Configurational Analysis of Access to Basic Infrastructure Services: Evidence from Turkish Provinces

  • Rhys AndrewsEmail author
  • Malcolm J. Beynon
Original Article


In many developing countries, access to basic infrastructure services, such as sewerage and waste disposal, varies considerably across different areas. In this study, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis identifies configurations of economic and political conditions (population density, population size, income and political participation) associated with good and poor access to sewerage and waste disposal in Turkish provinces. The findings suggest that there is a core configuration of conditions associated with good access to both types of infrastructure service—high income and high political participation. A single core configuration is associated with poor access to both types of service—low population density, small population size and low political participation. Other configurations are observed relating specifically to good and poor access to sewerage and waste disposal services, respectively. We theorise the different pathways that we identify, emphasising that economic measures to support development may offer the best prospect of improving infrastructure access.


Infrastructure access Configurational analysis Economic factors Political participation Turkey 


Dans de nombreux pays en développement, l'accès aux services d'infrastructure de base, tels que l'assainissement et l'élimination des déchets, varie considérablement selon les zones. Dans cette étude, l’analyse qualitative comparée “fuzzy-set” a identifié des configurations de conditions économiques et politiques (densité de population, taille de la population, revenus et participation politique), associées à un bon et à un mauvais accès aux services d’assainissement et d’élimination des déchets dans les provinces turques. Les résultats suggèrent qu'il existe une configuration type de conditions associées à un bon accès aux deux types de services d'infrastructure - un revenu élevé et une importante participation politique. Une seule configuration type est associée à un faible accès aux deux types de services: une faible densité de population, une taille de population réduite et une faible participation politique. Les autres configurations observées concernent spécifiquement l'accès, à la fois bon et mauvais, aux services d'assainissement et aux services d'élimination des déchets, respectivement. Nous transformons les différentes voies identifiées en théories, en soulignant que les mesures économiques de soutien au développement peuvent offrir les meilleures perspectives d'amélioration de l'accès aux infrastructures.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Adida, C.L., and D.M. Girod. 2011. Do migrants improve their hometowns? Remittances and access to public services in Mexico, 1995–2000. Comparative Political Studies 44: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akilli, H., and H.S. Akilli. 2014. Decentralization and recentralization of local governments in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 140: 682–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andres, L., D. Biller, and M.H. Dappe. 2014. Infrastructure gap in South Asia: Inequality of access to infrastructure services. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 7033.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, R., M.J. Beynon, and A.M. McDermott. 2016. Organizational capability in the public sector: A configurational approach. Journal of Public Administration Research Theory 26: 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azfar, O., S. Kahkonen, A. Lanyi, P. Meagher, and D. Rutherford. 1999. Decentralization, governance and public services: The impact of institutional arrangements. A review of the literature. Centre for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector. University of Maryland, College Park: IRIS.Google Scholar
  6. Bahl, R.W., and J.F. Linn. 1992. Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barde, J.A. 2017. What determines access to piped water in rural areas? Evidence from small-scale supply systems in rural Brazil. World Development 95: 88–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg-Schlosser, D., G. De Meur, B. Rihoux, and C.C. Ragin. 2009. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as an approach. In Configurational Comparative Methods, ed. Benoit Rihoux and Charles C. Ragin, 1–18. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Bilgen, A. 2018. The Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) revisited: The evolution of GAP over forty years. New Perspectives on Turkey 58: 125–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bird, R. and R. Bahl. 2013. Decentralization and infrastructure in developing countries: Reconciling principles and practice. Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance Working Paper 16.Google Scholar
  11. Boyne, G.A. 1995. Population size and economies of scale in local government. Policy & Politics 23: 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Briceno-Garmendia, C., A. Estache, and N. Shafik. 2004. Infrastructure services in developing countries: Access, quality, costs, and policy reform. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3468.Google Scholar
