Go to the ID21 home page

Insights
id21 logo ID21 Home
id21 logo Insights
id21 logo Issue #27
Time for welfare pluralism? New approaches to social provision
Best of both worlds?
New patterns of social provision in low-income countries
-
Mixed experiences.
Assessing public-private approaches to social service provision in Latin America
To purchase or provide.
Should governments contract out hospital care?
Wasted opportunities?
People, livelihoods and garbage in South Asia
-
- - -

September 1998 Insights Issue #27

Back to Insights #27

Wasted opportunities?

People, livelihoods and garbage in South Asia

Solid waste management (SWM) means collection, transportation and disposal of garbage. It is a vital link in urban water supply and sanitation, twin concerns that form a key focus of urban development. International agencies have seized on SWM as a suitable showcase for private involvement in urban service delivery and some of South Asia's biggest cities are following their lead. A London School of Economics study in India and Pakistan highlights back-street partnerships that already function in and alongside official waste recovery and disposal systems, cemented by complex social interactions. Replacing this informal waste economy with new-look formal contracts could needlessly sweep away existing public-private systems that work reliably and also offer much-needed lifelines for the poorest.

Links between adequate urban water and sanitation services and human well being make this area of social provision a key factor in poverty reduction, while uneven supply across cities means there are also equity issues at stake. The negative externalities associated with poor water supply and sanitation and the impact this has on the effective functioning of cities also point to efficiency arguments. Urban water supply and sanitation are inextricably linked. In addition to creating a health hazard in itself, failure to collect, recover and dispose of wastes can lead to contaminated groundwater and to blocked sewers and drains. Yet SWM remains a neglected issue, a Cinderella among urban services.

It is, even so, attracting growing attention in the South for reasons that extend beyond obvious public health concerns. International agencies and (in their wake) big municipalities, have targeted SWM as a key entry point for promoting private involvement in urban service delivery. In justification, they point to administrative failures and to labour-intensive methods that smack of inefficiency. They see services for collection (as distinct from disposal) of solid waste as goods of a dual character, private and public in one.

The primary emphasis of existing schemes for boosting private participation has been on contracting services out to large-scale private operators. Though many see potential for integrating informal waste recycling and community participation into official SWM systems, it has proved difficult to scale-up or replicate informal and decentralised initiatives to the city level.

Research in India and Pakistan shows how important it can be to understand the social relations that underpin SWM. The low social status of people working with waste almost worldwide is compounded in South Asia by the idea that people are born to this work due to their caste or hereditary group status. One consequence is that it is inordinately hard to get householders to participate in community-based schemes.

Figure 1 Figure 1: Participants in waste collection and recycling, urban South Asia

Where neighbourhood initiatives succeed, community-based organisations invariably contract waste workers to collect and remove waste. Sweepers working for municipalities or in a private capacity can, however, sabotage such schemes as they already provide informal door-to-door waste collection to households, over and above the official street cleaning service. The LSE research also revealed that:
  • women are primarily responsible for waste work within the household
  • along with children and domestic workers, women sort and sell recyclable materials
  • women are the key to controlling access to waste in households, although they have been ignored by previous studies of SWM systems
  • there are multiple gatekeepers and access points to wastes on city streets and dumps.

Though they are the most conspicuous participants, waste pickers form but one of a number of groups dependent for their livelihoods on the complex recycling chain that begins in the urban household (see flowchart). Pickers are also vitally dependent on sweepers and their supervisors for access to waste sources. A dilemma in trying to integrate informal waste recycling into official SWM is that the former thrives by reason of its informality and sometimes illegality.

Informal SWM systems are complex, based on asymmetrical social relationships and riddled with rent-seeking opportunities. Yet however pernicious they might appear, if policymakers ignore them they risk:

  • failing to approach decentralising initiatives in the most efficacious and fair manner
  • wasting opportunities to promote public-private partnerships that provide livelihoods
  • unravelling efforts by people in poverty to fend for themselves by informal means

Jo Beall, Department of Social Policy and Administration, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK

T: + 44 (0)171 955 7563
F: + 44 (0)171 955 7415

Email: J.Beall@lse.ac.uk

Sources:

  1. Thoughts on Poverty from a South Asian Rubbish Dump: Gender, Inequality and Household Waste. IDS Bulletin 28 (3): 73-90, by J. Beall (June, 1997)
  2. Social Capital in Waste - A Solid Investment. Journal of International Development 9(7): 951-962, by J. Beall (November-December 1997)
  3. Understanding and Managing Solid Waste Systems. Final Report on ESCOR Project ESP270, UK Department for International Development. By Ian Blore (1996)
FREE Information Delivery services from ID21:
Get updates by email: ID21 news
ID21 is enabled by the UK Government Department for International Development(www.dfid.gov.uk) and hosted by the Institute of Development Studies (www.ids.ac.uk/ids), at the University of Sussex, UK. Charitable Company No. 877338. ID21 is a oneworld.net (www.oneworld.org) partner and a mediachannel affiliate (www.mediachannel.org).

Top of the page

Views expressed in INSIGHTS are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and
institution(s) are acknowledged.

Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.