water-alternatives.org Volume 7 | Issue 1 Cheng, D. 2014. The persistence of informality: Small-s... more water-alternatives.org Volume 7 | Issue 1 Cheng, D. 2014. The persistence of informality: Small-scale water providers in Manila's post-privatisation era Water Alternatives 7(1): 54-71 Cheng: Small-scale water providers in Manila Page | 54 ABSTRACT: This article troubles the notion of a formal-informal dichotomy in urban water provision. Whereas expansion of a water utility typically involves the replacement of informal providers, the experience in Manila demonstrates that the rapid connection of low-income areas actually hinges, in part, on the selective inclusion and exclusion of these smaller actors. In this sense, privatisation has not eliminated small-scale water provision, but has led to the reconfiguration of its usage, blurring the boundaries between formal and informal. By examining the spatial and temporal evolution of small-scale water provision in Manila's post-privatisation era, I show how certain spaces are seen as less serviceable than others. Critically, small...
The privatization of basic needs provision has seen a related and increasing reliance on corporat... more The privatization of basic needs provision has seen a related and increasing reliance on corporate-community partnerships in serving the “last mile.” These relationships often seem promising because they suggest mutual benefit—corporations expand their customer base, while communities gain access to improved services. Indeed, the success of Manila’s water privatization project hinges in large part on the two utilities’ partnerships with community-based organizations to extend services to low-income areas.
Despite the promise of mutuality, Manila has seen localized contestations over this setup, as some communities sense disparities between their terms of access and those of households that are directly served by the utilities. However, rather than being targeted at the utilities, those challenges largely focus on the small providers—paradoxically, it is the community-based cooperatives and entrepreneurs that are accused of capitalistic exploitation. By distancing themselves from low-income communities, the utilities become relatively intangible, state-like entities, their financial motivations obscured from ordinary citizens. In contrast, community-based organizations are at the frontline—collecting payments, monitoring for theft, and seemingly earning profits at the expense of their neighbors. Corporate-community partnerships thus create an uneven terrain of empowerment, cooptation, and politicization, refocusing debates at a local level. In so doing, they alter the ways in which citizens view public, private, and community entities, complicating the public/private binaries that often dominate debates on privatization.
This article troubles the notion of a formal-informal dichotomy in urban water provision. Whereas... more This article troubles the notion of a formal-informal dichotomy in urban water provision. Whereas expansion of a water utility typically involves the replacement of informal providers, the experience in Manila demonstrates that the rapid connection of low-income areas actually hinges, in part, on the selective inclusion and exclusion of these smaller actors. In this sense, privatisation has not eliminated small-scale water provision, but has led to the reconfiguration of its usage, blurring the boundaries between formal and informal. By examining the spatial and temporal evolution of small-scale water provision in Manila’s post-privatisation era, I show how certain spaces are seen as less serviceable than others. Critically, small providers working in partnership with the utilities are sanctioned because they supplement the utilities’ operations. The areas in which they work are considered served, factoring into aggregate coverage statistics, even though their terms of service are often less desirable than those of households directly connected to the utilities. In contrast, small providers that operate outside of the utilities’ zones of coverage are considered inferior, to be replaced. The result is a differentiation in informality – one in which the private utilities largely determine modes of access and thus the spatialisation of informal water provision.
The oft-purported goals of good urban water governance include universal coverage and low levels ... more The oft-purported goals of good urban water governance include universal coverage and low levels of water loss. However, such goals can be particularly challenging in large, metropolitan areas where infrastructure may be ageing or unknown. This paper clarifies the mechanisms through which urban infrastructure is made visible – and thus more governable – by examining the politics of non-payment in Manila and the techniques that the two private concessionaires use to reclaim lost revenues. While some customers from all income levels may evade payment, the mechanisms for payment recovery targeted at low-income consumers focus on increased policing and a transfer of responsibility towards communities and individuals and away from the concessionaires. In contrast, payment recovery targeted at high volume customers typically involves technical improvements and settlement of arrears. The differentiated treatment of the poor and non-poor thus has four failures: first, while visibility is directed at payment recovery, those that are unserved or underserved remain invisible through the propagation of aggregate statistics characterizing greater coverage and reductions in system losses; second, there is an asymmetry of treatment for non-payment in poor and non-poor areas, which can result in higher costs in poorer areas; third, the same processes that lead to greater coverage and reduced losses also reconfigure inequalities; and fourth, small water providers are increasingly becoming the policing arm of the utilities rather than competitive alternatives. Recognizing remaining inequalities in cities like Manila helps to highlight the situation for the underserved and allows us to re-imagine ways of achieving universal access.
water-alternatives.org Volume 7 | Issue 1 Cheng, D. 2014. The persistence of informality: Small-s... more water-alternatives.org Volume 7 | Issue 1 Cheng, D. 2014. The persistence of informality: Small-scale water providers in Manila's post-privatisation era Water Alternatives 7(1): 54-71 Cheng: Small-scale water providers in Manila Page | 54 ABSTRACT: This article troubles the notion of a formal-informal dichotomy in urban water provision. Whereas expansion of a water utility typically involves the replacement of informal providers, the experience in Manila demonstrates that the rapid connection of low-income areas actually hinges, in part, on the selective inclusion and exclusion of these smaller actors. In this sense, privatisation has not eliminated small-scale water provision, but has led to the reconfiguration of its usage, blurring the boundaries between formal and informal. By examining the spatial and temporal evolution of small-scale water provision in Manila's post-privatisation era, I show how certain spaces are seen as less serviceable than others. Critically, small...
