . 48

(3)

CONTENTS

5 s i n g l e c a s e s t u d y - bolivia 50

5.1 Background of the country . . . 51

5.2 Description of the Situation Before PROSABAR . 51 5.3 PROSABAR . . . 52

5.4 Degree of Empowerment: Project PROSABAR . . 53

5.4.4 Local Organizational Capacity . . . 56

5.5 Impact and Outcomes of PROSABAR: Goal Model 57 5.6 Conclusion . . . 58

6 s i n g l e c a s e s t u d y - peru 61 6.1 Background of the Country . . . 62

6.2 Description of the Situation Before PROPILAS . . 63

6.3 PROPILAS . . . 63

6.4 Degree of Empowerment: Project PROPILAS . . . 64

6.4.4 Local Organization Capacity . . . 68

6.5 Impact and Outcomes of PROPILAS: Goal Model 68 6.6 Conclusion . . . 70

7 c r o s s-case analysis 72 7.1 A Common Approach . . . 72

7.2 Results . . . 73

7.3 Water and Sanitation: Service Delivery Model . . 73

7.4 Opportunity of structure . . . 75

7.5 Local Organizational Capacity . . . 77

8 c o n c l u s i o n: lessons learned and next steps 79 8.1 Lessons Learned . . . 79

(4)

L I S T O F F I G U R E S

Figure 1 The Relationship Between Outcomes and Correlates . . . 22 Figure 2 Example of Casual Mechanism in

Pro-cess Tracing . . . 30 Figure 3 PRAGUAS - Participation Model . . . 44 Figure 4 PROSABAR - Participation Model . . . . 55 Figure 5 PROPILAS - Participation Model . . . 67

(5)

L I S T O F TA B L E S

Table 1 Summary: Independent Variable . . . 33 Table 2 Summary: Dependent Variable . . . 35 Table 3 Overview of Ecuador Case Study (PRAGUAS)

. . . 38 Table 4 Access to Water and Sanitation (2001) . . 40 Table 5 Summary Degree of Empowerment - Project

Praguas . . . 42 Table 6 Indicators: PRAGUAS (2001 2007) . . . . 46 Table 7 Overview of Bolivian Case Study

(PROS-ABAR) . . . 50 Table 8 Summary Degree of Empowerment -

PROS-ABAR . . . 53 Table 9 Indicators: PROSABAR (1996 -2001) . . . 57 Table 10 Overview of Peru Case Study

(PROPI-LAS) . . . 61 Table 11 Summary Degree of Empowerment - Project

PROPILAS . . . 65 Table 12 Indicators: PROPILAS (2002 2005) . . . . 69

(6)

A C R O N Y M S

JMP Joint Monitoring Programme

PRAGUAS Water and Sanitation Program for Rural Communities and Small Municipalities

PROPILAS Pilot Project to Improve District Water and Sanitation Management and Sustainability

PROSABAR Bolivian Rural Water and Sanitation Project

NPM New Public Management

CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere

MIDUVI Ministry of Urban Development and Housing

JAAP Water Management Boards

DINASBA National Directorate for Water and Sanitation

UNASBA Municipal Technical Unit

MINSA Ministry of health

FONCODES National Fund for Compensation and Social Development

COSUDE Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

WSP Water and Sanitation Program

JASS Sanitation Management Boards

(7)

F O R E W O R D

This thesis was written for my Master degree in Public Admin-istration at Leiden University. The thesis analysed the relation-ship between empowerment and the delivery of water supply and sanitation services in three Latin American countries. The topic was selected because service delivery is not equal around the globe and the disparity of opportunities is still present in many developing countries. The provision of clean water and adequate sanitation still faces huge challenges for governments. The low quantity and quality of the services have serious con-sequences for the development of the country and its citizens. For example, in Latin America and the Caribbean nearly half the population does not have access to improved sanitation ser-vices and approximately 20 percent does not have clean water (Pearce-Oroz, 2011, p. 7). This situation motivated me to re-search the topic. It is clear that provision itself is not enough to supply the demand of the service, it is necessary to take the beneficiaries into consideration to really understand the prob-lem and provide adequate solutions.

Since I have been conducting this research I have experienced a very interesting and instructive period. I would like to thank my supervisor from the University, Dr. Brendan Carroll for his directions and time.

The Hague, January 2016 Alexandra Uribe Mejia

(8)

1

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Traditionally, the public sector performance has been consid-ered weak and malfunctioned, especially in developing coun-tries this sector continues to suffer from dysfunctional gover-nance systems that hamper the provision of basic services (Shah, 2005). The financial crisis and the austerity in public expen-ditures have transformed the traditional understanding of the public services production. In dealing with these concerns, new ways of delivery have been implemented and new actors are taken into account. The service users and community mem-bers are included to improve the quality of the service, and even though this trend is not new, some governments continue to ignore the benefits of this approach (Narayan, 2002).

The incorporation of citizens in the adoption and implemen-tation of relevant decisions strengthens and boosts local devel-opment. The vast amount of literature that reveals how citizens and communities may work together is growing. And as the lit-erature presented in this research points out, there is no unique concept that illustrates the cooperation between the state and society. But regardless of the label that this cooperation has, it is clear that this phenomenon benefits both governments and communities.

1.1 s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y o f wat e r s u p p ly a n d s a n i tat i o n f a c i l i t i e s

Latin America is well known by the inadequate provision of public services, especially in rural areas (Bastidas & Garcia, 2000), which causes citizens’ dissatisfaction. For example, the demonstrations in Brazil (2013), regarding the low-quality of public transportation or the protests in Chile (2011) claiming better educational services (Cerratti, 2013) or the citizen mobi-lization in Colombia that questions the failure of the provision of water (El Tiempo, 2014), exposes the enormous discontent

(9)

1.2 service delivery in latin america

citizens have against the management of the public services. One of the areas that have been affected the most by the lack of government’s execution around the globe has been the water and sanitation sector. In terms of sanitation, in 2014, 2.4 billion people did not have access to an improved sanitation facility, which means that open defecation remains a predominantly ru-ral phenomenon (WHO & UNICEF, 2014). In terms of water accessibility, the overall coverage has increased; however, the urban-rural disparity gap has not been reduced (Ibid).

Access to water and sanitation services is a necessary condition for social inclusion and achieving a decent life (CAF, 2010). The inadequacy of the service delivery has several consequences: Each year nearly 2 million children die as a result of lack of clean wa-ter and proper sanitation, which means approximately 5.000 deaths per day (Uribe, 2010, p. 10). The inappropriate water and poor sanitation affects largely children and is the second cause of infant mortality worldwide (p. 10), and diarrhea caused by the scarceness of clean water, kills more people than malaria and five times more child deaths than HIV/AIDS (p. 11). These alarming figures reveal the importance the sector not only has to improve the population’s health and the quality of living but also proves the necessity to find appropriate solutions.

