Date post: | 19-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Scaling up rural sanitation in Vietnam
Experiences with a problem-driven approach to the political economy of water and sanitation
Daniel Harris Michelle Kooy
Pham Quang Nam 16 January 2012
2
Problem statement
• Given persistently disappointing outcomes in the rural sanitation subsector, why is it that a number of seemingly successful pilot programmes of various ‘innovative approaches’ in the subsector have not been scaled up?
3
Findings
• Ensuring sufficient intra-sectoral allocation for any approach to improving rural sanitation
• Why an effective pilot isn’t enough: Overcoming barriers to innovative approaches to sanitation– Formal barriers
• Regulations on recurrent/development expenditure
– Informal barriers• Visibility, credit and risk-reward calculations for
sanitation planners– Operational realities: Partners at scale
5
Implications
National enabling environment
Securing funds for sanitation subsector within the WATSAN
sector (in NTP3)
Development of guidance on budgeting
for innovative approaches (NTP3 budget circular)
Develop (outcome-based) performance
indicators
Rebalance between investment and recurrent
expenditure
Provide a legal basis for adopting innovative approaches (NTP3)
Provincial decision-making
Support in developing detailed budgets for implementation of recurrent spending
Leverage incentives (top-down and bottom-up) for
provincial and other local level leadership
Pilot projectsInclude
mechanisms to progressively shift
to government systems (or other actors capable of
operating at scale)
Provide evidence of outcomes and benefits accruing
to local leadership
Awareness of funding mechanisms, options for innovative approaches (including availability of
TA where necessary)
Demonstrate feasible cost norms and
accounting for the cost of all inputs
(sequenced funding)
Push the boundaries of
accepted approaches to
sanitation
6
Extended engagement
• Clarity of purpose• Problem
identification
Pre-analysis
• Systemic factors• Actors, Incentives• Prescription
Analysis • Uptake of findings• Evaluation
• Thinking• Programming• Outcomes
Post-analysis
Many thanks to Mark Harvey, Renwick Irvine, Ngo Thi Quynh Hoa, Than Thi Thien Huong and others at DFID-Vietnam for their assistance and engagement with the project, Helen Richards and Jane Crowder at DFID-UK, Simon O’Meally for his leadership on initial project development, and all those who have contributed time and thoughts to the work.
The views presented here are those of the speaker, and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners.
111 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7JDT: +44 207 9220 300
www.odi.org.uk
[email protected]@odi.org.uk
8
Problem-driven analysis
What is the challenge, or ‘problem’ to be addressed?
Begin with identification and review of evidence of poor outcomes to which political economy weaknesses appear to contribute
What are the systemic factors in place that are relevant to the problem?
Analysis of systemic factors including features of geography, geopolitics, population, culture and social structure; Historical legacies; Formal and informal institutions
What combination of perceived incentives shape the behaviour leading to this problem?
Analysis of: 1. Stakeholders’ interests, influence and alignment;2. Problems of: Credible commitment; Collective action
(free riding, tragedy of commons, etc.); Moral hazard; Information asymmetry among principals and agents; Exit, voice and loyalty
Source: Adapted from Fritz et al., 2009:7