Many developing countries face the challenge to implement water sector reforms to improve service quality. Our analysis focuses primarily on barriers to increases in water tariffs, which are usually a main pillar of water sector reforms. Discussing the case of Peru, we illustrate that the specific structure of voting water users together with the self-interest driven behavior of politicians on the local and central level can explain why actors refrain from implementing higher water tariffs. Water suppliers on the local level are subject to strong political interference by local politicians. To address such barriers, water tariff reforms may need to be accompanied by more fundamental institutional reforms, for example, by merging local to regional water suppliers, as well as by public campaigns making the use of funds from tariff increments for service improvements more transparent and tangible for water users.
Asociación Peruana de Empresas de Investigación de Mercados (APEIM) (2011) Niveles socioeconómicos 2011 [Socio-economic levels 2011], Lima, Peru: Author.
2.
Asociación Peruana de Empresas de Investigación de Mercados (APEIM) (2013) Niveles socioeconómicos 2013 [Socio-economic levels 2013], Lima, Peru: Author.
3.
BackebergG. R. (2005) Water institutional reforms in South Africa. Water Policy7: 107–123.
4.
BakkerK.KooyM.ShofianiN. E.MartijnE.-J. (2008) Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. World Development36: 1891–1915.
5.
BanerjeeS.FosterV.YingY.SkillingH.WodonQ. (2010) Cost recovery, equity, and efficiency in water tariffs – Evidence from African utilities, policy research working paper, Washington, DC: World Bank.
6.
BardeJ. A.LehmannP. (2014) Distributional effects of water tariff reforms – An empirical study for Lima, Peru. Water Resources and Economics6: 30–57.
7.
BatleyR. (2004) The politics of service delivery reform. Development and Change35: 31–56.
8.
BauerA.VillaverdeD. (2011) El valor económico y social de las inversiones sostenibles en agua y saneamiento en el Perú [The economic and social value of sustainable investments in water and sanitation in Peru], Lima, Peru: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
9.
BeckerG. S. (1983) A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics98: 371.
10.
BeckerG. S. (1985) Public policies, pressure groups, and dead weight costs. Journal of Public Economics28: 329–347.
11.
BohmanA.RaitioK. (2014) How frames matter—Common sense and institutional choice in Ghana’s urban water sector. Journal of Environment and Development23: 247–270.
12.
BolandJ. J.WhittingtonD. (2000) The political economy of water tariff design in developing countries: Increasing block tariff versus uniform price with rebate. In: DinarA. (ed.) The political economy of water pricing reform, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–235.
13.
CheY. K. (1995) Revolving doors and the optimal tolerance for agency collusion. The Rand Journal of Economics26: 378–397.
14.
CortonM. L. (2003) Benchmarking in the Latin American water sector: The case of Peru. Utilities Policy11: 133–142.
15.
Dal BóE. (2006) Regulatory capture – A review. Oxford Review of Economic Policy22: 203–225.
16.
Dal BóE.DiTellaR. (2003) Capture by threat. Journal of Political Economy111: 1123–1154.
17.
DinarA.BalakrishnanT. K.WambiaJ. (1997) Political economy and political risks of institutional reforms in the water sector, Washington, DC: World Bank.
18.
DownsA. (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy65: 135–150.
19.
FelgendreherS.LehmannP. (2012) The political economy of the Peruvian urban water sector. (UFZ Discussion Paper 18/2012). Leipzig, Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ.
20.
Fomento de la Vida (2003) Queremos agua limpia. Diagnóstico del sistema de abastecimiento de agua mediante camiones cisternas en las zonas periurbanas de Lima Metropolitana [We want clean water. An analysis of water supply through tank trucks in the peri-urban areas of Lima Metropolitana], Lima, Peru: Author.
21.
GerlachE.FranceysR. (2010) Regulating water services for all in developing countries. World Development38: 1229–1240.
22.
GläserJ.GaudelG. (2009) Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrument rekonstruierender Untersuchungen [Expert interviews and qualitative content analysis as means of reconstructive analyses], Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
23.
HotellingH. (1929) Stability in competition. The Economic Journal39: 41–57.
24.
IsraelD. K. (2007) Impact of increased access and price on household water use in Urban Bolivia. Journal of Environment and Development16: 58–83.
25.
KayagaS.FranceysR. (2008) Costs of urban utility water connections: Excessive burden to the poor. Utilities Policy15: 270–277.
26.
KirchgässnerG.SchneiderF. (2003) On the political economy of environmental policy. Public Choice115: 369–396.
27.
KlienM. (2014) The political side of public utilities: How opportunistic behaviour and yardstick competition shape water prices in Austria. Papers in Regional Science94(4): 869–890.
28.
LaffontJ. J.TiroleJ. (1991) The politics of government decision-making: A theory of regulatory capture. The Quarterly Journal of Economics106: 1089.
29.
LeaverC. (2009) Bureaucratic minimal squawk behavior: Theory and evidence from regulatory agencies. The American Economic Review99: 572–607.
30.
LuziS. (2010) Driving forces and patterns of water policy making in Egypt. Water Policy12: 92–113.
31.
MadhooY. N. (2004) Political economy of water pricing policy: Empirical evidence from public utilities in Mauritius. Water Resources Research40: W07301.
32.