1.2 s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y i n l at i n a m e r i c a

In the period of 1990-1995 various international agencies, in-cluding the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, have invested in Latin America a total of 4.219 million dollars with the objective to improve water and sanitation ser-vices. Based on data of the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for water supply and sanitation, the region has made significant progress in terms of accessibility to services in both drinking water and improved sanitation, achieving 94% coverage in the first case and 82% in the second (2014). These figures report the average of the national situation. In depth, the data shows that countries like Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela still faces difficulties achieving the total coverage of the service and the data displayed a marked differ-ence between urban and rural areas.

(10)

1.2 service delivery in latin america

In this scenario, governments have tended to manage the provision of services in line with what literature defines as the new governance model. This approach moves away from a concentration of the government per se, towards an approach in which non-governmental actors also produces public poli-cies, and civil society becomes increasingly important (Peters & Pierre, 2015; Bovaird, 2005). Communities have been organiz-ing to find solutions to common problems by gettorganiz-ing involved with local governments. In this sense, community management has great potential to secure adequate provision and sustain-ability of water and sanitation services in rural areas, and helps the construction of the social development.

The vast amount of literature that reveals how citizens and com-munities may work together is growing. Therefore, the con-cepts of participation (Stiglitz, 2002), co-production (Ostrom, 1996) and empowerment (Narayan P. D., 2002) are addressed in order to have a complete picture of the subject. Empowerment arises as a more direct and democratic form of governing. Ac-cording to Petesh, Smulovitz & Michael (2005) empowerment is more than a participatory scheme; it is the increasing oppor-tunity that citizens and communities have to make meaningful choices and their capacity to transform these choices into real-ity. In this context the research question posed in the present study is: To what extent does empowerment improve the service de-livery (water and sanitation) in Latin America?

To understand community empowerment in the provision of public services in the context of Latin America is necessary to consider the influence that the decentralization process had. The decentralization appeared in this region by the mid-seventies in the context of globalization, increased demand for the partic-ipation of civil society and the state legitimacy crisis (Bastidas & Garcia, 2000). Before the decentralization took its course, gov-ernments were highly centralized. Intermediate and local lev-els had a low profile in the decision making and consequently a minimal capacity to meet the citizens’ demands for local devel-opment (Ibid.) The transformation of the state allowed citizens and communities to participate in managing their own develop-ment. While it is true that the communities have gained ground and the idea that communities can, and are prepared to partic-ipate solving their problems is recognized, there is still a lot effort to be done by local governments.

(11)

1.3 structure of the research

Community participation can consolidate an alternative devel-opment strategy (P´erez Y´epes, 2006). The projects evaluated in this research- PROPILAS (Peru), PROSABAR (Bolivia), and PRAGUAS (Ecuador) - have the ultimate goal to provide sus-tainable water supply systems and to increase the coverage of sanitation facilities; however what the projects highlighted was that the starting point to achieve its goals was the community involvement through a participation scheme where communi-ties had voice to decide their own affairs. Under this approach, the role of the local government was fundamental, because it brought the community closer to the decision-making process and facilitated the project development.

1.3 s t r u c t u r e o f t h e r e s e a r c h

This research is divided into seven chapters. The goal was to test the relationship between the degree of empowerment and the quality of water and sanitation services in three Latin Amer-ican countries. The research aimed to test the hypothesis pro-posed (see next chapter), by developing a two-step research: first an individual case analysis was performed (vertical view), and then a comparison between the different case studies was developed (horizontal view).

Chapter 2 begins with a discussion of the transformation that public service delivery has experienced in the past decades. The chapter explores the different concepts that explain the co-operation between the state and communities. It defines the model used to measure the quality of the public service and finally the conceptual framework was introduced, along with the main hypothesis. The subsequent chapter looked at the re-search design; it clarifies the rere-search methodology by making emphasis in the process tracing case study. Then the indepen-dent and depenindepen-dent variables are explained, to later discuss and justify the case selection and the data gathering. Finally, the main limitations of the study are addressed.

Chapter 4 to 6, each present a qualitative assessment based on the information gathered from the three cases. Each case was analyzed based on the conceptual framework introduced in chapter 2 and according to the results some conclusions were drawn.

(12)

1.3 structure of the research

Chapters 7, test the hypothesis using cross-case analysis. This chapter argues that the internal mechanism of the project along with the institutional framework determines the scope in which the services of water and sanitation can be influenced.

Chapter 8, the last chapter, provides the seven lessons learned from process tracing case study and the cross-case analysis. Then the contributions of the research are stated, to finally offer some propositions for future researchers.

(13)

2

L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W

In the current political and economic climate the production of public services has changed, to support a range of participatory partnerships. Different theories have been proposed to explain the increasing representation in the planning and developing process. This review is divided five sections. The first section, describes the transformation that the provision of public ser-vices has experienced. Second, the concepts of participation, co-production and empowerment are addressed in order to un-derstand the cooperation between the state and communities. Then the goal model is introduced as a conceptual framework to measure the quality of public services. The fourth section established the conceptual framework that it was used in the development of this research. And finally, the conclusions and the hypothesis are presented.

2.1 i n t r o d u c t i o n

The traditional understanding of the public sector has come un-der pressure during the past decades. The general idea that na-tional governments are the principal actors in the public sphere, and that they influence the economy and society, seems to be in doubt (Peters & John, 1998). The decline of the state is clear, and it can be argued that is due to two factors. On one hand, the relationship between government and the private sector has changed. In fact, it is evident from the growth of new ways of contracting, through public-private partnerships and a variety of other interactions with the private sector. This has moved away the government from its role as a central source of au-thority for the society. On the other hand, state reforms had emphasized on re-designing the relation between the state and the citizens, in order to be more effective and legitimate (Van de Meer, 2009). These changes have implications in the way that the state is perceived. There is a shift from government to governance. This view captured in the literature, argues that

(14)

2.2 provision of public services

the State does not become totally impotent; rather, it loses the capacity for direct control and replaces that faculty with a ca-pacity for influence (Peters & John, 1998: 226)

This trend has been accentuated by New Public Management. In this approach the focus is on running government like busi-ness, which questions how to consider citizens, either like cos-tumers or owner of the government (Innes & Brooher, 2004). The former implies that citizens are identified either as passive or active recipients of services, where citizens try to set some directions for their own well being.

In this approach, the dynamics of the state are not static, the public service production and delivery has changed. The clas-sic concept of the State, as producer and deliverer of public services is no longer suitable. Instead, a considerable number of states have shown a growing interest in exploring new mod-els of cooperation between the state and different groups. For example, the Scandinavian countries have had increasing coop-eration at local level between authorities and voluntary associ-ations in public service delivery (Peters & John, 1998: 236). 2.2 p r ov i s i o n o f p u b l i c s e r v i c e s

In the last few decades the provision of public services has change dramatically. It has moved away from the traditional path, where the public plays a passive role to a complete re-designing of the government, where citizens are more active as users of public services. In this path three models of public ad-ministration can be identified: Old Public Adad-ministration, New Public Management and New Governance Model (Sicilia et al, 2015).

The old public administration based the public service provi-sion on a bureaucratic and rule-based approach, in which the definition of needs is defined by professionals. The authority is basically derived from the state, and the national govern-ment is mainly in charge of the provision of welfare and reg-ulatory services. Politicians are in charge of decision making, while public servants are simple executors (Sicilia et al, 2015). As suggested by Hartley (2005), population is usually homoge-neous and considered as clients. This model was reformed by the New Public Management (NPM). This new managerial

(15)

ap-2.3 participation, co-production and empowerment

proach focused on improving performance through efficiency and effectiveness mechanisms. It mainly consist incorporating private sector techniques, emphasizing output controls, shifting to a decentralized practice, increasing a more flexible system of employment by introducing competition within the sector, and stressing on greater disciplines and parsimony in the re-sources used (Hood, 1991). It emphasizes on the marketization of public services, government’s role is to create competition in-ternally and exin-ternally through contracting (Warner & Hefetz, 2008: 156). While in the traditional public administration citi-zens were basically clients, the NPM perceives the population as customers or consumer.

The last model, the new Governance model has challenge the conception of NPM as being too narrow. Recent literature brings interesting elements into the public sphere, it moves away from a concentration on government per se, towards an approach in which non-governmental actors also produce public policies (Peters & Pierre, 2015). Civil society becomes increasingly im-portant, as stated by Bovaird (2005) the concept of governance accentuate the role of non-state actors in decision making. Gov-ernance means the way in which stakeholders interact with each other in order to influence the outcomes of public poli-cies (p.220). In this model population is seen as co-producer, civil servants as mediators and politicians as facilitators (Hart-ley, 2005). This new forms of engagement is critical to effective service delivery and democracy (Warner & Hefetz, 2008).

2.3 pa r t i c i pat i o n, co-production and empowerment

The delivery of good quality public services is the aim of any government, and is an essential element of inclusive develop-ment. However, public service delivery in developing countries is highly inadequate (Molina, 2014). According to the World Bank report (2003) corruption and inefficient allocation of re-sources in service delivery abounds in developing countries. Resources needed to improve public services for citizens, are lost every day as a result of corruption and inefficiency.

Latin America is not far away from this scenario, the public service delivery has been associated as unequal, inefficient and lacking decent quality. According to the OECD and UN-ECLAC (2012) the gap between the need for government intervention

(16)

2.4 participation

and the resources available, is considerably high in Latin Amer-ica. Many countries in the region require more fiscal resources to meet the needs of the public sector. And even though Latin America has been through a democratic path since the 1980’s, it is evident that citizens are not satisfied with the public services which they receive. There is high inequality, non-transparency and services are mainly based on poor quality, which ultimately undermines trust in government and in the social contract of the region (OECD & UN-ECLAC, 2012).

The services such as health, education, water and sanitation, public safety, and in general all local public services, express a demand-supply imbalance of appreciable magnitude (Autnez & Galilea O, 2003). Deficiencies in access affect significant social sectors, especially the population identified as living in poverty. In the last decade many countries have implemented innovate practices in order to improve public service delivery through a more efficient, transparent and participatory governance. This led to a modernization of the public management structures, in which most countries in Latin America redefined its role as central manager of the state, its focus lies less on service deliv-ery and more on creating an efficient environment, so different actors, private sector and civil society, can participate.

The theoretical literature suggests that public service delivery could be improved by involving the people that use them in their design and delivery (Powell et al., 2010). Broadly par-ticipatory process, such as voice’, openness, and transparency, promote successful long term development. In order to address the research the hypothesis I analyzed the concepts of partici-pation, co-production, and empowerment in order to establish a workable framework.

2.4 pa r t i c i pat i o n

Participation does not simply refer to voting, it includes open dialog and active civic engagement, so it requires individuals to have a voice in the decisions that affects them. According to Stiglitz (2002: 169) participation and involvement is not a matter exclusively for governments, it needs to reach deeper, to include those who are often excluded and who are key to the strengthening the social and organizational capital. This ap-proach is used more often and it reflects the necessity to think

(17)

2.4 participation

out of the box. It is supposed to include the citizens, not only as a client and consumer of public services, but also as a part-ner, co-producer and expert (Raadschelders, Tonnen, & Van de Meer, 2015: 361).

Effective participation must be a joint effort and should incor-porate not only citizens, but also organized interests, profit-making and non-profit organizations, planners and public ad-ministrators in a common framework where all are interacting and influencing one another (Innes & Brooher, 2004: 422). Gov-ernments have adopted a variety of methods to foster commu-nity participation in local policies, including group discussions, neighborhood meetings and formal and informal local partner-ship forums (p.272).

2.4.1 Potential Benefits of Citizen Participation in Decision Making

Many countries, including Latin America have initiated pro-grams and projects involving citizens in the governing process. Different authors argued that participation could stem deterio-ration of public trust (Bhargava, 2012; Gaventa & Barret, 2010; Autnez & Galilea O, 2003). The advantages of this mechanism are for both the government and citizen’s participants. On one side, government can learn from its citizens’ local knowledge in order to avoid policy failures. It is evident through the liter-ature, that policies which include citizen preferences might be implemented easily and builds networks of trust, which at the end are reflected in the legitimacy that public decisions gain (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). On the other side, citizens can learn from the government and can inform their own preferences. They are able to persuade and gain some control over policy process, which ultimately reflects in better results (p. 56). Fi-nally, participation promotes fairness and justice and boosts legitimacy for public decisions.

2.4.2 Failure of Public Participation

The forms of participation are diverse; however some forms of participation contribute more to public empowerment than others. Legally required methods of public participation like public hearing do not work in the same way as other mecha-nisms. They discourage individuals from wasting time, what is pretended to be nothing more than just a procedure to satisfy

(18)

2.5 co-production

some legal requirements (Innes & Brooher, 2004). The author argues that the problem is that the public does not have enough power and tools to measures the value of participation in terms of a ladder in citizen power (p. 420).

Skeptics about the involvement of citizens and communities in the decision process, argue that the more open a process is, the more polarized a decision can become. It causes delays and it may result in bad decisions, because citizens cannot under-stand economic realities (Innes & Brooher, 2004).