  13. Burrier, G. (forthcoming). Politics or technical criteria? The determinants of infrastructure investments in Brazil. Journal of Development Studies 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
  14. Button, C. 2016. The co-production of a constant water supply in Mumbai’s middle-class apartments. Urban Research & Practice 10: 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Celebioglu, F., and S. Dall’erba. 2010. Spatial disparities across the regions of Turkey: An exploratory spatial data analysis. The Annals of Regional Science 45: 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chai, Y., and M. Schoon. 2016. Institutions and government efficiency: Decentralized irrigation management in China. International Journal of the Commons 10 (1): 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chatterley, C., K.G. Linden, and A. Javernick-Will. 2013. Identifying pathways to continued maintenance of school sanitation in Belize. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 3 (3): 441–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chatterley, C., A. Javernick-Will, K.G. Linden, K. Alam, L. Bottinelli, and M. Venkatesh. 2014. A qualitative comparative analysis of well managed school sanitation in Bangladesh. BMC Public Health 14 (1): 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cinar, T. 2009. Privatisation of urban water and sewerage services in Turkey: Some trends. Development in Practice 19: 350–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cleary, M.R. 2007. Electoral competition, participation, and government responsiveness in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science 51: 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duşa, A. 2019. The QCA Package. In QCA with R, 19–46. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Elkins, D.J., and E.B. Simeon. 1979. A cause in search of its effect, or what does political culture explain? Comparative Politics 11: 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Estache, A. 2016. Institutions for infrastructure in developing countries: What we know and the lot we still need to know. EDI-RA1 Working Paper.Google Scholar
  24. Estache, A. and M. Fay. 2009. Current debates on infrastructure policy. Working Paper No. 49. Washington, DC: Commission on Growth and Development.Google Scholar
  25. Fiss, P. 2011. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal 54: 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman, C. 2004. Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness. Industrial and Corporate Change 13: 541–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallup, J.L., J.D. Sachs, and A.D. Mellinger. 1999. Geography and economic development. International Regional Science Review 22: 179–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gasparro, K.E., and J.P. Walters. 2017. Revealing causal pathways to sustainable water service delivery using fsQCA. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 7 (4): 546–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerlitz, J.-Y., K. Hunzai, and B. Hoermann. 2012. Mountain poverty in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement 33: 250–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gerrits, L., and S. Verweij. 2016. Qualitative comparative analysis as a method for evaluating complex cases: An overview of literature and a stepwise guide with empirical application. Zeitschrift für Evaluation 15: 7–22.Google Scholar
  31. Gerrits, L., and S. Verweij. 2018. The Evaluation of Complex Infrastructure Projects: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greckhamer, T. 2011. Cross-cultural differences in compensation level and inequality across occupations: A set-theoretic analysis. Organization Studies 32: 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greckhamer, T., S. Furnari, P.C. Fiss, and R.V. Aguilera. 2018. Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization 16 (4): 482–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hirschman, A.O. 1970. Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Holcombe, E.A., E. Berg, S. Smith, M.G. Anderson, and N. Holm-Nielsen. 2018. Does participation lead to ongoing infrastructure maintenance? Evidence from Caribbean landslide mitigation projects. Journal of Development Studies 54: 1374–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Isham, J., and S. Kähkönen. 1998. Improving the delivery of water and sanitation: A model of coproduction of infrastructure services. College Park: Center for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector, University of Maryland, IRIS.Google Scholar
  37. Isham, J., D. Narayan, and L. Pritchett. 1995. Does participation improve performance? Establishing causality with subjective data. World Bank Economic Review 9: 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jordan, E., M.E. Gross, A.N. Javernick-Will, and M.J. Garvin. 2011. Use and misuse of qualitative comparative analysis. Construction Management and Economics 29: 1159–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kraus, S., D. Ribeiro-Soriano, and M. Schüssler. 2018. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and innovation research–the rise of a method. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14: 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin, J.Y. 2011. New structural economics: A framework for rethinking development. The World Bank Research Observer 26: 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lyons, W.E., D. Lowery, and R.H. DeHoog. 1992. The Politics of Dissatisfaction: Citizens, Services, and Urban Institutions. New York: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
