Access to drinking water in sub-Saharan Africa: does the developmental state doctrine matter?

Abstract

Using data from 14 sub-Saharan African countries, this study investigates the relevance of the developmental state doctrine to enhancing access to improved drinking water sources and to reducing urban–rural inequalities in access to improved sources and piped-on premises. Although access to improved water sources and urban–rural inequality seems better in developmental states than in non-developmental states, we have not found sufficient support for the claim that the developmental state approach is the best alternative. The influence of corruption is, unexpectedly, higher in developmental states than in non-developmental states. Moreover, both developmental states and non-developmental states were not significantly investing in access to drinking water supply programs. We find that the total population growth rate is the strongest predictor, rather than regime type. Other factors that explain the variation between all samples of developmental states and non-developmental states are identified and discussed, and implications are outlined. Points for practitioners There is significant variation in access to improved drinking water sources and urban–rural inequalities in access to improved sources and piped-on premises between developmental states and non-developmental states. The relevance of the developmental state doctrine to improving access to drinking water, reducing socio-economic inequalities in access to drinking water, and realizing Sustainable Development Goal targets in sub-Saharan Africa is ambiguous. We advise strengthening a functional Weberian bureaucracy and promoting political decentralization.

A conceptual framework for gender and climate mainstreaming to mitigate water inaccessibility in ruralsub‐SaharanAfrica

“…Even when sufficient water is physically available, water may still be inaccessible (Akinyemi et al, 2005; Alexander et al, 2015; Armah et al, 2018; Asoba et al, 2019; Atangana Ondoa, 2017; Busari, 2002; Cole et al, 2015; Debela et al, 2020; Dinko et al, 2018; Dugard & Mohlakoan, 2009; Dungumaro, 2007; Emenike et al, 2017; Engel et al, 2007; Fisher et al, 2015; Foster, 2013; Gondo & Kolawole, 2013; Hamlet et al, 2021; Hope et al, 2020; Hope & Rouse, 2013; Marcatelli, 2013; Marcatelli, 2014; Marson & Savin, 2014; Miller, Frongillo, et al, 2021; Mosimane & Kamwi, 2020; et al, 2006; Sjöstedt, 2009; Smiley et al, 2020; Swatuk & Kgomotso, 2007; Yang et al, 2013). Economic water scarcity is defined as a lack of infrastructure or poor water resources management (Busari, 2002; Noemdoe et al, 2006; Swatuk & Kgomotso, 2007), and is a factor in SSA that increases distance required to fetch water (Egbinola, 2017).…”

“…The political system impacts water inaccessibility through, for example, corrupt bureaucratic procedures, ineffective decision‐making, and the absence of transparency in public offices and institutions to develop and manage water resources and infrastructure, which lead to poor construction, inappropriate technologies, and incomplete projects and programs (Debela et al, 2020; Hofstetter et al, 2008; Matamanda et al, 2015; Morinville & Rodina, 2013; Noemdoe et al, 2006; Swatuk & Kgomotso, 2007; Wrisdale et al, 2017). Ineffective governance and weak institutional frameworks also create persisting poverty and unemployment, which can make it challenging for low‐income households to pay for water services or buy water from alternative sources during periods of water inaccessibility (Busari, 2002; Galaitsi et al, 2001; Hailu et al, 2021; Jiwani & Antiporta, 2020; Kativhu et al, 2017; Miller et al, 2020; Monteith et al, 2020; Noemdoe et al, 2006; Osei et al, 2015; Wrisdale et al, 2017).…”