Authors like Irvin and Stansbury (2004) stated that inequality in the representation affects the outcome. Citizens participa-tion are not paid for their time, therefore participaparticipa-tion can be strongly influenced by partisan individuals, who at the end may have enough time and resources to participate regularly. This leads to co-opt the participatory process by a small elite looking for personal gain (p.58). In the same line of argument the author emphasizes that the biggest disadvantages for gov-ernments is the loss of decision-making control and the increas-ing cost attached to of the participatory process (p. 58).

2.5 c o-production

The amount of literature explaining how citizens may involve in the delivery of service is growing. Much of the main de-velopments in the literature on co-production are built on the notion that a civic action creates synergistic relationships be-tween the state and civil society (McMillan, Spronk, & Caswell, 2014). The notion is conceptually vague and is used to refer to a wide range of institutional arrangements. However Os-trom’s (1996:1073) defines co-production, as a process through which inputs from individuals, who are not in’ the same or-ganization, are transformed into goods and services. The au-thor includes everything from publicprivate partnerships, to communities well managed and the participation of local non-governmental organization.

At a general level, the new ways to involve citizens in the provi-sion of services are followed by similar reasons. First the grow-ing democracy deficit at all levels of government, and second the financial crisis and austerity in public expenditure (Pestoff, 2012). Co-production is explained by Pestoff as a mix of

(19)

activ-2.6 empowerment

ities that both public agents and citizens contribute to the pro-vision of public services (p. 16). The author argues that citizen involvement in social service depends on citizens preferences and the importance of a particular service. The greater the in-volvement of a user in service delivery, the greater satisfaction of users to services, the greater moral ownership’ and the better the quality of services (Brandsen, Verschuere, & Pestoff, 2012). 2.6 e m p o w e r m e n t

Throughout the public sector reform, the concept of empower-ment has had also a positive connotation. It promotes more directly, democratic forms for governing and opening organi-zations to the influences of its members (Peter & Pierre, 2000). Empowerment is used in different ways. The concept has the potential to undermine three important values in Western soci-eties: representative government, accountable bureaucracy, and a string and effective state (Peter & Pierre, 2000: 9). Accord-ing to Petesh, Smulovitz, & Michael (2005: 41) empowerment means increasing both the capacity of individuals or groups, to make purposeful choices and their capacity to transform these choices into desired actions and outcomes. This means that gov-ernments should be more accessible in order to influence the outcome. In line with this argument, Narayan (2002) states that the specific empowerment intervention encompasses a diverse set of action to promote participation, increased transparency, building capacity among groups, and strengthen accountabil-ity mechanisms in development processes. The World Bank’s sourcebook defines empowerment, as the expansion of assets and capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control, and hold accountable institutions that affects their lives (Narayan, 2002: 14).

Community empowerment implies that individuals will have the adequate information, as well as power and influence to ex-ercise some control over the future of their area (Irvin & Stans-bury, 2004: p.279). In this process administrators play a dual role, influencing the processes and the outcomes. According to Buckwalter (2014) administrator on one hand should facili-tate the conditions for empowerment by shaping the settings in which the public participates, providing the adequate informa-tion and resources to build participants efficacy (p. 574). On the other hand, administrators influence the outcomes, by

(20)

work-2.7 quality of public service delivery

ing together with the communities affected to create and imple-ment effective decisions. Therefore, empowerimple-ment involves the administrators’ willingness and the level of responsiveness to citizen input (p. 574).

Community organizations have achieved neighborhood improve-ment, when they have been empowered and have influenced the distribution of power in the decision making process (Florin & Wandersman, 1990). A review by Gaventa and Barret (2010) provides evidence that citizen empowerment works to a cer-tain degree to lower corruption, improve service delivery and government responsiveness. However the author states that empowerment does not work everywhere, not for everything and not all the time. The experience of an international non-governmental organization (Partnership for transparency fund) demonstrates that empowerment increases service delivery re-sponsiveness when one or more of the enabling conditions are present. According to the NGO there are better chances to pro-duce good results when public access to information, media freedom, space for civil society to operate, accountability and receptivity to citizen participation are present (Bhargava, 2012). Previous work suggests that empowerment may be instrumen-tally important for pro-poor growth and to increase the sustain-ability of collective activities and the cost-effectiveness of vari-ous development interventions (Ibrahim & Alkire, 2007: 397). Citizen empowerment can only improve the quality of public services if there are complementary reforms in public manage-ment. Ibrahim and Alkire mention that elements like, effective justice system, a secure rule of law, open channels of partic-ipation and the protection of civil liberties, are necessary to empower citizens (2007: 396). Therefore, I argue that democra-tization and political context, play a central role in increasing empowerment.

2.7 q ua l i t y o f p u b l i c s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y

Governments invest in order to produce better services. They look to expand coverage and to improve quality. But how can we measure quality of public services? For public services it is harder to determine relevant aspects of quality, different from the quantity of the service, but it is clear that measures will be misleading if quality issues are ignored (UK Centre for

(21)

2.8 conceptual framework for empowerment

the Measurement of Government Activity, 2007). Scholars have approached quality through different models of improvement. The most common, the goal model, is based on the idea that every organization or project is established for a purpose and the extent to such goals are attained, can be used to assess the degree of success or failure (Boyne, 2003, p. 214). This model of improvement has some drawbacks. The objectives of an organi-zation or project are sometimes abstract, multiple, or even con-tradictory that makes the measurement not so easily applied (Ballart, 1992; Boyne, 2003).

This criterion of evaluation makes sense to the extent of the goals that are usually a product of political negotiation, thus it reflects the interest involved in the formulation of the program. Acknowledging this, the model goal can only work as a frame-work for measurement quality of public service delivery, when citizens and communities are included in the decision process from the beginning. Even though literature does not agree in which step of the project empowerment should take place, I ar-gued by using this model that citizens and communities must be included from the beginning, so the goals reflect the needs between the parties.

The conceptual framework to measure quality of public ser-vices proposed by the UK Centre for the Measurement of Gov-ernment Activity (2007) will be used to answer the hypothesis. Thus, measure quality means the extent to which the services succeeds in delivering the intended outcomes, and the extent to which the service is responsive to the user’s needs. This framework encompasses the idea that for each case, quality was defined different and it depended of the initial goals of each project.

2.8 c o n c e p t ua l f r a m e w o r k f o r e m p o w e r m e n t

The literature argues that there is not a unique model to mea-sure participation or empowerment (Ostrom, 1996; Narayan 2002; McMillan, Spronk & Caswell, 2014) because in general the socio-cultural, political and institutional contexts differ. Em-powerment ultimately is the freedom to choose what citizens and communities want, and to have the capacity and ability to put those choices into desired outcomes within an enabling en-vironment. This capacity is influenced by two factors: agency

(22)

and opportunity structure as illustrated in Figure 1 (Alsop, Ber-telsen, & Holland, 2006; Narayan, 2002).

