Conflict Resolution: Benchmarking Water Utility Performance

SUMMARY The water sector has economic and symbolic importance for citizens in developing countries. Water utility benchmarking is no panacea for improving water sector performance. Nevertheless, it can contribute to addressing four sources of conflict in the design and implementation of policies: cognitive conflicts (based on technical disagreements regarding how data might be analysed and interpreted), interest conflicts (where suppliers and demanders obtain different benefits and costs under alternative policies), values conflicts (involving ideology or personal preferences regarding water sector outcomes) and authority conflicts (stemming from jurisdictional disagreements over who has the last word). These potential sources of conflict characterise most politically-charged situations, including water supply management. This article examines the extent to which water utility benchmarking facilitates conflict resolution. Without information on historical trends, current baselines and realistic targets, conflicts over reforms to improve sector performance can weaken systems that are already fragile, particularly those in developing countries. This article attempts to improve our understanding of the links between sources of conflict, government approaches for dealing with conflict and the role of water utility benchmarking as a complementary strategy for addressing policy issues. Benchmarking is one way regulators and managers can promote conflict resolution that allows participants to focus on performance. The principles apply to all sectors with significant state oversight. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  A. Estache,et al.  How Different Is the Efficiency of Public and Private Water Companies in Asia , 2002 .

[2]  William B. Lord,et al.  Conflict in Federal Water Resource Planning , 1979 .

[3]  Martin Rein,et al.  Managing Value Conflict in Public Policy , 2004 .

[4]  A. Dinar,et al.  The Institutional Economics of Water: A Cross-Country Analysis of Institutions and Performance , 2004 .

[5]  Sean Nicholson-Crotty.  Bureaucratic Competition in the Policy Process , 2005 .

[6]  P. Sabatier,et al.  Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington , 2002 .

[7]  Guillermo Sabbioni.  Econometric Measures of the Relative Efficiency of Water and Sewerage Utilities in Brazil , 2006 .

[8]  M. El-Fadel,et al.  Water in the Middle East revisited: conflict management alternatives , 2005 .

[9]  W. Maloney.  Regulation in an Episodic Policy‐Making Environment: The Water Industry in England and Wales , 2001 .

[10]  Enrique Cabrera,et al.  Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services: Third Edition , 2006 .

[11]  Tanya Heikkila,et al.  Institutional boundaries and common-pool resource management: A comparative analysis of water management programs in California , 2004 .

[12]  Stephen E. Snyder.  TEN STEPS to Negotiating High-stakes Water CONFLICTS , 2006 .

[13]  K. Sansom.  Government engagement with non‐state providers of water and sanitation services , 2006 .

[14]  D. F. Greer,et al.  Business, government, and society , 1983 .

[15]  Antonio Estache,et al.  Sector Organization, Governance, and the Inefficiency of African Water Utilities , 2002 .

[16]  Marcelo Resende,et al.  Efficiency and regulatory issues in the Brazilian water and sewage sector: an empirical study , 2004 .