and the linkages between them are often overlooked’. This, they argue, has resulted is a somewhat disparate set of ad hoc debates that have rarely been drawn together in a coherent manner (Plummer and Slaymaker 2007). Though the instruments of water governance are fairly well known, there remain a number of key obstacles to ensuring better delivery across the sector, some of which we discuss below. Table 1 Instruments of water governance Technical
Measures used in resource assessment and design of structures used to control, store and supply water for different purposes.
Economic
Measures used to encourage efficient and responsible allocation and use of water resources including pricing, charges, subsidies and penalties.
Administrative
Information systems, maps/models, plans, guidelines and other decision support and management tools.
Legal
Measures which prescribe, restrict or prohibit different water uses including abstraction/discharge permits, codes of conduct and minimum standards.
Institutional
Regulatory bodies, management arrangements, coordination and partnership mechanisms
Social/Political
Measures to increase awareness of water issues and mobilise users to participate in planning, management and financing of water resource development.
planning
procedures,
Source: Plummer and Slaymaker (2007)
3.2. The role of political economy in sector reform and delivery While useful in working around challenges for more effective management and development of services within the WATSAN sector, governance studies often fall short in exploring the root causes of why such challenges exist. Recognising this shortfall, donors and project implementers have increasingly sought to understand and address the underlying institutional, political and historical contexts that influence decision-making in the WATSAN sector. Translating a thorough understanding of these PE processes in project design and action can be crucial for better addressing the sanitation (and water supply) needs of the poor (WSP, 2011). Though in its relative infancy, this is where political economy analysis within the WATSAN sector can prove an extremely helpful tool. Broadly speaking, the political economy of WATSAN service delivery refers to the social, political, and economic processes that determine the extent and nature of investment and service provision. Interest in PEA within the WATSAN sector has grown steadily, reflected in a distinct transition from PEA’s origins within academia to applications of far greater relevance to programmatic and operational sector relevance. As in any sectoral analysis, PEA of WATSAN service delivery involves identifying and addressing stakeholder interests and institutional determinants of processes and outcomes of WATSAN investment. It also involves an assessment of the risk and opportunities for improved management of political economy toward pro-poor investment (World Bank 2010). In practice, an effective PEA in the WATSAN sector should provide empirically grounded insights into, for example: why sanitation investments and service provision are not given adequate priority in lending and nonlending work; or, when sanitation investments in such efforts are undertaken, why they are not strategically targeted toward increasing access to sanitation for the poor (WSP 2011). PEA does not substitute for conventional economic, social, or financial analysis. In this respect, ‘it is simply a supporting tool for designing and implementing [water] and sanitation interventions’ (WSP 2011 pp.44). It occupies the same space as sector governance analysis, with the difference that its objectives are diagnostic rather than prescriptive (or normative) (Fritz et al. 2009). As a result, PEA can help move past more normative governance analyses, in assisting funders/practitioners/stakeholders to identify the reasons behind key political and economic constraints and barriers for sector change. 21