Figure 1: The Relationship Between Outcomes and Correlates Source: Alsop, Bertelsen & Holland, 2006.

Agency is the ability of citizens or communities to make mean-ingful choices, while opportunity structures are the aspects of the institutional context in which citizens and communities can achieve the desired outcome. Consequently, the institutional context determines to a greater or lesser extent the effectiveness of the agency (Alsop, Bertelsen, & Holland, 2006, p. 11). The iterative relationship between these two factors determined the degree of empowerment citizens and communities can attain. The authors catalogued empowerment into three levels:

1. The existence of empowerment: whether there is an op-portunity to make a choice.

2. The use of empowerment: whether citizens and commu-nities take the opportunity to choose.

3. Achievement of empowerment: whether the choice is trans-formed into desired outcomes.

To set this framework for further analysis and discussion, we considered the following elements to measure empower-ment which are closely interconnected and can act in synergy

(23)

(Narayan, 2002): access to information, participation, account-ability and local organizational capacity.

First, access to information is an important element to evaluate sector performance. It allows citizens and communities to be informed, to take advantage of opportunities, access to services, and hold the state and non-state actors accountable. The imple-mentation of systems that guarantee broad access to informa-tion is an effective tool to tackle the challenges that are involved in the provision of public services. Good quality and timely information enables more efficient decision making (Tschorne Berestesky, 2012). As it was addressed earlier a major chal-lenge to participate is the transaction cost that administrators and citizen assume. It is time consuming and costly, and many citizens are not willing to participate regularly. Nevertheless, addressing these challenges information technology has played an increasingly important role. It is a powerful tool for im-proving both the demand and supply sides of public services. The Internet has evolved into a cost-effective and user-friendly platform for officials to communicate directly with citizens and to deliver massive quantities of information to the public (Ho, 2002, p. 435). Thus with the help of information technology, e-government can adapt services based on the preferences and the needs of the citizens and communities. When assessing the degree of empowerment, I expect to find a positive relationship between the different instruments supporting free access to in-formation and the quality of the public services.

This represents a best scenario where communication between government and its citizens contribute to further decision mak-ing process. However, in developmak-ing countries the use of ICT tools for addressing development needs have some disadvan-tages given the limited infrastructure capacity. It is evident that the educated population has the necessary resources and the means to use information and communication technologies (Basu, 2004). Therefore, the information channels used for each country must be adaptable and flexible according to the envi-ronment and socio-economic conditions.

Second, participation is an essential element for excluded groups to get involved in decision making processes, and to build projects with local knowledge and priorities. According to the World Bank there is significant evidence that participation can

(24)

in many circumstances improve the quality, effectiveness and sustainability of projects and strengthen ownership and com-mitment of government (1994). Community participation can take many forms, but the basic idea is to responds to priority needs, to build confidence, to promote ownership, and be in-volved in the decision making process. Participation not only depends on initial characteristics of a community, but it can be developed with the appropriate enabling environment (Im-parato & Ruster, 2003), meaning that government must ensure a proper legal framework that support of political freedom partic-ularly freedom of information, a free press, freedom of speech and public debate, freedom to form associations and union and equal access to justice- ensure the appropriate channels and allocate the needed resources to promote participation. Thus, participation will depend on the appropriate enabling environ-ment, and informed decisions will occur if the local information and local know-how is used.

The third element, accountability, means that state officials, pub-lic employees, and private actors must be held answerable for their policies, actions, and use of funds (p.17). In recent years there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the performance of public services in many developing countries. Some authors agree that the approach of accountability must be improved significantly to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in the de-livery of public services (Paul, 1992; Woods, 1999). Account-ability means holding individuals and organizations responsi-ble for performance measured as objectively as possiresponsi-ble (Paul, 1992: 1047). It is evident that with the expansion of the pub-lic sector, the traditional mechanisms of accountability systems have become overloaded. This has lead to the need of focus on the public as mechanisms for accountability. The idea that citi-zens can and are willing to monitor the public service provider and demand better services, led practitioners to believe that it could improve service delivery and reduce corruption. Partici-patory monitoring evaluation tools work best with transparent diffusion of information. Empowering citizens and communi-ties by increasing their opportunity to make providers and local governments accountable will result in increasing participation and government legitimacy.

(25)

2.9 conclusion

Lastly, local organizational capacity refers to the ability of people to work together, organize and mobilize them to solve problems of common interest (Narayan P. D., 2002). Organized communities are more likely to have their voices heard and their demands met. The idea of groups working together, means that they must trust one another, must organize their efforts to solve their problems, mobilize resources and networking with other actors to achieve shared goals (Narayan & Ebbe, 1997). To achieve an effective and sustainable local capacity is important that groups have certain degree of autonomy. However, rarely communities have strong organizations that can participate and influence the decision making process, therefore projects must invest in building capacity of local groups. Without adequate training and support of the government, community members are unable to make informed choices about the type of project to build, to monitor the process and outcome or to maintain the project after is finished. It is expected that devolving responsi-bility to the local level, projects will not only better aligned with the preferences and needs of final users, but also of higher quality (Mansuri & Rao, 2012). Thus, the higher the local struc-ture and investment in local capacity the lower the possibility the participation is capture by local elites, and the higher the degree of decentralization, the better the possibility for com-munity members to participate in local governance.

2.9 c o n c l u s i o n

It is evident by now; the vast amount of literature argues that different forms of inclusion from citizens and communities are key element to strengthening the social and organizational cap-ital (Stiglitz, 2002). The literature does not completely agree on the concept that it should be used to express the cooperation between the society and the state, that is why the concepts of participation (Stiglitz, 2002), co-production (Ostrom, 1996) and empowerment (Narayan P. D., 2002) are addressed. For the purpose of this research the concept of empowerment is used. Defined by Narayan as the expansion of assets and capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, con-trol, and hold institutions that affects their lives accountable (2002:14). Choosing this definition I acknowledge that there is no unique model to measure empowerment. However, the four elements mentioned by the same author are used to test the hy-pothesis. All these elements which are overlapping rather than

(26)

