Due before Tuesday, February 11 at 9 AM.
Based on ONE of the readings assigned for February 12th:
Bakker, K. (2003). Liquid Assets. Alternatives Journal 29(2): 17-21.
Budds, J. and McGranahan, G. (2003). “Are the Debates on Water Privatization Missing the Point?” Environment and Urbanization 15(2): 87-114.
Davis, J. (2005). Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 145–163.
Reminder: the reflection should be 1-page long (~500 words) and contain two questions at the end.
To add your reflection, click on “Leave a Reply” below this post.
**Suggestion: write-up your reflection in an alternative program (ie. Word, Pages, Google Drive), then copy and paste your reflection to this website. Save a copy of your reflection for safekeeping
Budds, J. and McGranahan, G. (2003). “Are the Debates on Water Privatization Missing the Point?” Environment and Urbanization 15(2): 87-114.
In this paper Budds & McGranahan (2003) highlight that only 5% of the world’s population has their water provided by the private sector, despite it being a highly debated topic. Therefore there is no justification for the continued promotion of private sector participation as a means of achieving the international water and sanitation targets.
The main reasons for this, they conclude, are that companies are now being more cautious about engaging with low and middle-income countries, specifically due to underestimating risks, overestimation of profits, and problems with certain contracts. Due to the unattractiveness of investing in water-provision to low income countries, where water is lacking the most, the progress towards meeting the MDGs is thus being hampered.
This is certainly true for cities like Lagos, where international private companies have refused to get involved with water provision, as deemed too expensive. Thus Lagosians must resort to buying typically unsafe water from local water suppliers, which often includes a hefty premium.
Furthermore, within these countries, regional disparities of water access are also evident, with rural, less developed regions, often receiving significantly less access to water, than more developed, urban areas. The scholars argue that too much focus is being placed on the privatisation of water, when discussing water access in the global south, when public-provided water services and finances, should be the main focus. Moreover, when debating the privatisation of water, positions taken regarding privatization are also closely aligned with the underlying interests of some of the actors directly involved or affected, including the market expansion of multinational water companies and the jobs of public sector workers.
They also discuss the politicisation of water and sanitation, suggesting that privatisation of these, can worsen corruption within countries. Moreover they highlight that debates often focus too heavily on the economics of water provision, rather than the politics of service provision. Ultimately, if the failings of a public utility reflect governance problems, and these problems are not addressed directly, they are likely to persist and undermine water and sanitation provision, regardless of whether more responsibilities are given to the private sector.
After carrying out my own research, it appears that despite this argument, the private ownership of water utilities has been on the rise. Specifically in North American cities, the economic gain from privatising water, notably for municipalities seems highly attractive. Such cities defend this decision, highlighting that, with the correct regulation, the privatisation of water supply can save consumers money. Moreover, private companies have greater accumulated knowledge on water provision, and therefore more experience, compared to the public sector. In addition, some research suggests that privatisation actually prevents certain aspects of corruption, as government provision often means that the price of water increases and decreases in order to aid political support.
Question 1: Given that access to clean water is among the most basic human needs, shouldn’t we think twice before selling it off for a short-term financial gain?
Question 2: What are some of the government benefits from the privatisation of water supply?
“Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector” by Jennifer Davis presents the public/ private debate not only through economic perspective but also through historical; social and environmental lenses. It succeeds in giving a comprehensive illustration of the public/ private binary, considering its origins as well as its way forward.
Jennifer Davis coins the debate “an old new debate” : the debate did not emerged in the 1980s, it is rooted in the “emotional relationship” to water and the public-good aspects of Water and Sanitation services, which were already a motive for the transition to pubic water management at the beginning of the 20th century in England and in the United States.
The author suggests that private-sector participation can take different forms. By the end of 2000, at least 93 countries had undertaken some form (and degree) of privatization (from leases, BOT-type agreements to full divestiture).