  42. Mackie, J.L. 1965. Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (4): 245–264.Google Scholar
  43. Nauges, C., and C. Van den Berg. 2008. Economies of density, scale and scope in the water supply and sewerage sector: A study of four developing and transition economies. Journal of Regulatory Economics 34: 144–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Olson, M. 1989. Collective action. In The Invisible Hand, ed. J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman, 61–69. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parienté, W. 2017. Urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa and the challenge of access to basic services. Journal of Demographic Economics 83: 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prokopy, L.S. 2009. Determinants and benefits of household level participation in rural drinking water projects in India. Journal of Development Studies 45: 471–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prud’Homme, R. 1995. The dangers of decentralization. The World Bank Research Observer 10: 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  49. Ragin, C.C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ragin, C.C. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ragin, C.C., S.I. Strand, and C. Rubinson. 2008. User’s Guide to fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Department of Sociology: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  52. Rappaport, J., and J.D. Sachs. 2003. The United States as a coastal nation. Journal of Economic Growth 8: 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rihoux, B., and C.C. Ragin (eds.). 2009. Configurational Comparative Methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Rivas, M.G. 2012. Why do indigenous municipalities in Mexico have worse piped water coverage? Development in Practice 22: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodrik, D., A. Subramanian, and F. Trebbi. 2004. Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth 9: 131–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Roig-Tierno, N., T.F. Gonzalez-Cruz, and J. Llopis-Martinez. 2017. An overview of qualitative comparative analysis: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 2: 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roland, N., S. Rezende, and L. Heller. 2018. Application and critical assessment of qualitative comparative analysis: determinants for the presence of service provision models for water supply and sanitation services in Brazil. Water Policy 20 (3): 546–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schneider, C.Q., and C. Wagemann. 2010. Standards of good practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology 9: 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schneider, C.Q., and C. Wagemann. 2012. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schubeler, P. 1996. Participation and partnership in urban infrastructure management. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sohail, K., S. Cavill, and A.P. Cotton. 2005. Sustainable operation and maintenance of urban infrastructure: Myth or reality? Journal of Urban Planning and Development 131: 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sow, M. and I.F. Razafimahefa. 2015. Fiscal decentralization and the efficiency of public service delivery. IMF Working Paper, 15/59.Google Scholar
  63. Steckel, J.C., N.D. Rao, and M. Jakob. 2017. Access to infrastructure services: Global trends and drivers. Utilities Policy 45: 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sun, Y., F. Asante, and R. Birner. 2010. Opportunities and challenges of community-based rural drinking water supplies. International Food Policy Research Institute Discussion Paper 01026. Washington, DC: IFPRI.Google Scholar
  65. Unger, D. 1998. Building Social Capital in Thailand: Fibers, Finance and Infrastructure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Verweij, S., and L.M. Gerrits. 2012. Assessing the applicability of Qualitative Comparative Analysis for the evaluation of complex projects. In Compact 1: Public Administration in Complexity, ed. L.M. Gerrits and P.K. Marks, 93–117. Litchfield Park: Emergent Publications.Google Scholar
  67. Wallsten, S. and G. Clarke. 2002. Universal (ly bad) service: Providing infrastructure services to rural and poor urban consumers. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2868, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  68. Yu, B., S. Fan, and E. Magalhães. 2015. Trends and composition of public expenditures: A global and regional perspective. European Journal of Development Research 27: 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zezza, A., P. Winters, B. Davis, G. Carletto, K. Covarrubias, L. Tasciotti, and E. Quiñones. 2011. Rural household access to assets and markets: a cross-country comparison. European Journal of Development Research 23: 569–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff Business SchoolCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations