36 JOHAN POST
ships with small-scale enterprises and community-based organisations (CBOs)
despite the fact that they have already proved their value in various domains, notably
shelter provision and upgrading (UNCHS, 1996). Most administrators and officials
think the inclusion of such small-scale (often, though not exclusively, informal) or
communal activities is at odds with their (westernised) convictions on how to run a
modern city. The elusiveness of such activities is considered to be a threat to the
enforcement of government rules and regulations (including sanitary codes and health
standards) and could make effective sanctions in case of malpractice difficult to imple-
ment. Besides, most local governments are unable to meet the transaction costs
entailed in dealing with a multitude of small firms and community organisations. Only
very slowly prevailing negative views are starting to give way to a more positive
outlook in accordance with new ideas on urban management and local governance that
recognize the potential of these actors as well as the usefulness of collaborating with
them (Anschütz, 1996; Haan et al., 1998; Baud, 2000).
As for micro and small enterprises (MSEs) several studies show that they can deliver
good quality waste collection services (cf. Arroyo et al., 1999; Obirih-Opareh and
Post, 2001). Their advantages include cost savings following from the use of more
appropriate (cheaper) technologies such as handcarts and donkey carts, lower wages
(albeit it sometimes through severe underpayment of workers), higher flexibility,
stronger commitment to the job, closer links with the community, and competition
among MSEs (Haan et al., 1998: 12-6). These enterprises are most suited to carry out
‘tasks where there are no or few economies of scale, or where the effect of the
economy of scale is easily compensated by increased efficiency’ (ibid: 20). Sweeping
and primary collection of garbage satisfy this requirement. These services may also be
organised through some kind of collective effort (cooperatives, community-based
organisations). Among the advantages of such collective action are close involvement
of the community, which fosters responsiveness to local needs and makes active
participation in the service, prompt payment of fees, and direct quality control more
likely. Weaknesses are the dependence on the skills and dedication of volunteers, and
the lack of a business-like approach to service provision both of which may threaten
the continuity of the initiative (Anschütz, 1996). In the current study these ‘hidden’
potentials are included and their contributions to sustainable development are
assessed.
In conclusion, the collection (transportation and disposal) of urban solid waste is no
longer an exclusive public sector affair. Several new partnerships have come up either
on direct initiative by the (local) government or ‘spontaneously’ in the private
(commercial or non-commercial) sphere. Many cities in the developing world
currently demonstrate the existence of pluralistic systems of service delivery. What
this system looks like, how it performs, and how it is coordinated largely depends on
the societal context. In the subsequent three chapters this will be elaborated for our
two case cities, Hyderabad and Nairobi.