Experience with private sector participation in Grenoble, France, and lessons on strengthening public water operations
Introduction
The city of Grenoble (158,000 inhabitants), which has good quality water resources and a satisfactory network, nevertheless experienced an intense period of change from the mid-1980s in the provision of water services. More precisely, a number of reforms have been introduced in relation to water supply, sewerage and wastewater treatment, ranging from various types of private sector participation (PSP) under the French system of “gestion déléguée” to re-municipalisation.
This article draws from a more extensive report on decision making in Grenoble, developed in the context of the WaterTime project (Lobina, 2006), 2 which provides a more detailed account of the various reforms undergone by local water services. For the purpose of this essay, the analysis of events focuses on the reform of urban water supply but it should be noted that parallel and analogous developments have affected sewerage and wastewater treatment operations (Lobina, 2006: 25–29).
Water operations were privatised in 1989 with the award of a lease contract, in return for financial support for a mayoral election campaign, which was subsequently judged to be corrupt. The private operator re-negotiated a different form of contract following this, but problematic economic effects on consumers persisted while the legal validity of operations proved uncertain, and years of political activity were involved before the contract was terminated. Legal and audit processes played a significant role in this process. Eventually, management and operations were brought under full municipal control and this decision appears so far to have been rewarding for consumers.
The observation of the above sequence of events, with municipal decision making going full circle throughout the entire spectrum of reform options, allows for comparing the implications of different types of public, private and public–private operations in the same context. From the methodological point of view, this presents the advantage of neutralising geographic and technical factors as possible explanation for different outcomes of reform in different cities. Unity of space means that, apart from ownership of operations, time might remain the only significant factor determining the results associated with different reforms. For example, changes in legislation governing service provision are expected to produce an effect only from the moment of their introduction.
As regards the evaluation of specific types of reform, the processes at Grenoble provide an acute illustration of the complex relationships and processes that can be experienced in the French system. This exercise is of relevance beyond the French context as, with the promotion of PSP gathering pace since the early 1990s, similar contractual frameworks to those experienced in Grenoble have been increasingly introduced not only in Europe but also at international level. In that sense, the observation of factors varying from the fiscal considerations of local governments to individual and organisational interest-seeking, from the distribution of resources among relevant actors to transparency and accountability mechanisms, provides valuable indications for the analysis of water sector reform in different contexts. Finally, the stark contrast in outcome between current municipal operations and previously adopted organisational modes, both under public and private management, allows for deriving general lessons on the determinants of successful public water operations.
The first section of the article is devoted to setting out the analytical framework underlying the case study, on the background of relevant theoretical perspectives. A brief overview of the French institutional framework follows, aimed at identifying the main contractual and operational typologies together with recent legislation affecting the organisation of water services. After a brief history of the development of Grenoble's water supply system, each section addresses one of the episodes in which the narrative of events has been divided: the award of lease contracts in 1989 and their operation until 1996; the re-negotiation of the lease contracts from 1995 to 2000; and the re-municipalisation of water operations from 2000 to date. Finally, findings are discussed and concluding remarks set out.
In the absence of an exhaustive survey of French private water operations, this article is not aimed at claiming that events unfolding in Grenoble from 1989 to 2000 are representative of all private contracts awarded in France. Conversely, there is sufficient empirical evidence supporting the view that the dynamics between actors and factors observed in Grenoble are representative of many French and international cases whereby both municipal water provision and PSP have proved problematic. In that sense, the analysis of events in Grenoble allows for gaining valuable insights on problems often associated with municipal and private operations, as well as on the potential for reforming municipal undertakings to strengthen their performance without renouncing public management and ownership. It is argued that the achievement of reform objectives through the introduction of PSP is considerably difficult due to tenuous principal–agent relationships, with service provision predominantly informed by private operators’ commercial interests. Furthermore, advanced participation and transparency mechanisms are instrumental to strengthening the effectiveness of principal–agent relationships established around the provision of urban water services. Sectoral reform should thus be informed by the awareness of the potential contribution of enhanced accountability networks in terms of operational effectiveness and sustainability.