2.9 conclusion

mutually exclusive hold out the premise that empowerment will ultimately improve the quality of public service delivery. The move towards the local as a promising tendency is evident, however is important to acknowledge that empowerment also contains a number of dangers. As Mohan and Stokke (2000) concluded one big problem is the tendency to view the local in isolation from broader economic and political structures. The institutional framework of a country determines the scope in which citizens and communities can influence the public ser-vice delivery. The danger from a policy point of view is that the actions based on consensus may actually empower the power-ful vested interest (Mohan & Stokke, 2000, p. 253) and it can create different kind of inequalities, as gender inequality. In this context, I argued that degree of empowerment commu-nities have will be reflected in the quality of public service de-livery. There are minimal and optimal levels of empowerment. For example, if the service provider is in complete control of the service delivery, then it is not empowerment. Equally, if the ap-proach is top-down and decision making is dictated from out-side (Fetternman & Wandersman, 2005), then it is not empow-erment. However, if citizens and communities have access to in-formation and can be involved when the goals of the project are discussed, but are not actively engaged in monitoring the per-formance of the service provider, then it represents a minimal level of commitment (Existence of empowerment). Similarly, if citizens and communities are included and participate in the project, but they do not have a local organizational capacity or the tools to exercise accountability, then it may be only a low de-gree of empowerment (Use of empowerment). In contrast, if cit-izens and communities have access to information, participate, exercise accountability and have local organizational capacity then they achieved an optimal levels of empowerment that can influence projects and hold service providers accountable. This is the ideal scenario, were all four elements are present, but I argued that the degree of each element varies. Empowerment depends not only on the four elements proposed by Narayan (2002), but also depends on the government institutional envi-ronment, which should be understood as formal institutions as laws, policies and organizational systems.

(27)

2.9 conclusion

Thus, community empowerment alone is not enough to guar-antee quality of the public service; it must go hand in hand with better governance. This reinforces the idea that the role of the public sector must be as facilitator of the public service deliv-ery chain (Asian Development Bank, 2013). In addition, if a country has weak institutions and the political system does not work properly, the preferences of people cannot be translated into governmental programs.

The increasing trend of producing public services involving the service users and member of the community has worked in de-veloped countries (Imparato & Ruster, 2003). In the last years this trend has being translated into Latin America and the con-cept of empowerment has been widely promoted. However, in spite of decades of expert suggestions and promises to make governments more inclusive we continuously see inefficiencies in the quality of service delivery. Thus I state that: only when the project is developed in an enabling institutional environment and the enhanced capacity is promoted, empowerment can produce greater impact on the quality of public service delivery.

The main contribution of this research relates to the analysis of the relation between empowerment, institutional framework and the quality of public service delivery in three projects. A process tracing case with comparative analysis is provided in three Latin America countries. The study contributes to the ev-idence that exists regarding the effectiveness of empowerment in the production of water and sanitation services in rural ar-eas.

(28)

3

R E S E A R C H D E S I G N

To appreciate the strengths and limitations of the findings psented in this research it is important to understand the re-search design. This chapter is divided in four sections. First the methodology used is addressed, then the variables are con-ceptualized and the operationalization is explained. Third, the case selection and data gathering is clarified and finally the lim-itations of this research are determined.

3.1 r e s e a r c h m e t h o d o l o g y

As the literature reviews illustrates empowerment is a complex concept with multiple dimensions, which makes the task of statistical analysis difficult. Thus statistical analysis of empow-erment is inappropriate and the analysis should focus on de-scriptive statistics and narrative reporting (Alsop, Bertelsen, & Holland, 2006, p. 31). In this line of argument, I used case study as a research methodology. Case studies contribute to our knowledge of the individual, groups and organizations re-lated to the phenomena. The essence of a case study is that it tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented and with what result (Yin, 2002, p. 12). This specific research strategy is useful in understanding how different elements fit together and how the relationship between the elements produces a specific outcome. The results of this research were produced from the individual analysis of case studies (vertical view), and the comparison be-tween the different case studies (horizontal view).

A case study research has different variations that can include both single and multiple case studies. Case studies can be based on any mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence. In addition case studies not always include direct observation as a source of evidence, even though it has the ability to explain

(29)

3.1 research methodology

the causal links in real life interventions (Yin, 2002). Given this variety, the appropriate methodology to approach empow-erment and the quality of public service delivery is through a two step analysis. First, the goal was to make within case infer-ences about the casual process whereby the dependant variable is produced - process tracing case study. In the second step the process of the case studies, which are addressed later in this chapter, are compared to identify the elements that make the project increase the service delivery. This second step was es-sential because the hypothesis implies that context influences the quality of public service of water and sanitation. And be-cause the tracing case study works only with single cases, the research used the second step as a complementary method in order to produce a more generalizable knowledge.

A process tracing is an analytical tool for drawing descriptive and causal inferences from diagnostic pieces of evidence (Ben-nett & George, 1997). This type of research design strengthens casual inferences in small-N designs based on the matching and contrasting of cases (Collier, 2011). Since the outcome turns out to depend quite a lot on the relevant context, the analysis fo-cuses on different specific observations of social, cultural, insti-tutional and demographic attributes (Bengtsson & Ruonavaara, 2011). Process tracing explanations differ from a historical nar-rative, as it requires an analytical explanation frame in theoret-ical variables that were identified during this research design. Process tracing studies are almost by definition standalone sin-gle case studies, but nesting is possible using other methods (Beach & Pedersen, 2013).

Beach and Pedersen (2013) identify three types of process trac-ing. The first, theory testing is used when the researcher think there is a causal link between two variables; second theory building tries to identify why the outcome occurs without know-ing the possible cause; and finally explainknow-ing the outcome means that the researcher is interested in discovering the minimally sufficient explanation for an outcome. According to these au-thors a causal mechanism in process tracing are conceptualized as being made from the analysis of a number of parts, com-posed by entities that engage in specific activities. For the verti-cal case analysis I chose theory testing because as the hypothe-sis states there is a link between empowerment and the quality of the public service delivery. As Figure 2 illustrates in the

(30)

3.2 variables and operationalization

steps of theory testing process-tracing, the goal is to evaluate weather evidence shows that the hypothesized link between the variables was present and functioned as theorized.

The first step in testing is to determine whether the hypothe-sized causal mechanism was present in the case is to conceptu-alize the causal link, between the degree of empowerment and the quality of public service delivery (water and sanitation). Then the independent and dependent variable were selected and operationalized. Once this was done, I collected empirical evidence which helped me to make causal inferences.

Figure 2: Example of Casual Mechanism in Process Tracing Source:Adapted from Beach& Pedersen, 2013

3.2 va r i a b l e s a n d o p e r at i o na l i z at i o n

A quality case study must develop a set of indicators that can meaningfully and reliably define and measure project intended outcomes and impacts. Since budget, time and data are con-strains of the real world analysis, the challenge is to conduct a quality research under these circumstances. Thus, this section evaluates the independent and dependent variable.

(31)

3.2.1 Independent Variable - Degree of Empowerment

Empowerment is the freedom to choose what citizens and com-munities desire and to have the capacity to put those choices into desired outcomes. An approach to measure and analyze empowerment needs to capture the dynamic process and re-quires a more contextual analysis (Alsop, Bertelsen, & Holland, 2006). Empowerment can be measured indirectly by measuring the opportunity structure. This means the aspects of the insti-tutional context in which citizens and communities can achieve the desired outcome.

