Fifteenth International Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Sciences

Abstract

Sustainable rural water supply has been challenged with the mode of financing and the two popular financing models have been tried by various implementing organizations in various categories such as government, non government organizations, as well as not for profit organizations. This study reviews valid reasons for both models; the most outstanding reason for subscription is its simplicity to be understood by water users in a rural setting though its downside is the reality that smaller communities, often with the poorest people, will be at a very big disadvantage since the per household payment increases. The most outstanding reason in favor of Pay for Volume (PFV) is the anticipated cross subsidy that will support smaller communities; however, the downside for the PFV is that it is labor intensive to implement and even in the future, it is anticipated to be capital intensive when automatic systems are adopted. It is therefore obvious that it is not possible to choose a perfect model between subscription and PFV. PFV is not popular and not easily adoptable to rural communities where the spirit of cross subsidy is relatively new though there are some traditional practices and norms in traditional Africa that are typical of cross subsidy in their implementation such as community contributions towards funeral, and wedding expenses among others though these arrangements do not have fixed fees, and they are voluntary, they alleviate the burden of expensive events by collective support with the expectation that it will be reciprocated.