Water supply privatization is driven by the debate about the relative efficiency and investment rates of modes of ownership. Proponents of privatization argue that the public sector has been a “costly and inefficient provider of infrastructure.” Competition and private sector ownership create incentives for increased performance. Subsequent efficiency is expected to accelerate capital investment and lead to tariff reductions.
To Jennifer Davis, empirical evidences of improved efficiency is difficultly observed for two main reasons : first, because they focus on the immediate post-privatization period and second because they focus on performance indicators for which (so-called) “developing-countries W&S agencies are widely known to be deficient”. The author interesting suggests to look at the source of financial investment in private management in some developing countries. Indeed, an observed increased investment is not necessarily the result of private-sector participation but can be due to international development organizations’ support. This highlights the political dimension of private-sector privatization and the important role of the World Bank in spreading the trend across nations.
Environmental performance and impacts of private-sector participation on poor households is further assessed by the article. It is argued that empirical evidence for environmental performance is limited. Nevertheless, privatization has helped utilities to be regulated, thus ensuring better water quality and wastewater treatment. The social impacts of privatization is significant. The challenge is to provide water to remote areas where firms do not necessarily have incentives to extend their service and to keep tariffs low.
The case of the UK shows that price increases depend on the policy and regulations imposed by the states on the companies. Indeed, the tariffs in the UK increased after privatization in 1989 but were regulated in 1995. The Buenos Aires example gives an example as to how prices can be regulated to create “social tariffs”.
Finally, this article is interested in the future of private-sector participation. Considering the reluctance of private firms to invest in some countries and the cancellation of agreements in cities such as Buenos Aires, Jakarta and Manila, the author suggests an unsteady future for private sector participation.
Q1: To what extent is private-sector participation likely to diminish? (and where specifically? Only in so called “developing countries”?)
Q2: How could mutualisation help to face the challenges that private-sector participation faces?
In his paper “Private sector participation in water and sanitation service”, Davis Jenifer analyzed the drivers for privatization in water and sanitation (W&S) services. He thinks it is the “convergence of political and economic forces”. However, what he does not mention is the ideological changes in global politics and the economy. Ideology provides us with “next-step” instructions. In the 1970s last century, neoliberalism starts to prevail in global politics and economies. Under this background, national sovereignty gradually loosed control over the national economy, and the market economy went back to the stage. Therefore, before the privatization of the provision of water and sanitation, many other fields like telecommunication had already privatized. And they got a great achievement. These successful experiences inspired the reforms in water and sanitation services because at the time the public utilities were at a very low operational efficiency. At the same time, public W&S utilities were experiencing a huge financial imbalance. For example, from 2005 to 2019, there was an estimated investment gap in the US, the most wealthy country in the world, of between 375 to 650 billion US dollars in the rehabilitation, expansion and upgradation of water infrastructures. The UK is short of investment to meet the new water quality standard set by the EU. In addition,
Although there are many expected benefits to privatize water and sanitation services, it is critiqued in many ways. One of the most “fatal” reasons it that privatization does not fulfill the expected benefits. Davis analyzes this by comparing the operational efficiency, funding to W&S services and the meet to environmental concerns by several different approaches and proxies. However, as he points out, there are so many standards to evaluate “good” and “bad”, and under different standards, the results are quite different. I totally agree with him at this point. The effects of private section participation were sometimes highly dependent on the status of “government” and “private companies”. Because the government is one of the “official” systems, it has more convenience in dealing with other institutes and usually has higher creditability. However, private companies face lots of disadvantages in society. One example given by the author is that in some countries, compared with municipalities, private companies are at a disadvantage in terms of the cost of raising investment capital for water and sanitation infrastructures. There absolutely are some benefits in water privatization if the government is willing to give away their right to the control of certain resources. However, the government should at the same time try the best to cooperate with private companies when they do their job instead of just taking advantage of the companies to get rid of their own responsibility.
