NEW PARTNERSHIPS IN URBAN SOLID WASTE IN DEVELOPING WORLD 31
investments are required by local firms), insufficiently adapted legal and judicial
frameworks, low per capita incomes, lack of a vibrant private business class, and
strong resistance from within the bureaucracy and the trade unions (Rondinelli and
Kasarda, 1993; Ariyo and Jerome, 1999 Ramamurti, 1999). In the subsequent review
the overall context in India and Kenya will be briefly characterised in order to demon-
strate its importance in explaining the vicissitudes of privatisation and partnerships.
India
India’s path to development since independence was pre-eminently state-directed with
considerable emphasis on rapid industrialisation (through import substitution and with
an emphasis on heavy industry). A powerful state apparatus tried to establish a
self-reliant economy and to ensure fair distribution of the fruits of development both
spatially and socially. However, the complex and excessive system of macro- and
micro-economic controls failed to produce a pattern of rapid and self-sustaining
growth and by the end of the 1980s the country was in deep economic trouble. In the
early 1990s the country switched to a more market-led strategy in accordance with the
worldwide prevalence of neo-liberal thinking (Pedersen, 2000). Although average
GNP growth rates have been over 6 percent annually during the second half of the
1990s critics claim that the impact of the New Economic Policy has been disap-
pointing, especially in a social sense. They point to the adverse impact of (national)
politics and institutions. Economic policy is still largely a function of the whims of
politics, notably the anxiety of politicians to stay in power (Khatkhate, 1997). This is
an important reason why attempts to undo over-regulation and dysfunctional rules of
economic governance are frustrated. The rhetoric of ‘equity’, according to Drèze and
Sen (1997: 186) has often been invoked to justify governmental intervention, but has
only strengthened the bureaucracy in its ability to control economic operations, to
distribute favours, or to cause obstructions. The alleged beneficiaries of such action,
the Indian poor, have got little from it, while those with good access to the bureaucracy
fared well.
The peculiarities of India’s recent development resonate in the analysis of the
problems and prospects of privatising solid waste collection services in the country’s
towns and cities. Obviously, the idea of transferring this task to the private sector met
with considerable opposition. The bureaucracy was largely unwilling because it
suspected an erosion of government power. Many of its representatives maintain that
only the public sector can guarantee equitable servicing. This helps to understand why
privatisation of solid waste management tasks to date has only occurred on a limited
scale, despite evidence of substantial cost reduction (Ali et al., 1999: 505). At the same
time, however, it looks like more progress is being made in implementing private
sector participation projects in the last couple of years, simply as municipalities are
not allowed to recruit new labourers whereas their service tasks grow together with
their populations and area. The inheritance of state-led development and the power of