274 JOHAN POST AND ISA BAUD
factors that help to explain differences in the types and functioning of partnerships in
SWM within the two cities under scrutiny.
Although both the Kenyan and the Indian government have set out on the road to liber-
alisation and deregulation of the economy and aim at transferring conventional state
responsibilities to the private sector, the situation on the ground is very different. In
Kenya, the state suffers from a crisis of legitimacy. It is continuously accused of
mismanagement and corruption, and virtually unable to satisfy elementary public
sector obligations. Private and civil society actors are reluctant to engage in partner-
ship relationships with such an undeserving partner. The Nairobi case shows that an
important requirement for successful collaboration across the public-private divide is
missing (Evans, 1996; Ostrom, 1996; Mwangi, 2001). Norms of mutual trust that
provide the basis for exploiting the potential for synergy are not established. Private
operators try to avoid dealing with the authorities and their representatives and if they
are required to do so (to obtain a business license, to get access to the dump site etc.)
they try to arrange affairs informally. Similarly, residents have lost faith in the author-
ities and seek alternative ways of satisfying collective needs. In Nairobi, the social
capital that constitutes the basis for mutually beneficial state-society collaboration has
been severely eroded.
In Hyderabad one can also observe some hesitation on the part of public and private
actors to work together on the basis of trust. In the privatisation of SWC the authorities
have learnt to be constantly alert to infractions and abuse by contractors, while the
latter feel the MCH is unduly squeezing them through the inflexibility of contracts and
rigid application of the system of deductions. Nevertheless, the local state’s legitimacy
and reliability goes almost unquestioned. A feeling of mutual trust and respect is
developing between private contractors that are well performing and a council that
lives up to its financial obligations. Furthermore, the MCH not only accepted the
VGDS as an add-on to its own basic SWC service, it also supported the initiative
financially and logistically. In other words, both public and private actors in
Hyderabad are working towards the strengthening of social capital, i.e. the social
underpinnings of governance (Stoker, 1998).
This does not mean to say that the transition to governance – from public control to
power sharing in collective affairs – comes as a matter of course in the Indian context.
In fact, political commitment to the idea of partnering is still problematic in both cities
studied. Furthermore, the administrative structure and culture (attitudes, working
procedures) are still not well adapted to the idea of working together across the
public-private divide (requiring, especially, more open, participatory modes of
planning and policy-making). In Nairobi considerable pressure is exercised on the
authorities to enter into partnerships – for example through the internationally spon-
sored Nairobi Urban Slum Development Project – but prevailing attitudes among
government officials and employees are still largely negative. The political climate is