Section snippets
Analytical framework and underlying theoretical perspectives
The analytical framework informing all case studies under the WaterTime project, including the Grenoble case study, is based on the consideration of interrelationships among actors, factors and events throughout time (WaterTime, 2003). The analytical framework sees decision making on the reform of urban water systems, from diagnosis to implementation of decisions made, as the result of actors pursuing different interests and objectives through the respectively available resources in a context
The organisation of water services in France: an overview
Responsibility for the organisation of water services in France rests with local authorities, who are free to decide whether to select a private operator or entrust a public enterprise with service provision (Bauby and Lupton, 2004: 21).
Under French law, water operations might be managed by the following types of operator: (a) 100% municipally owned undertakings known as régie; (b) mixed economy enterprises known as Société d'économie mixte; and (c) private companies, under a number of
Brief history of Grenoble's water supply prior to 1989
Water supply in Grenoble remained under municipal management from the beginning of operations in the late 19th century until the award of a privatised contract in 1989. Up to the 1960s, decision making on water provision was dominated by the imperative to meet the requirements of continuous expansion in terms of urban population and economic activity. Between 1965 and 1971, the municipality of Grenoble built three new wells for the abstraction of groundwater, which secured the city with a
Award of lease contract to COGESE, 1989–1996
In 1984, the then Mayor of Grenoble, Alain Carignon, a prominent member of the RPR party, initiated a new policy in favour of private sector participation in gas, electricity and water services. In 1989, Mr. Carignon took the initiative to privatise the city's water services to Lyonnaise des Eaux’ subsidiary COGESE (Compagnie de Gestion des Eaux du Sud-Est). The deal went ahead in spite of strong opposition led by the green political party, ADES, and trade unions, supported by several consumers
Decision to re-negotiate the water supply and sewerage lease contracts: 1995–2000
In June 1995 municipal elections led to a change in the ruling coalition, from right- to left-wing, and the same year the court case exposed the corrupt deal behind the 1989 award. Grenoble City Council opted for negotiating a new solution with Lyonnaise des Eaux, rather than terminating the contract. ADES was opposed to this decision but could not prevent it. The new majority decided to re-negotiate as it estimated the municipality would have to pay more for termination.
As the municipality had
Administrative court rulings: 1989–1999
Following the corrupt deal in November 1989, the then opposition had challenged the privatisation in court but the Tribunal Administratif rejected the request to void the decision of the City Council on grounds of ultra vires.
ADES however continued legal proceedings and, in October 1997, the original decision to delegate water services to COGESE was annulled by the French Conseil d'Etat for being illegal (Conseil d'État, 1997a). Although the court sentence did not rule on the validity of the
Discussion of findings
The following findings drawn from the Grenoble case study appear to be relevant to enhancing sustainability through urban water reform. These are discussed in three sections. The first sets out generalised observations derived from the analysis of the Grenoble case study in light of the adopted analytical framework and the considered theoretical perspectives. The second section points to empirical evidence corroborating the findings discussed and illustrating their relevance beyond the case of
Conclusions
We offer the following conclusions in light of the observed empirical evidence and discussed findings.
The introduction of PSP in the water sector carries considerable risks that the intended objectives of reform might prove difficult and costly to achieve. This reflects the fact that the distribution of resources among actors, the rules informing the relationships among the parties and market structure, might favour the fulfilment of private operators’ commercial interests over those of the
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from the European Commission for the WaterTime project (EVK4-2002-0095, http://www.watertime.net). This article is based partly on the work and results of that project.
References (60)
Corruption in public service delivery: experience from South Asia's water and sanitation sector
World Development
(2004)- ADES, 1996. Eau de Grenoble – Autopsie d'un “Waterl'Eau”!. Supplement to Le Rouge et le Vert, n° 54, July...
- Avrillier, R., 2005. Le retour aux sources: l'exemple de la remunicipalisation du service de l'eau de Grenoble...
- Bauby, P., Lupton, S., 2004. Chapter 2: Country Report France in Euromarket, Workpackage 4 (Phase 2): Analysis of the...
- Braadbaart, O., 2001. Privatizing water. The Jakarta concession and the limits of contract. Paper presented at KITLV...
- Chávez, F., 2006. Bolivia: Cochabamba's ’Water War’, Six Years On. Inter Press Service News Agency, 8 November 2006...
- Chambre régionale des Comptes Rhône-Alpes, 1995. Observations définitives de la gestion des services de l'eau et de...
- Chambre régionale des Comptes Rhône-Alpes, 2003. Lettre d'observations définitives sur la gestion des services de l'eau...