Q1: In your personal view, is the water resource a commodity or a commons, why?
Q2: Have you ever bought bottled water in stores or vending machines？ Why would you like to PAY for it?
In the reading “Liquid Assets” by professor K. Bakker, the author points to the path that water management has taken in terms of who has had control over water distribution and infrastructure throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It also highlights how water management is a highly political topic, not just a technical one. The public utility model, which is executed in Canada today and in many other parts of the world, came about as a reactionary fix to the private provision of water supply common in the 19th century. The idea that has emerged in the 20th century is that access to water should be a public service, as access to water is considered necessary for participation in public life, after numerous failed examples of private ownership of water by companies. There are also community-run systems that attempt to allow for cooperative management in the hands of the locals. Community-run water management is mostly used in rural areas in the developed world and has widespread use in developing countries. There are also different degrees to which water is privatized, the most common being private-public partnerships, where only certain elements are owned and maintained by private companies. These systems are commercialized, meaning that they are subject to market based pricing and consumers pay based on how much water they use. Personally, I can see some environmental and economic benefits to having people pay for the amount of water they use, because it could potentially encourage people to waste less water and be more conscious of their water consumption if they do not want it to cost them. Bakker makes the distinction between the three models by summarizing the role of the user. They are either seen as “a citizen, a customer or a community member” (3) and what role they take determines their usage. The last main point that Bakker makes is when talking about “water democracy” which is “a form of decentralized, community-based, democratic water management in which water conservation is politically, socio-economically and culturally inspired rather than economically motivated” (4). While I am not in favour of the privatization of water, I have a hard time imagining large, urban societies successfully managing water through community-based cooperation. I can see this model working in rural villages or even much smaller cities, but it seems unfeasible in diverse and spread out cities, but I do like the idea of community-based water supply and management organisations.
Questions:
1) Considering how many Indigenous and other impoverished communities have little access to clean water in Canada, how would you rate Canada in terms of the government’s success in managing our water as a public good?
2) How can the tragedy of the commons be avoided in the case of water resources, especially as they become more scarce and in higher demand overtime?
In Karen Bakker’s “Liquid Assets,” the most unforeseen realization I had was how important the language in which individuals define water as well as label consumers is. When individuals are called citizens, customers, or community members, this dictates the ways in which water supply and sanitation is managed within a region. Additionally, whether we see water as a commons or a commodity plays a role in deciding which management system to follow.
Water management is integral for a healthy population, with an early example that comes to mind being John Snow’s realization that the 1854 cholera outbreak in London was connected to the water taps. This is especially true with a growing urban presence, though there are also rural communities whose water demands may be overshadowed by the urban population. On top of these points, other factors such as agriculture and environmental management exist, because many sectors are impacted by water management do to the necessity of the resource. Water is a finite resource, so it is important for communities to refrain from wasting water, and many pro-privatization groups tend to argue that commodifying water can mitigate these issues in a more comprehensive manner than public water supply and sanitation services. Privatization entails that people will reduce their usage and that more funding would be allocated to provide infrastructure and efficiency through the physical water running through pipes as well as the management system.
However, each solution seems to vary in regards to proper deliverables with water management. This is the case with public, private, or public-private management systems in rich nations or poor nations. The issue is multifaceted and is impacted by various external factors, though Bakker’s article made clear the fact that the distribution of water cannot be equitable on a micro scale. Private companies are able to profit off the citizens and community that they perceive as potential customers. After finishing this reading, I valued the idea of community run water management systems because that means self-actualization for the locality. However, this does not seem very feasible in low income areas that may have physical water scarcity; but if the public sectors are able to purchase water from other areas or find innovative solutions then it is a viable option. It would require taxation to provide proper services; thus it seems on paper that privatization is the best practice, or public-private partnerships. However, in many cases it seems to be that privatization does not tend to improve services because companies wish to gain a profit. In that case, the private sector is relieved from responsibility because the consumers cannot vote them into office, as a public office may. The private sector will, however, still gain the profits they are after.
