MDG 7.C. Source: United Nations
Development has thus become a highly contested term (Willis, 2005). In the last couple of decades, academics, politicians, economists, and the like, have begun to realise the problems of top-down approaches and that “bottom-up” solutions are preferable in many contexts. These bottom-up approaches are characterised by participation, indigenous knowledge, and the empowerment of marginalised individuals (Briggs, 2005). By giving power to local actors and making them more involved in the design of policy and schemes that directly affect them, bottom-up approaches to development are increasingly being recognised as an adequate alternative to more traditional top-down approaches (Crescenzi and RodrÃguez-Pose, 2011).
In the case of water and sanitation, bottom-up approaches have had some success among SSA nations in recent years. Drawing upon research from Dill (2009), it is possible to discover an example of bottom-up water governance in the city of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, which serves as evidence to suggest bottom-up development solutions are often more appropriate and effective than their top-down alternatives.
The situation of access to safe water and sanitation services in Dar es Salaam is problematic to the extent that ‘among the many challenges confronting Dar es Salaam’s residential areas, lack of access to improved water sources is arguably the most enduring, problematic and important’ (Dill and Crow, 2014). Across Dar es Salaam, urban residents are beginning to adopt greater responsibility for the provision of safe water and sanitation facilities through a range of ‘government-community partnerships’ (Dill, 2009). Such schemes are thought to be fundamental to make sure provision is effective, competent, sustainable, nondiscriminatory, and appropriate for the needs of urban residents.
This post has provided a brief overview of the history of development practice in urban SSA by looking into the evolution of water practices and policies. It has introduced the notion of bottom-up approaches to development as an alternative to more traditional top-down approaches. The next post will take a look into the implications of rapid urbanisation in urban areas within SSA.
I like the 'path you are treading' here. Have you explored why self-supply options in Dar es Salaam are proving successful or what may have instigated these? The clue to this is actually a drought which greatly diminished public water supplies forcing people to adapt and find their own solutions. Dig deeper here - it will prove informative.
ReplyDeleteHi Rob,
ReplyDeleteI have really enjoyed reading your blog. This post has made me wonder whether there are some top-down development approaches to water and sanitation provision in urban slums that don't require bottom-up contextualisation. Do you think there are problems shared by all urban slums that could be tackled using single approaches?
Thank you for a thought provoking blog!
Freddy
Hi Freddy,
DeleteThank you for asking this stimulating question. “Top-down” approaches to improving the situation of access to safe water and sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) urban slums have had some success over previous decades. This is because these informal settlements are almost always densely populated, unplanned and neglected areas of cities, where conditions are extremely harsh, so direct intervention by the state often proves relatively successful, as top-down initiatives typically serve in the interests of the people.
However, while aspirations are more or less identical, there are strongly opposing views on the most appropriate ways to increase access to safe water and sanitation facilities. State (or top-down) approaches to development have been heavily criticised for the way in which they operate (Hart, 2009). Top-down approaches have been labelled as overarching and ignorant to local realities.
From what I can gauge from reading around this topic is that there has been a shift in approaches to development practices world-over, which is not too new. There has been a celebration of community and “bottom-up” approaches (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). Development practices should take into consideration local narratives and realities, as, according to Amartya Sen (1999):
Development consists of the removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency.
And, as Escobar (1995) puts it:
The remaking of development must start by examining local constructions, to the extent that they are the life and history of the people, that is, the conditions for and of change.
In direct consideration of SSA’s urban slums, bottom-up approaches to increasing access to safe water and sanitation facilities are proving successful. A recent study by Thillai Rajan (2015), from IIT-M, found that ‘urban planning that involves the people and alternative service providers gives far better results than top-down efforts from the government.’
I hope this helps to answer your question.
Robert