GOVERNMENT,MARKET AND COMMUNITY IN URBAN SOLID WASTE 273
failures in India in the coming years will provide guidance to smaller cities and other
countries.
13.3. GOVERNANCE,PARTNERSHIPS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL
The research project touched upon several issues that are subject of debate in
academic and policy circles. The results enable us to underscore or qualify several of
these ideas, notably three strongly interwoven topics: partnerships, social capital and
(environmental) governance. Both in Nairobi and in Hyderabad several activities
within the SWM system are moulded around partnerships. The nature of these
arrangements partially depends on the activity concerned. Sometimes an activity is
organised on a purely commercial footing – for example the trade in recyclables –
despite the fact that it may have important externalities in terms of environmental
health, reduction of waste flows or social legitimacy. At the other extreme there are
activities that belong to the category of purely collective goods for which no market
exists, like for example street cleansing or final disposal of residual waste. In that situ-
ation the public sector usually takes prime responsibility not only in organising for its
delivery but also in financing it. Obviously, the basic orientation of a partnership influ-
ences the balance between various interests. A distinguishing characteristic of
partnerships, however, is that they directly or indirectly serve the public interest,
which distinguishes them from exclusively commercial relationships (Gonzalez et al.,
2000; Baud et al, 2001). A major question, therefore, is what provisions have been
made to safeguard the public interest within various types of partnerships. Sometimes
this leads authors to state that in partnership arrangements at least one of the partners
should be public (Peters, 1998).
In the literature there is an undeniable bias in the direction of partnerships that have
been planned by the authorities in a top-down manner. Their emergence can be traced
back to new conceptions of (urban) public management and local governance that are
based on the idea that each actor has its own set of comparative advantages. The
assumption is that the common cause is best served by utilising these potentials, and,
therefore, the core challenge is to find the most appropriate mix of capabilities. In
these partnerships the public sector is always the key player. However, partnerships
can also emerge from the bottom-up through collective action, for example through
CBOs engaged in waste collection, recycling and reuse. Collective action refers to the
organisation of shelter, basic services, employment and security by local communities
themselves without any government assistance and usually against considerable odds
(Baud, 2000; Mitlin, 2001). Communities can do a lot on their own to improve their
living and working environment, but many actions require them to establish partner-
ships with external actors that can bring in essential complementary resources (Lee,
1998). Our study on SWM in Nairobi and Hyderabad has clearly shown that such part-
nerships are relevant and need to be taken into consideration in addition to
public-private arrangements. In the subsequent analysis we will reflect on various