Finance for water and sanitation as a public service

Drawing on empirical evidence gathered through the PSIRU database, this contribution aims at addressing the potential of public finance to enhance the provision of water supply and sanitation as a public service. It highlights the problems associated with (and the disappointing results obtained from) resort to Private Sector Participation and private finance, both historically and in the last 15-20 years, in developed and developing countries. It also addresses the advantages of using public finance as a more cost-effective and equitable instrument to achieve developmental objectives such as the expansion of service coverage and development of water and sanitation infrastructure. The potential of public operations in maximising developmental impact from the social, economic and environmental points of view is then explored referring to specific examples from a variety of countries and regions. These include the in-house restructuring of public operations to enhance transparency, accountability and effectiveness, as well as the use of Public-Public Partnerships (PUPs) to build capacity. Attention is devoted to the specific financial requirements of expanding sewerage services at global level to achieve MDGs or broader developmental goals. These requirements are revisited in light of a regional breakdown of coverage gaps, available resources and development aid flows. These findings challenge the established view among international and bilateral agencies that expanding sewerage services in developing countries is excessively costly and should be abandoned as a priority because unaffordable. This contribution draws on a number of PSIRU Reports, and particularly the following. - http://www.psiru.org/reports/2008-03-W-sewers.pdf - http://boell-latinoamerica.org/download_es/agua08_privatizacion_LA_2007.pdf - http://boell-latinoamerica.org/download_es/agua08_agua_un_servicio_publico.pdf - http://www.psiru.org/reports/2006-03-W-investment.pdf All PSIRU Reports are accessible at http://www.psiru.org/publicationsindex.asp.

University education as a public service

There is no tradition of public service in large parts of English higher education. This is because historically HE in England has seen itself as independent of the state and unaccountable to the public for its twin roles of research and teaching. These serve its own interests conceived as advancing knowledge and ensuring the continued transmission of that knowledge to future generations. The dominance of this conception explains the so-called ‘academic community’s’ Gaderene rush to abandon free HE in England. Resistance to preserve and extend public service HE will therefore predictably come mainly from former-local authority further and higher education institutions.

Public-public partnerships (PUPs) in water

Water operators need to be efficient, accountable, honest public institutions providing a universal service. Many water services however lack the institutional strength, the human resources, the technical expertise and equipment, or the financial or managerial capacity to provide these services. They need support to develop these capacities. The vast majority of water operators in the world are in the public sector – 90% of all major cities are served by such bodies. This means that the largest pool of experience and expertise, and the great majority of examples of good practice and sound institutions, are to be found in existing public sector water operators. Because they are public sector, however, they do not have any natural commercial incentive to provide international support. Their incentive stems from solidarity, not profit. Since 1990, however, the policies of donors and development banks have focussed on the private companies and their incentives. The vast resources of the public sector have been overlooked, even blocked by pro-private policies. Out of sight of these global policy-makers, however, a growing number of public sector water companies have been engaged, in a great variety of ways, in helping others develop the capacity to be effective and accountable public services. These supportive arrangements are now called 'public-public partnerships' (PUPs). A public-public partnership (PUP) is simply a collaboration between two or more public authorities or organisations, based on solidarity, to improve the capacity and effectiveness of one partner in providing public water or sanitation services. They have been described as: “a peer relationship forged around common values and objectives, which exclude profit-seeking”.1 Neither partner expects a commercial profit, directly or indirectly. This makes PUPs very different from the public–private partnerships (PPPs) which have been promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank. The problems of PPPs have been examined in a number of reports. A great advantage of PUPs is that they avoid the risks of such partnerships: transaction costs, contract failure, renegotiation, the complexities of regulation, commercial opportunism, monopoly pricing, commercial secrecy, currency risk, and lack of public legitimacy.2 PUPs are not merely an abstract concept. The list in the annexe to this paper includes over 130 PUPs in around 70 countries. This means that far more countries have hosted PUPs than host PPPs in water – according to a report from PPIAF in December 2008, there are only 44 countries with private participation in water. These PUPs cover a period of over 20 years, and been used in all regions of the world. The earliest date to the 1980s, when the Yokohama Waterworks Bureau first started partnerships to help train staff in other Asian countries. Many of the PUP projects have been initiated in the last few years, a result of the growing recognition of PUPs as a tool for achieving improvements in public water management. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the typical objectives of PUPs; the different forms of PUPs and partners involved; a series of case studies of actual PUPs; and an examination of the recent WOPs initiative. It then offers recommendations for future development of PUPs.

Developing “middle leaders” in the public services? The realities of management and leadership development for public managers

Purpose – This paper aims to assess the actual contribution to organisational change of management and leadership development (MLD) activity for middle managers (MMs) in public service organisations (PSOs). Design/methodology/approach – Using the case study approach, the paper compares the content and outcomes of management and leadership training interventions for MMs in two large PSOs. The organisations, a fire brigade and a train operating company, are leaders in their sectors with respect to management development and “modernisation” of their services. Findings – The paper demonstrates how, in one case, MM development was largely an exercise in regulatory compliance, with little effect on individual MMs' performance or organisational outcomes. The second case demonstrates how MMs were effectively trained to enforce specific human resource policies which contributed to the successful implementation of top-down strategy yet paid little attention to the potential leadership role of MMs. Research limitations/implications – The paper highlights the need for further contextualised research at organisational level into the outcomes of MLD, especially in terms of different public service contexts. Practical implications – The paper demonstrates the dangers of designing and implementing development programmes without sufficient regard to professional practice and the realities of managerial discretion in PSOs. Originality/value – The paper provides an in-depth and contextualised insight into the conditions for success and failure in management development interventions in PSOs.

Ethnic variations in the experiences of mental health service users in England: results of a national patient survey programme

Background: Minority ethnic groups in the UK are reported to have a poor experience of mental health services, but comparative information is scarce. Aims: To examine ethnic differences in patients’ experience of community mental health services. Method: Trusts providing mental health services in England conducted surveys in 2004 and 2005 of users of community mental health services. Multiple regression was used to examine ethnic differences in responses. Results: About 27 000 patients responded to each of the surveys, of whom 10% were of minority ethnic origin. In the 2004 survey, age, living alone, the 2004 survey, age, living alone, detention and hospital admissions were stronger predictors of patient experience than ethnicity. Self-reported mental health status had the strongest explanatory effect. In the 2005 survey, the main negative differences relative to the White British were for Asians. Conclusions: Ethnicity had a smaller effect on patient experience than other variables. Relative to the White British, the Black group did not report negative experiences whereas the Asian group were most likely to respond negatively. However, there is a need for improvements in services for minority ethnic groups, including access to talking therapies and better recording of ethnicity.