Search

Since the 1990s China has emerged as one of the world's most active markets for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in water and sanitation, while the private sector has played a rather limited role in the water sector in India. From 2001 to 2012, there were 237 PPP projects in water and sanitation in China, accounting for 40% of the total number of such projects globally, and the Chinese population served by private water companies increased from merely 8% in 1989 to 38% in 2008. Development of PPPs in the water sector in India during the same period was insignificant. Our comparative analysis of PPPs in water and sanitation in the two countries highlights the importance of water tariff reform, strong support and oversight from the national government, and the availability of credible regulatory mechanisms to safeguard development and sustainability of PPPs in the water sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe water pollution is among the top policy priorities in both China and India. This paper undertakes a comparative case analysis to examine efforts in combating river pollution in two major rivers - the Yangtze in China and the Ganga in India. Our analysis suggests that efforts in combating river pollution in the two Asian giants have encountered substantial challenges, such as the lack of comprehensive legal mechanisms to control pollution at the basin level, the lack of coordination among multiple government agencies, and significant gaps in policy implementation. Our analysis also points out considerable differences between China and India in institutional structure, regulatory approaches and policy instruments in dealing with river pollution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the intricate issues that prompt water pricing reform in China and India. China adopts a comprehensive pricing framework of cost of resources, treatment and distribution, and environmental requirements, which has been gradually developed part by part since 1980 based on the perception and change of water issues in the country. India follows a simple approach of cost recovery, though its recent policy guidelines talk about more systematic pricing. The results present that both countries fail to realize water pricing policy targets regardless of different pricing structures. But China and India are on the same road and direction of water pricing and China goes a little farther. The treatment of water resources and its services, and property rights have a significant impact on pricing, and costs, including service, resources and environment, are difficult to recover. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Water rights are widely regarded as a crucial component to enhance efficient water use and for meeting a country's water resource challenges. This article presents a framework for analyzing and comparing the similarities as well as differences of the water rights systems between India and China. The article relies on the method of document research and comparative analysis to compare general characteristics of India and China's water rights systems based on six evaluation indicators and evaluation principles. Using this analytical framework, this paper compares the implementation effects of the water rights systems in terms of the degree of meeting water resources demand, conflict-resolution means and the protection of water resources. Our findings provide insights for the reformation of the water rights systems and bring out lessons that other developing countries can learn from India and China's experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the area of water governance, there has been little systematic comparison between China and India. The intended contributions of this special issue are threefold. A comparative study of water governance between China and India not only provides opportunities for the two countries to draw lessons from each other, but also sheds light on similar challenges in water resources management in other developing countries. In addition, both China and India are key riparian countries in some of Asia's most important international river basins, and their approaches to water conflicts in these rivers have significant impacts not only on water security but also on regional stability. Finally, comparative water governance is a new and undeveloped field of study. This special volume introduces a Modified Institutional Analysis and Development Framework as a tool to facilitate more systematic, theoretical, and comparative approaches to water governance in the context of comparative study of China and India. It does so by specifying various dimensions of the institutional context and how they could explain variations in the performance of the water sector. The aim is to help advance the current theoretical and applied discourse on comparative water governance as a basis for improving water sector performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Special Edition of Water Policy is one outcome of an innovative educational and research project, the Harvard Water Federalism Project, designed to train a new generation of students from a wide variety of disciplines to address the growing challenge of water security. This paper describes the core ideas behind the project, namely the creation of a new generation of 'specialized integrators' and that of exposing students to the wisdom of 'thinking practitioners'. The paper describes the particular water problem chosen, namely that of the infrastructural and institutional challenges involved with the development and management of water in large rivers (the Colorado, Indus, Mississippi, Murray-Darling and Sao Francisco) in federal countries (Australia, Brazil, Pakistan and the United States). The paper serves as an overview to the basin papers written by multi-disciplinary student teams, and draws some general lessons from this comparative analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special edition is devoted to the theme of water institutions, infrastructure and performance indicators and how they matter to the effectiveness and efficiency of the water sector. It explores many questions which have not been adequately addressed in the literature. For example, what do we know about institutional reforms in the water sector? Can regulation improve the performance of government-controlled water utilities? What explains the choices amongst governance mechanisms in the water sector? How do political institutions affect water sector performance? How do we construct an index of drinking water adequacy? Can the media influence the formation of beliefs about the "yuck" factor in water reuse? Empirical examples are drawn from various countries and regions around the world. Contributors include economists, sociologists, political scientists, consultants, water policy professionals and staff of donor agencies. The methodological approaches employed range from meta-analyses, comparative analyses, content analyses, statistical and econometric analyses, as well as single case studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]