The nature of the firm
- Conseil d'État, 1997a. Arrêt du Conseil d'État n° 133849 le...
La gestion des services publics locaux d'eau et d'assainissement
Restructuring and privatization in the public utilities – Europe
Privatisation, multinationals and corruption
Development in Practice
Actor Analysis for Water Resources Management – Putting the Promise into Practice
Public choice
Cited by (28)
Factors affecting customers’ satisfaction with tap water quality: Does privatisation matter in Italy?
2020, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :After a referendum in 2011 and a growing debate about the importance of the public management of water resources, Italian policy makers are now discussing the opportunity to change the legal framework defined by Decree 152/2006, which allows both direct public management and delegated management by publicly, mixed, and privately owned firms by addressing more stringent and possibly exclusive public management of the urban water service (Legislative proposal n. 52/2018 to the Italian Parliament). The debate has spurred major controversy about the supposed linkage between privatisation and many relevant and still critical issues regarding urban water service (Lobina, 2005), such as tariff growth (González-Gómez and García-Rubio, 2018; Lobina and Hall, 2007), lower investments realised than those needed (Romano et al., 2013; Lobina and Hall, 2007), and high dividend payout (Michaely and Roberts, 2012; Romano and Guerrini, 2019). In fact, investment needs are still pressing: according to the Italian National Institute of Statistics ([ISTAT], 2018), in Italy, water losses averaged 41.4% in 2015 (with 38.3% real losses), with some areas and regions reaching more than 50% on average, placing Italy among the most critical of European countries, in which the average value of water losses are 23%, including non-revenue water, along with Ireland, Malta, and Romania (EurEau, 2017).
Water utility efficiency assessment in Italy by accounting for service quality: An empirical investigation
2017, Utilities PolicyCitation Excerpt :Since the governance of water services has been a major topic throughout the world over the last three decades, empirical studies have frequently investigated differences in efficiency between publicly owned utilities (PWCs) and public-private partnerships (PPPWCs), with conflicting results (Abbott and Cohen, 2009; Berg and Marques, 2011; Hall, 2001; Lobina and Hall, 2007; Marques, 2008; Peda et al., 2013; Pérard, 2009).1
The effects of ownership, board size and board composition on the performance of Italian water utilities
2014, Utilities PolicyCitation Excerpt :Some authors argue that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) – i.e., corporate entities established to pursue public policy and commercial objectives, which are wholly owned either by the State or a local government – will perform less efficiently and less profitably than privately-owned ones (Shleifer and Vishny, 1994; Boycho et al., 1996) and that ownership, together with competition, is important in promoting efficiency (Boardman and Vining, 1989; Bozec and Dia 2007). Studies have provided conflicting results regarding the impact of privatization on economic efficiency and profitability (Bakker, 2003; García-Sánchez, 2006; Lobina and Hall, 2007; Marques, 2008; Carrozza, 2011), as well as on investment and financial structure (Shaoul, 1997; Vinnari and Hukka, 2007; Romano et al., 2013). With reference to the Italian context, Guerrini et al. (2011) find that privately-owned utilities are more oriented toward profit, since their financial ratios, such as return on sales (ROS), are twice those of publicly-owned companies, and financial leverage is used extensively.
The French model and water challenges in developing countries: Evidence from Jakarta and Manila
2013, Policy and SocietyCitation Excerpt :In 2001, a corruption scandal in Grenoble led to re-municipalization of the water supply, and since then several municipalities, including Paris, have followed suit either by canceling concession contracts or not renewing them. A major criticism of the private water concessions is their poor value for the amount of money invested, as their water tariffs are higher than rates in publicly owned water utilities (Chong, Huet, Saussier, & Steiner, 2006; Lobina & Hall, 2007). The comparative analysis presented here, of applications of French model in Jakarta and Manila, reveals a fundamental deficiency of the model: inadequate attention to need for regulation.
Decision-making and participation: The Watertime results
2007, Utilities PolicyCitation Excerpt :There remains a need for further study of the dynamics between actors, factors, and public participation, as discussed in the article on Grenoble in the current issue (Lobina and Hall, 2007).
Exploring user co-regulation of public services: insights from the Grenoble water user committee
2023, Public Management Review
- 1
Tel.: +44 (0) 2083318476; fax: +44 (0) 20833 18655.