The privatization of basic needs provision has seen a related and increasing reliance on corporat... more The privatization of basic needs provision has seen a related and increasing reliance on corporate-community partnerships in serving the “last mile.” These relationships often seem promising because they suggest mutual benefit—corporations expand their customer base, while communities gain access to improved services. Indeed, the success of Manila’s water privatization project hinges in large part on the two utilities’ partnerships with community-based organizations to extend services to low-income areas.
Despite the promise of mutuality, Manila has seen localized contestations over this setup, as some communities sense disparities between their terms of access and those of households that are directly served by the utilities. However, rather than being targeted at the utilities, those challenges largely focus on the small providers—paradoxically, it is the community-based cooperatives and entrepreneurs that are accused of capitalistic exploitation. By distancing themselves from low-income communities, the utilities become relatively intangible, state-like entities, their financial motivations obscured from ordinary citizens. In contrast, community-based organizations are at the frontline—collecting payments, monitoring for theft, and seemingly earning profits at the expense of their neighbors. Corporate-community partnerships thus create an uneven terrain of empowerment, cooptation, and politicization, refocusing debates at a local level. In so doing, they alter the ways in which citizens view public, private, and community entities, complicating the public/private binaries that often dominate debates on privatization.
This article troubles the notion of a formal-informal dichotomy in urban water provision. Whereas... more This article troubles the notion of a formal-informal dichotomy in urban water provision. Whereas expansion of a water utility typically involves the replacement of informal providers, the experience in Manila demonstrates that the rapid connection of low-income areas actually hinges, in part, on the selective inclusion and exclusion of these smaller actors. In this sense, privatisation has not eliminated small-scale water provision, but has led to the reconfiguration of its usage, blurring the boundaries between formal and informal. By examining the spatial and temporal evolution of small-scale water provision in Manila’s post-privatisation era, I show how certain spaces are seen as less serviceable than others. Critically, small providers working in partnership with the utilities are sanctioned because they supplement the utilities’ operations. The areas in which they work are considered served, factoring into aggregate coverage statistics, even though their terms of service are often less desirable than those of households directly connected to the utilities. In contrast, small providers that operate outside of the utilities’ zones of coverage are considered inferior, to be replaced. The result is a differentiation in informality – one in which the private utilities largely determine modes of access and thus the spatialisation of informal water provision.
The oft-purported goals of good urban water governance include universal coverage and low levels ... more The oft-purported goals of good urban water governance include universal coverage and low levels of water loss. However, such goals can be particularly challenging in large, metropolitan areas where infrastructure may be ageing or unknown. This paper clarifies the mechanisms through which urban infrastructure is made visible – and thus more governable – by examining the politics of non-payment in Manila and the techniques that the two private concessionaires use to reclaim lost revenues. While some customers from all income levels may evade payment, the mechanisms for payment recovery targeted at low-income consumers focus on increased policing and a transfer of responsibility towards communities and individuals and away from the concessionaires. In contrast, payment recovery targeted at high volume customers typically involves technical improvements and settlement of arrears. The differentiated treatment of the poor and non-poor thus has four failures: first, while visibility is directed at payment recovery, those that are unserved or underserved remain invisible through the propagation of aggregate statistics characterizing greater coverage and reductions in system losses; second, there is an asymmetry of treatment for non-payment in poor and non-poor areas, which can result in higher costs in poorer areas; third, the same processes that lead to greater coverage and reduced losses also reconfigure inequalities; and fourth, small water providers are increasingly becoming the policing arm of the utilities rather than competitive alternatives. Recognizing remaining inequalities in cities like Manila helps to highlight the situation for the underserved and allows us to re-imagine ways of achieving universal access.
Uploads
Despite the promise of mutuality, Manila has seen localized contestations over this setup, as some communities sense disparities between their terms of access and those of households that are directly served by the utilities. However, rather than being targeted at the utilities, those challenges largely focus on the small providers—paradoxically, it is the community-based cooperatives and entrepreneurs that are accused of capitalistic exploitation. By distancing themselves from low-income communities, the utilities become relatively intangible, state-like entities, their financial motivations obscured from ordinary citizens. In contrast, community-based organizations are at the frontline—collecting payments, monitoring for theft, and seemingly earning profits at the expense of their neighbors. Corporate-community partnerships thus create an uneven terrain of empowerment, cooptation, and politicization, refocusing debates at a local level. In so doing, they alter the ways in which citizens view public, private, and community entities, complicating the public/private binaries that often dominate debates on privatization.
Despite the promise of mutuality, Manila has seen localized contestations over this setup, as some communities sense disparities between their terms of access and those of households that are directly served by the utilities. However, rather than being targeted at the utilities, those challenges largely focus on the small providers—paradoxically, it is the community-based cooperatives and entrepreneurs that are accused of capitalistic exploitation. By distancing themselves from low-income communities, the utilities become relatively intangible, state-like entities, their financial motivations obscured from ordinary citizens. In contrast, community-based organizations are at the frontline—collecting payments, monitoring for theft, and seemingly earning profits at the expense of their neighbors. Corporate-community partnerships thus create an uneven terrain of empowerment, cooptation, and politicization, refocusing debates at a local level. In so doing, they alter the ways in which citizens view public, private, and community entities, complicating the public/private binaries that often dominate debates on privatization.