is the geographic conditions of the area where water systems are constructed, especially the water quality and availability at source (Wang et al. 2019). Water availability directly reduces water supply. Bad water quality causes infrastructure breakdown through corrosion of pipes and clogging of pumps. A second set of variables are related to the economic conditions of the community that affect sustainability through several channels. These include the communities’ ability to pay tariffs and bear the cost of repairs, their access to maintenance tools and spare parts, and their access to technicians or other businesses that could support O&M (Connors 2005; Gine and Perez Fouguet 2008). Finally, a third set of variables center around institutional factors, both at scheme level and at higher governance levels, such as the regulatory environment governing the sector (Fisher 2017; World Bank 2017a). Drawing from this literature, the World Bank compendium (2017a) identifies key institutional functions from central to local government for the long-term sustainability of systems, including (a) _institutional support_ - capacity building of community groups by higher institutional levels; (b) _financial sustainability_ - through an assessment of realistic consumer demand and flexible design standards, investments in communications to transition to metered house connections, and tariff guidelines based on a life cycle costs approach that clearly defines responsibility for financing; (c) _asset management_ - clarity around asset ownership and responsibilities for capital maintenance and water point mapping exercises; (d) _water resource management_ ; and (v) developing improved national _monitoring and evaluation_ systems using service standards and effective feedback mechanisms.

However, the identification of good practice institutional forms and functions seldom translates linearly into practice. As Andrews, Pritchett, and Woolcock (2017) have shown, the bridge from de jure guides to de facto practice involves iterative adaptations of the intended intervention because implementation is much messier and ad hoc than scripted plans. Between the inputs of service standards and life cycle costing and the outcome of sustainable delivery lie a host of actors, incentives, and coordination costs that are rarely reflected in the formal theory of change in projects. The functioning of community water groups is not only a techno-managerial exercise but driven more by social dynamics of users (Kähköne <mark>n 1999)</mark> , local governance capacity (Boex and Simatupang 2015), and local power structures (Khemani et al. 2016). In fact, this strong focus on regularized and formalized activities draws attention away from the more realistic dynamics of water management as a socially embedded and inherently localized practice (Mansuri and Rao 2013; Whaley and Cleaver 2017).

To this extent, recent literature on citizen-state interactions in frontline service delivery clears an important blind spot in the water literature. For example, Whaley and Cleaver (2017) turn attention to the socio-political milieu in which water user organizations are embedded and the ways in which wider community dynamics influence both the functioning of water user groups and sustainability outcomes. In particular, the role of village/last mile service providers is instrumental in shaping citizens’ experience of service delivery and their willingness to participate in collective action (Lipsky 1980; Pepinsky, Pierskalla, and Sacks 2017). The interaction between local frontline providers and citizens shapes their willingness to pay, to opt into the system, and ultimately their compliance with rules and regulations (Pepinsky, Pierskalla, and Sacks 2017). The core insight here that states give shape to citizens’ interests and influence the nature of their participation is a critical one (Khwaja 2009; Sharma and Gupta 2007). It is also part of a growing body of evidence that shows that local authorities (that is, street-level bureaucrats) and the nature of their network/relationship with community can play an instrumental part in promoting local service delivery (Ang 2020; Kahkonen 1999; Tsai 2007).

5