1) Drawing on the principle of full-cost pricing, how does the private sector create a market value for water and ensure that the social value of water is accounted for with affordability?
2) In areas of water scarcity or in places remote from sufficient infrastructure where the population is low and people may be marginalized, is privatization optimal even if the corporations receive a profit, or what are the alternatives to this?
In question 2 I meant to say: may be marginalized by public services*
The article “Liquid assets” by Karen Bakker reviews the typical characteristics of the privatization sector governance of water, in contrast to public utility and community systems. As Bakker discusses, the privatization of water supply tends to correspond with water being turned into a commodity, in which profit and efficiency are guiding principles, prices are set at the value of the service provision/amount used, and efficiency is achieved through price incentives. Although it is recognized that public ownership can also operate based on these principles, in most public utility systems prices are subsidized and the focus is on provision of water to those to which the state is accountable, not on profit or shareholders. However, Bakker also brings attention to criticisms of public systems, for their regular failure to provide adequate access to water and their inefficiencies which raises costs. A review of the article highlights how the supporters of privatization argue for its ability to widen access where governments have failed, as well as improve efficiency and lower prices. Conversely, opponents to privatization focus on the danger of water provision turning away from water as a basic human right, and managing it according to principles that will “invariably conflict with public interest” (p. 4).
To focus initially on the technical aspects of the privatization debate, it appears difficult to state that nearly all instances of private supply are more efficient, or that public systems are more likely to treat water as a public good and price it based on what citizens can afford. Additionally, if it’s agreed that water is a basic human right and the goal of water supply is to establish universal access, it is also difficult to assess which system is more likely to be successful in this and do so at a lower cost to society. Perhaps an extensive analysis of existing systems could provide some insight into the relationship between these variables, but I would estimate that both forms of ownership and management have potential to achieve these standards depending on their strategies taken. It’s also important to recognize that characteristics such as the form of government (e.g., democracy), market conditions, level of corruption, and local social, economic, and environmental contexts would influence the outcomes for each system, to name a few examples. Overall, based on an evaluation of this article, the successes and weaknesses of a particular form of water management (public, private, or co-operatives) seem highly influenced by context.
In terms of the more political and ethical side of the debate, I am critical of the ethical implications of private suppliers’ legal mandate to pursue profits for shareholders, as the primary actor of concern is pulled away from consumers and interests such as access for all and sustainable practices may be pushed to the wayside more easily than public systems in states where the government must be accountable to the people. Furthermore, the marketization of water converts its value to be represented by consumers’ willingness to pay which appears ethically wrong when one considers that this value does not always reflect need or desire for water, as some may simply not possess sufficient funds- therefore the equilibrium price can be inaccessible for many.
Lastly, the article’s representation of community ownership is somewhat briefer, but this system appears appealing in that through a removal of the hierarchical relation of public systems, there may be more integration of local interests into the management of water systems. Although my knowledge in this area is limited, I think it would be important to have some form of higher-level coordination across local co-ops to provide mutual learning and support in the case of issues or shortages in water supply.
Discussion:
1) Do you think that private sector management of water creates a risk of corporate interests overriding the collective interest of citizens, even when the state maintains ownership of the water assets?
2) Is it morally justifiable to treat water as a commodity priced by the market, if done with the intention of providing greater access to water supply?
In Karen Bakker’s, “Liquid assets” article, the basic differences between managing water as a public good and managing water as an economic good were outlined. I thought this article provided an excellent overview of the issue because it maintained an entirely neutral tone and presented both opinions in a way that caused me to think that both had valid strengths and weaknesses. Personally, before reading this article I firmly believed that water should not be privatized at all. The idea of people having to pay for a resource that is a human right and fully necessary for survival seemed blatantly wrong to me. Furthermore, the idea of a large company making a profit off of this consumer dependence seemed morally reprehensible. I still hold these opinions after reading the article; however, I have come to understand that the issue is more nuanced than I previously believed.
