Linking sanitation policy to service delivery in Rwanda and Uganda: From words to action

Abstract

Motivation The gap between policy, implementation and outcome is neither new nor specific to the sphere of sanitation. This article attempts to apply policy implementation literature in the context of developing countries, when much of the scholarly work on implementation and policy process and empirical research has been in the context of developed countries. Purpose This article explores the gap between sanitation policy intentions and outcomes in a comparative study in Rwanda and Uganda with “good” and “limited or no” reported progress respectively towards the former Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Approach and methods From a multi‐level governance perspective, the gap between strong political will and insufficient resources, implementation and outcome, is examined by drawing on policy and implementation theories and empirical research. The selection of variables for comparison is based on a range of factors theorized as affecting outcome in contemporary governance. Findings Whereas the policy climate and prioritization of sanitation has been favourable in much of sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), resources and capacity constraints, especially at the local level, negatively affect sector performance in an increasingly decentralized governance landscape. Progress in Rwanda is explained by stronger political leadership and support for sanitation, stringent performance monitoring and oversight, an institutionalized community‐based approach, and investment in rural sanitation. Policy implications This article shows that the management of sanitation depends on a changing governance landscape; leadership is important for overall sector improvement; networks present co‐ordination challenges; approaching sanitation as a public concern requires strong government intervention; the move towards markets necessitates government oversight; approaches that foster inclusion and legitimacy at the local level need to be considered.

Water security in sub‐Saharan Africa: Understanding the status of sustainable development goal 6

“…Water governance is also constrained by policies involving significant compromises-and the political will/capacity to address these may be lacking. Some of these include urban water supply governance (Adams et al, 2019), sanitation governance (Ekane et al, 2014(Ekane et al, , 2020, irrigation governance (Lefore et al, 2019;Woodhouse et al, 2017), groundwater governance (Jiménez et al, 2017;Whaley et al, 2019), community water supply governance (Alexander et al, 2015), governance of water related disasters (Bahta et al, 2016;Bottazzi et al, 2019;King-Okumu et al, 2018). The multiple dimensions of water governance suggest a need to adopt a polycentric approach to water governance considering the interlinkages among the different dimensions.…”

Rural Sanitation Sustainability Dynamics: Gaining Insight through Participatory and Simulation Modeling

“…Subnational governance plays a key role in enabling access to improved sanitation, by enhancing or limiting the effectiveness of national sanitation policies . Huston et al found that district-level bodies were an effective platform for learning and knowledge dissemination and that actors at this level were representative of key roles and perspectives related to water governance .…”

Every rung counts–A retrospective analysis of global sanitation progress across the service-level ladder under the MDGs

“…The diverse approaches used in these four countries may provide insight on how to eliminate OD and increase Basic sanitation under the SDGs. The sanitation strategies documented in other countries with high OD may also provide insight, for example Haiti [46,47] and Rwanda [48,49]. Ghana provides an example of an approach based on shared sanitation that could yield progress on preventing disease, even though it may not contribute substantially to global sanitation targets.…”