As the previous chapter illustrates four elements were consid-ered essential to measure empowerment. The first, access to in-formation, is the tool that citizens and communities have in or-der to participate in the decision making process. Information helps to empower citizens and communities to access, transmit and transform information in ways that governments are pow-erless to block (Shar, 2005). Nevertheless, the accessibility de-pends largely on the country’s institutional framework and the project mission. As Table 1 shows this element was measured in each project; through indirect indicators it was possible to determine the opportunity structure that supported the access to information. The information system that was used to pro-mote citizen and communities participation, along with the use of media allowed me to determine the impact of this element in the empowerment process.

Second, participation was also measured through direct and indirect indicators. Participation does not simply refer to vot-ing, it includes open dialog and active civic engagement, so it requires individuals to have a voice in the decisions that affects them (Stiglitz, 2002). The Freedom House index, measures the functioning of institutions to ensure and protect political and social freedoms, which are essential to facilitate participation. In this line, the World Bank indicates that participation is only possible if political freedom is permitted and political stability prevails (Shar, 2005). As the literature review states an effective participation is a joint effort of different stakeholders, therefore it was important to evaluate the amount of participants inter-acting in the projects. According to Narayan-Parker sustain-able water and sanitation systems, can only work effectively through interagency collaboration involving some combination

(32)

of community, government, NGOs, the private sector, research institutes and other organizations (1993, p. 65).

In addition, the participation model and the gender approach used in each project was analyzed. This aspect is relevant to include, because women are the main carriers and managers of water for household use. They are the ones who decide the utility of the new facilities, and at the end it will depend if it the project responds to their own needs (Narayan-Parker, 1993). Third, accountability implies not only the transparency of the public institutions, but also the concern of the communities to keep the service providers accountable. Here it was analyzed the different mechanism that national and local government have to encourage accountability.

Finally, the local organizational capacity was measured. The degree of decentralization was analyzed as part of the opportu-nity structure, this indicator contributes to the understanding of the legal autonomy that the local organizational committees had. Decentralization is common in many developing coun-tries; therefore local governments are called to play a larger role in providing service and facilitating development (Shar, 2005). Through a higher degree of decentralization local governments are more likely to provide the right service.

(33)

Table 1: Summary: Independent Variable

Element Indicator Existing source

Access to Information -Information systems -Use of Media -Laws supporting free access to information -National Department of statistics -Project Files -Project Files

Participation -Index of civil liberties -Index of political rights -Participation model used -Gender Approach -Number of partici-pants involved

(Including the type of committee) -Freedom House Index -Freedom House Index -Project files -Information reported by the organizations involved

Accountability -Number of for-mal transparency and accountability mechanisms -Project files -Information reported by the organizations involved -Media sources Local Organizational Capacity -Government decentralization -Types of association -National legislation -Project files information reported by the organiza-tions involved

(34)

3.2.2 Dependent Variable Quality of Public Service Delivery

Scholars have approached quality through different models of improvement. The most common, the goal model, is based on the idea that every organization or project is established for a purpose and the extent to such goals are attained, can be used to assess the degree of success or failure (Boyne, 2003, p. 214). This approach is based on the idea that any organization or project is established for a purpose, even though the goals may change, they continue to guide the project. The goal model has direct relevance to the meaning and measurement of public ser-vice improvement (Boyne, 2003).

Outcome assessment includes the measurement of program re-sults and the quality of the service that is delivered. It helps to identify the extent to which service quality and outcome have changed, after service improvement actions have been taken (Shar, 2005). The conceptual framework to measure quality of public services proposed by the UK Centre for the Measure-ment of GovernMeasure-ment Activity (2007) was used in this research to measure the dependant variable- quality of public service delivery. Thus, quality means the extent to which the services succeeds in delivering the intended outcomes, and to the ex-tent to which the service is responsive to the user’s needs. This framework encompasses the idea that for each case, quality was defined different and it depended of the initial goals of each project. The goal model can only work as a framework for measurement quality of public service delivery in this research, when citizens and communities are included in the decision process from the beginning.

Following this logic, the objectives of each case study were iden-tified and based on specific indicators the analysis was made. It is evident that the primary long-term goal of water and sanita-tion projects is to improve health, increase productivity and to develop better living conditions (Billig, Bendahmame, & Swin-dale, 1999). However, long term impact is difficult to measure, so this research identified from literature, project evaluations and the objective of each project to the following indicators. First, quantity of water used including all the water collected for domestic use per day by the inhabitants of the household. This indicator allows the evaluation of one of the primary

(35)

objec-3.3 case selection and data

tives of all three water and sanitation projects since all sought to increase the total volume of water used. The second indicator was the percentage of population with access to a sanitation facility, which means the amount of households that had an adequate disposal. As Table 2 illustrates the information was mainly collected from the national household surveys, since they are powerful instruments at the national level for tracking change. In the case of Ecuador the data used corresponded to the information reported by the Attorney General and the in-formation provided by the Ministry to the World Bank, while in Bolivia and Peru the national statistical system provided the data required.

Table 2: Summary: Dependent Variable

Indicator Description Existing source

Quantity of water

All water collected from domestic use per day -National house-hold survey -Auditing Reports Percentage of population with access to sanitation facility

The households had an adequate disposal -National house-hold survey -Auditing Reports 3.3 c a s e s e l e c t i o n a n d d ata

The hypothesis outlined in the previous chapter is analyzed in three specific projects of water and sanitation in Latin Amer-ica -PROPILAS (Peru), PROSABAR (Bolivia), and PRAGUAS (Ecuador). The selection for these cases was based on five cri-teria. Given the fact that public service delivery is not equal around the globe, and affects primarily developing countries, I decided to focus my research on this type of countries. How-ever, the universe of cases was still too broad. Then, to narrow down the selection I decided to choose a service that despite the government efforts still faces some challenges. According to UN Water an estimated of 748 million of families do not have access to an improved source of drinking-water, and 2.5 billion of people (more than a third of the globe population) live with-out basic sanitary facilities (2014:5). Access to safe drinking-water and basic sanitation have special importance in the

(36)

con-3.3 case selection and data

text of international cooperation, especially since the United Nations Water Conference in 1977 declared the decade of in-ternational drinking water supply and sanitation. Despite the effort of international organizations and national governments, it was estimated that in 1990, people without access to water and sanitation were of the same order of magnitude as in 1980 (Marin & ISF, 2010).