McKenzieD.RayI. (2009) Urban water supply in India: Status, reform options and possible lessons. Water Policy11: 442–460.
33.
MeltzerA. H.RichardS. F. (1981) A rational theory of the size of government. The Journal of Political Economy89: 914–927.
34.
MemonM. A.ImuraH.ShirakawaH. (2006) Reforms for managing urban environmental infrastructure and services in Asia. Journal of Environment and Development15: 138–157.
35.
MirallesA. (2008) The link between service privatization and price distribution among consumer types: Municipal water services in the Spanish region of Catalonia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26: 159–172.
36.
MoriA. (2011) Overcoming barriers to effective environmental aid: A comparison between Japan, Germany, Denmark, and the World Bank. Journal of Environment and Development20: 3–26.
37.
NollR. G.ShirleyM. M.CowanS. (2000) Reforming urban water systems in developing countries. In: KruegerA. O. (ed.) Economic policy reform: The second stage, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 243–289.
38.
NordhausW. D. (1975) The political business cycle. The Review of Economic Studies42: 169–190.
39.
OlmsteadS. M.StavinsR. N. (2009) Comparing price and nonprice approaches to urban water conservation. Water Resources Research45: W04301.
40.
OlsonM. (1965) The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009) Managing water for all – An OECD perspective on pricing and financing, Paris, France: Author.
42.
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2010) Pricing water resources and water and sanitation services, Paris, France: Author.
43.
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2012) Meeting the water reform challenge, Paris, France: Author.
44.
OstromV.OstromE. (1972) Legal and political conditions of water resource development. Land Economics48: 1–14.
45.
PeltzmanS. (1976) Toward a more general theory of regulation, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
46.
Presidente de la República (2011) Determinan valores de las retribuciones económicas por el uso de agua superficial, aguas subterráneas y vertimiento de agua residual tratada para el año 2012, Decreto Supremo N° 014-2011-AG [Determination of values of charges for using surface water, groundwater and the discharge of treated wastewater for the year 2012, Supreme Decree No. 014-2011-AG]. El Peruano28(11659): 456049–456051.
47.
ReuberP.PfaffenbachC. (2005) Methoden der empirischen Humangeographie [Methods of empirical human geography], Braunschweig, Germany: Das Geographische Seminar.
48.
RingskogK.YepesG.VasquesR. (2007) Evaluación de los operadores locales de pequeña escala de agua y saneamiento en el Perú [Evaluation of small-scale operators of water supply and sanitation in Peru], Lima, Peru: Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.
49.
RogersP.de SilvaR.BhatiaR. (2002) Water is an economic good: How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water Policy4: 1–17.
50.
SternM.EchavarríaM. (2013) Mecanismos de retribución por servicios hídricos para la cuenca del Alto Mayo, Departamento de San Martín, Perú [Mechanisms for charging hydrological services in the Alto Mayo catchment, Departamento de San Martín, Peru], Washington, DC: Forest Trends.
51.
StiglerG. J. (1971) The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science2: 3–21.
52.
Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios de Saneamiento (SUNASS) (2006) Un reto pendiente – Infraestructura de agua potable y alcantarillado urbano en el Perú [A pending challenge: Infrastructure for urban water supply and sanitation in Peru], Lima, Peru: Author.
53.
Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios de Saneamiento (SUNASS) (2010) Estudio tarifario – Determinación del proyecto de la fórmula tarifaria, estructura tarifaria y metas de gestión aplicables a la empresa de servicio de agua potable y alcantarillado SEDAPAL S.A [Tariff study: Determination of the tariff formula, the tariff structure and the management objectives for the water supply and sanitation utility SEDAPAL S.A.], Lima, Peru: Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios de Saneamiento, Gerencia de Regulación Tarifaria.
54.
Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios de Saneamiento (SUNASS) (2011a) Benchmarking regulatorio de las EPS [Regulatory benchmarking of the water utilities (EPS)], Lima, Peru: Author.
55.
Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios de Saneamiento (SUNASS) (2011b) Las EPS y su desarrollo 2011 [The water utilities (EPS) and their development in 2011], Lima, Peru: Author.
56.
Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios de Saneamiento (SUNASS) (2012) Informe de gestión 2007–2011 [Management report 2007--2011], Lima, Peru: Author.
57.
Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios de Saneamiento (SUNASS) (2013) Las EPS y su desarrollo 2013 [The water utilities (EPS) and their development in 2013], Lima, Peru: Author.
58.
TimminsC. (2002) Does the median voter consume too much water? Analyzing the redistributive role of residential water bills. National Tax Journal55: 687–702.
59.
TiroleJ. (1986) Hierarchies and bureaucracies: On the role of collusion in organizations. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization2: 181.
60.
TullockG. (1967) The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies and theft. Western Economic Journal5: 224–232.
61.
United Nations (2013) The millennium development goals report 2013, New York, NY: Author.
62.
World Bank (2006) Infrastructure in Europe and central Asia region: Approaches to sustainable services, Washington, DC: World Bank, Europe and Central Asia Region, Infrastructure Department.
63.
World Bank (2011) The political economy of sanitation: How can we increase investment and improve service for the poor? WSP technical paper, Washington, DC: World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program.
64.
World Wide Fund for Nature (2011) Big cities, big water. Big challenges. Water in an urbanizing world, Berlin, Germany: Author.
