A Critique of the World Bank’s Sustainable Water Framework

Wong, Sam (2012) A Critique of the World Bank’s Sustainable Water Framework. Libyan Agriculture Research Centre Journal International,, 3 (6). pp. 315-326.

Text a critique of WB's water framework (Libyan Agri Research Centre Journal Int).pdf - Unspecified Access to this file is embargoed until Unspecified. Download (406kB)

Abstract

This paper does not deny the World Bank’s effort in getting water management right in developing countries. It, however, raises some concerns with the Bank’s water policies that may have undesirable impact on poor people’s access to water and livelihoods on the ground. It unpacks the assumptions of the ideas, such as community participation, decentralisation, user-charging, good governance and strict rule enforcement. It suggests that poor people may have to bear disproportionately high costs if these policies do not work. Particularly, this paper challenges the Bank’s water model which assumes that water users are rational and opportunistic and inadequately considers the complexity of human motivations and structural forces in shaping effective water governance. The economic understanding of institutions and the over-emphasising of laws, regulations and formal groups, plays down the role of socially-embedded institutions in influencing water-user behaviour. It draws on examples and case studies of the water sector in developing countries and underlines the importance of building a more socially-informed model by incorporating human values into water governance and seeking a deeper understanding of social context and cultural diversity. This paper highlights the needs to achieve water sustainability, without compromising poor people’s social networks and livelihoods of the poor. This paper lays out five principles that matter to the success of water interventions: (1) history and culture of social relations; (2) existing relations of cooperation that shape water participation; (3) people’s livelihood priorities; (4) individuals’ preferred institutional environment; (5) the interlay between new and old institutions that channels that people can get access to resources and exercise agency.

Item Type:	Article
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	20 Mar 2015 10:46
Last Modified:	17 Dec 2022 01:18
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/2008615