This panorama reflected the situation of several developing coun-tries, including Latin America where the most affected popu-lation comes from rural areas. The statistics from the Word Bank reflects that the rural population of Latin America and the Caribbean exceeds 120 million, and nearly half the pop-ulation does not have access to improved sanitation services and approximately 20 percent is still without drinking water (Pearce-Oroz, 2011, p. 7). Following this logic, the cases were selected from the World Bank project database. The World Bank was chosen because in the international context this or-ganization has been at the forefront in promoting and develop-ing community participation in particular on the issues related to water and sanitation. From this database at the moment the research started ninety-eight projects had the status closed. Nine of these projects included the world rural in their title and from those projects three cases were selected - PROPILAS (Peru), PROSABAR (Bolivia), and PRAGUAS (Ecuador), given the similarities of the rural population.

The selection of sources in process-tracing research is based on the type of evidence that is best suited to enable a the-ory test. Different sources of evidence are commonly used in process-tracing analysis. According to Beach & Pedersen (2013) primary sources are eyewitness accounts of a given pro-cess, like documents produced by participants at the time of the event, while secondary sources are produced based on pri-mary sources (p. 132). The data collection was based on what scholars consider soft primary sources, such as archival mate-rial, memoirs of the participants, public statements (p. 140). This type of data has important relevance if the researcher anal-yses the impacts of comparable projects or countries (World Bank, 2006). Documentary data are a valuable source of infor-mation, however it is necessary to identify any biases or other factors that might limit its utility (Bamberger, Rugh, & Mabry, 2012). Since an important issue for any research is

(37)

maintain-3.4 limitations

ing the integrity and reliability of the data so it can reasonably accurate, and credible to outsiders the research used as many different sources as possible. The data that was used in this research includes: national census information, national house-hold surveys, project files, reports by the participants, water and sanitation national plans from each country, UNICEF, Pan American Health Organization.

3.4 l i m i tat i o n s

Conducting a research analysis under constraints, of budget, time and data, increases the difficulty of dealing with a set of threats to the quality of the design and the validity of the con-clusions. To address this issue, this research uses mix-method approach that strengthens validity. Using process tracing as a case study methodology enables the research to make strong within case causal inferences about causal mechanism (Beach & Pedersen, 2013). Since this methodology applies for single cases and the scope to generalize is limited the research used a comparative case study. This strengthens the external validity of the study.

Using the World Bank as the main source for the case selec-tion implies that the cases are similar and the extent of the comparability are difficult. However the research uses this as strength to make inferences of the main hypothesis. The im-possibility of direct contact with the communities and the peo-ple that worked alongside the projects made the analysis more complicated. Nevertheless, the soft primary sources were trian-gulated by collecting multiple independent observations of the different stakeholders.

(38)

4

S I N G L E C A S E S T U D Y- E C U A D O R

This case study starts by providing some brief background of the country and the context before the project was implemented. Then the case is presented and analyzed based on the empow-erment elements, to finally provide some conclusions. Table 3 provides summary of the first case study.

Table 3: Overview of Ecuador Case Study (PRAGUAS)

Key Facts

Project name

PRAGUAS: Water and Sanitation Pro-gram for Rural Communities and Small Municipalities

Project Objectives

Increase water supply and sanitation coverage and strengthen local man-agement

Public Financiers

Government of Ecuador and World Bank (loan)

Time Frame

Program years: 2001-2011 / Study pe-riod: 2001-2006

Model used

Demand Responsive Approach

Summary: Quality of Public Service Delivery

Access: Number of people reached for Water Supply

274,000

Access: Number of people reached for Sanitation Fa-cilities

143,000

(39)

4.1 background of the country

4.1 b a c k g r o u n d o f t h e c o u n t r y

Ecuador has been one of the most unstable democracies of Latin America for a decade. Between 1998 and 2007 Ecuador faced a period of political instability having weak temporal governments. Throughout this period five presidents were in power (Crisis Group, 2007), this situation dramatically affected the sector of water and sanitation. During the preparation, ap-praisal and implementation of PRAGUAS eight Sub-secretariat of Water and Sanitation were involved (World Bank, 2011). This along with the weak institutional framework determined the delivery of the public service.

Before the project was implemented, there was no clear wa-ter and sanitation policy that coordinated the path of the sec-tor. On the contrary, there were several public institutions that overlapped jurisdiction, which ultimately generated a dispersal of public resources (Poltica Nacional de Agua y Saneamiento, 2002). In 1965 the Institute of Sanitary (Instituto Ecuatoriano de Obras Sanitarias IEOS) was created as a national instrument, devoted to improve the coverage of the service. It served as the governing body, until 1992 were the institution duties were transferred to the Sub-secretariat of Water and Sanitation part of the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (MIDUVI). The slow growth of water and sanitation coverage in Ecuador demonstrated that national government efforts have been proven inadequate, especially in the rural area. This was largely due to the centralized model used for the service delivery. Since the 1990s the country has undergone through significant reforms to improve the coverage of the public services. The responsibility for Water and Sanitation services was transferred to local gov-ernment as part of the decentralization reforms. In addition, the constitution of 1998 formalized the responsibility of public services, emphasizing the duties of the local government (Arti-cle 249, 1998).

4.2 d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s i t uat i o n b e f o r e p r a g ua s

The water and sanitation sector in Ecuador has had a long his-tory of poor performance and has been below the average com-pared to other Latin America countries (World Bank, 2007). The evolution of the service shows an improvement since MIDUVI

(40)

4.3 praguas

got in charge through the Sub-secretariat of clean water and sanitation. Table 4 illustrates the coverage of water supply and sanitation before the project was implemented.

Table 4: Access to Water and Sanitation (2001)

Public Service Ecuador Rural Rural Access to Water (%) 67,4 39,8 83,6 Access to Sanitation (%) 35,4 7,6 51,7

Source: Official Data from Population and Housing Census - Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda INEC 2001 http://www.siise.gob.ec/siiseweb/siiseweb.html?sistema=1#

Before PRAGUAS there were no clear plans to promote com-munity management, the participation was limited to the con-tribution of volunteer labor and transportation of materials, at the end communities did not influenced any kind of decisions (CARE, 2008). Municipalities contributed with few investments, but did not have a decisive role. On the contrary the state not only dictated the guideline of the sector, but also financed the whole project. In this scenario the lines of accountability were horizontal and institutions were only responsible to the Min-istry and the Attorney General.

4.3 p r a g ua s

The program PRAGUAS initiated its activities on June 2001 aimed at improving water and sanitation services in small towns and rural areas. The original objective was to develop the pro-gram in three phases: phase I (2001-2006), phase II (2006-2009) and phase III (2009-2011). In the analysis of this first case study I decided to evaluate phase one since it represents the period with increased political instability. The project had three main objectives:

• Objective 1: Institutional strengthening The project in-tended to support institutional reforms at the central and local government levels and to promote the water man-agement boards at the community level.

• Objective 2: Investment of water and sanitation in rural areas this objective was based on a demand responsive approach, which implies the inclusion of different stake-holders in the decision and implementation process.