The Case of Water Service Co-production in Venezuela
Adapting the UN-Habitat Urban Governance Index, the author explores the dual nature of urban governance, analyzing its formal dimension at the municipal level but also taking account of informal and locally specific governance arrangements aimed at improving access to basic services. Water service co-production strategies involving both public institutions and organized groups of citizens in Venezuela provide an excellent case study of this phenomenon. The book illustrates the limitations of official governance assessment tools in appreciating the extent and vibrancy of local practices and agreements, as well as investigating the discrepancies between normative prescriptions and governance arrangements on the ground.
Chapter 7 Conclusions
| 197 →
This concluding chapter is divided into three parts. First, we present a comparative analysis between the institutional dimension of urban governance at the municipal level and the informal community-based governance arrangements at the settlement level, based on the common principle framework provided by the UN-HABITAT Urban Governance Index and developed through a multilevel mixed model study. The analysis shows how the new governance arrangements for water improvement in Venezuela – which are based on formal as well as informal collaborations between official institutions (represented by the municipalities and the state-owned water company) and practice-rooted community knowledge and activities represented by the water committees – can be excluded from an urban governance assessment that exclusively relies on official quantitative data and information, such as the UGI indicators. We thus contend that a qualitative analysis focusing on the extent of the communities’ involvement and inclusion in governance arrangements developed around the MTA could usefully, and even should, integrate the UGI quantitative indicators to assessing the real extent of urban governance.
In the second part, findings stemming from the comparative analysis between governance at the municipal and settlement levels are grouped according to some relevant dichotomies between normative and operational challenges, decentralising and centralising tendencies, formal and informal relationships and agreements. The third part focuses on the potentialities and limitations of and possible improvements to the Urban Governance Index as a tool for measuring urban governance, not only at the city level but...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.