Water Privatization and the Mobilization of Power in the Philippines
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Even Flow: Water Privatization and the Mobilization of Power in the Philippines Nai Rui Chng A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, 2013 DECLARATION I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). I consider the work submitted to be a complete thesis fit for examination. I authorize that, if a degree is awarded, an electronic copy of my thesis will be deposited in LSE Theses Online held by the British Library of Political and Economic Science and that, except as provided for in regulation 41 it will be made available for public reference. I authorize the School to supply a copy of the abstract of my thesis for inclusion in any published list of theses offered for higher degrees in British universities or in any supplement thereto, or for consultation in any central file of abstracts of such theses. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 ABSTRACT This thesis investigates the politics of privatization and contentious collective action in the water sector in the Philippines. It examines the complex interplay of diverse forces in the everyday politics of water in Metropolitan Manila with a particular emphasis on organized urban poor communities and non-governmental organizations. The thesis illustrates how these groups engage with regulatory agencies, multilateral institutions, transnational corporations, informal water venders, and local machine politicians to play key roles in shaping the regulation of water provision in the developing world. Thus, to understand the material realities and lived experiences of the urban poor in cities like Metro Manila, close attention must be paid to patterns of contestation, competition, and collaboration among a diverse array of actors, across local, national, and international levels of analysis. Using Karl Polanyi’s insights on the socio-political consequences of market extension as a point of departure, I show that although water privatization and social resistance can be understood in terms of a ‘double movement’, Polanyi’s framework is insufficient for more detailed analysis. Hence, I develop new analytical tools to examine the nature of water privatization-related mobilization in the Philippines. Examining the micro-politics of the urban poor in their collective action for water at the local level, I argue that privatization has engendered countervailing power in the water sector that is neither fully transgressive nor completely contained, and steeped in local and historical legacies of radical resistance in the Philippines. At the policy level, I show how NGOs and local community groups undertake what I term “regulatory mobilization” to influence the new rules of the service delivery game, as well as to deliver much- needed basic services to urban poor communities. Depending on how local and sectoral politics are conflated, such regulatory mobilization may sometimes not only result in obtaining subsistence goods, but may also occasionally project countervailing power in the policy sector, and influence formal regulatory frameworks in surprising ways. 3 To my parents 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to the following people: Haleh Afshar, Keith Alderman, Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, Verania Andria, Haswinar Arifin, Gergely Baics, Jacqui Baker Naomi Beck, Michael Buehler, Lomel Buena, Guy Burton, Alex Callinicos, Bing Camacho, Neil Carter, John Chalcraft, Eka Chandra, Nai Yun Chng, Gladstone Cuarteros, Farimah Daftary, Shikeb Farooqui, David Howell, Donatella Della Porta, Jude Esguerra, Mervin Espina, Linda Gilroy, Daniel Haydon, Alexander Hemker, Laura Hering, Alexia Katsanidou, Daniel Large, Eunice Lau, Adrian Leftwich, Raphael Levy, Lim Thian Seng, Johnson Loo, Frances Lo, Braema Mathi, Petr Matous, Sean McMahon, Susan Mendus, Jessica Metcalf, Leo Metcalf, Bronwen Morgan, Roxanne Ong, Francisco Panizza, Athena Peralta, Kristine Quiray, Suneeta Raman, Vinita Mohan Ramani, Malini Ranganathan, Joel Rocamora, Risiandi Daniel Rumito, Isono Sadoko, Jago Salmon, Liliana Salvador, Angus Stewart, Shzr Ee Tan, Sidney Tarrow, Erik Villanueva, Markus Wagner, Agus Wandi, Nurul Widyaningrum, Edwina Yeow. I also acknowledge the assistance of the following institutions: The Government Department at the London School of Economics and Political Science, the Institute for Popular Democracy, the Max Weber Programme at the European University Institute, the Politics Department at the University of York, the Tan Kah Kee Foundation, Transient Workers Count too (TWC2), The University of London, WaterAid, Yayasan Akatiga. Special thanks to the communities of Sitio Imelda and Bagong Silang, and ‘The Left’ in the Philippines. To John Sidel, my supervisor, thank you for your mentorship. Katie Hampson, my wife, thank you for your love, and for believing in me. Jack and Charlie, our children, thank you for the sleepless nights and sheer joy you have both brought into our lives. Finally, this thesis is dedicated to my parents. Thank you, ma, pa. 我终于写完了啦! 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................ 6 GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................... 10 1 WATER PRIVATIZATION AND THE MOBILIZATION OF POWER..... 12 1.1 Movement and Countermovement......................................................... 18 1.2 Moral Economy ..................................................................................... 23 1.3 Micro-Politics of the Urban Poor........................................................... 27 1.4 Regulatory Mobilization........................................................................ 34 1.5 Accidental Ethnography ........................................................................ 39 1.6 Roadmap ................................................................................................ 46 2 THE GREAT TRANSFORMATIONS OF WATER..................................... 48 2.1 Fictitious Commodities and the Double Movement.............................. 48 2.1.1 Speenhamland: An illustration...................................................... 51 2.1.2 Contemporary politics of fictitious commodification................... 58 2.2 The ‘Great Transformations’ of Water .................................................. 62 2.2.1 The fictitious commodification of water in historical perspective: The first double movement ........................................................................... 63 2.2.2 The neoliberal privatization of water and the second water double movement...................................................................................................... 68 3 THE POLITICS OF THE ‘WATER COUNTER MOVEMENT’ ................. 74 3.1 The Second Water Counter Movement ................................................. 74 3.2 Subsistence and Resistance.................................................................... 81 3.3 Water and its Moral Economy............................................................... 85 3.3.1 The Moral Economy of the Water Counter Movement ................ 88 3.4 The Urban Poor and Water on the Eve of Privatization: Informality and Clientelism ........................................................................................................ 93 3.5 Grey Waters of Regulatory Mobilization ............................................ 100 4 OLIGARCHY AND INSTITUTIONAL SCARCITY: BACKGROUND TO WATER PRIVATIZATION IN THE PHILIPPINES ........................................ 106 4.1 A Background to Oligarchic Domination in the Philippines............... 108 6 4.2 The Institutional Scarcity of Water in the Philippines......................... 113 4.3 The ‘Development Debacle’ of the Marcos Era (1965-1986) ............. 116 4.4 Prelude to Water Privatization: Neoliberal Reform and Restoration of Oligarchic Democracy (1986-1992) ............................................................... 120 4.5 Manufacturing a ‘Water Crisis’: Ramos and the Privatization of MWSS (1992-1998)..................................................................................................... 122 4.5.1 New water utilities, old oligarchs ............................................... 126 4.6 The Contested Regulatory Framework Since Privatization................. 129 4.6.1 Regulation, service delivery, and the urban poor........................ 132 5 MOBILIZING FOR SUBSISTENCE .......................................................... 137 5.1 The Urban Poor and Water on the Eve of Privatization ...................... 139 5.1.1 The lord of Makati ...................................................................... 144 5.1.2