One argument in favour of the privatization of water that really stood out to me is that it could help to incentivise water conservation. Although, in Vancouver we do pay small fees for the provision of fresh water to our homes, they are amazingly low; privatization of Vancouver water supply would result in increases in prices. Due to the fact that economic incentives dramatically impact our resource use, an increase in water prices would logically lead to a decrease in water use. Undoubtedly, people would water their grass less and have shorter showers if they knew that every extra minute of use equated to a larger sum of their hard earned money. Unfortunately, this “water as a commodity” based system would disproportionately impact people of lower economic standing. The concept of economic equity (defined in this article as “customers should pay for what they use”) would result in poorer people having less access to water while richer people would be able to pay more money for more resources with little thought. Perhaps this issue could be addressed (or is maybe already being addressed) by having lower base rates for lower rates of water use with steeply increasing prices for the use of larger quantities of water?
I would be interested to know, with regards to the fact that many First Nations communities in Canada do not have access to clean drinking water, whether or not the privatization of water could result in the supply of water to these communities. It would be interesting to know whether or not claims of increases in efficiency could actually result in more equitable distribution of water. Personally, I am doubtful of this and am suspicious that increases in efficiency are mainly reflected as higher returns to stakeholders; I think that any benefits to vulnerable communities (if this were to happen at all) may simply be a by-product of maximizing profit. Therefore, increasing efficiency should not be relied upon to help improve the equitable distribution of water.
Question 1: How can the private extraction of water to be sold as bottled water be morally justified in regions where clean, reliable water is available to citizens through a public system.
Question 2: Morally, should we approach the management of water used for industrial purposes differently than the management of water for direct human consumption?
“Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia, and Latin America” by Jessica Budds and Gordon McGranahan (2003) outlines the common, ongoing debate between private vs. public sector treatment of water and critiques how this debate obscures other actors who are vitally important in the provision of water services, especially in poorer regions. The authors outline privatization as increasing participation of private sector actors in water and sanitation services. This is in comparison to the public provision of water and sanitation services where the assets are owned and invested in by the public which also assumes all financial risks associated with these services. Budds and McGranahan identify that in addition to the traditionally thought of private sector actors–multinational corporations– small scale, informal operators and civil society organizations play a significant role in the provision of water services. Additionally, they discuss how small-scale private providers, community-level organizations and non-governmental organizations, play roles in communities that are increasingly relevant in countries where the private sector participation has been introduced despite the public sector withdrawing from service provision. Throughout the paper, the authors critique how these important actors are often excluded from the water privatization debate which ultimately obscures the important roles they play. This is especially significant given that many international aid agencies and bilateral aid development programs since the 1990s have made privatization a condition for receiving aid, as a result of increasingly neoliberal policies.
It may have been outside the scope of Budds and McGranahan’s paper, but I wish they had further discussed the benefits of recentering the privatization debate to include these overlooked actors, especially given global need to close the gap between investment provided by both the public and private sectors, and financial requirements to meet water and sanitation demands. If these actors are truly playing a significant role in water and sanitation provision (which appears to be the case given that 50-85% of Latin Americans are dependent upon small scale independent providers for their water and sanitation services) it would be useful for their paper to have included analysis on what allows these private providers to meet demand where multinational corporations have failed to do so. Additionally, if there exists “ a danger that the international promotion of private sector participation, particularly when conditional on development assistance finance, is undermining both democracy and the capacity of local polities to resolve their own water and sanitation issues,” how might these smaller scale operators help resolve such anxieties (Budds and McGranahan 113)? Are nations more likely to instead experience greater democratic participation when water needs are provided by more local operators than a comparatively alien foreign corporation? These are all questions that I believe would be valuable to follow up on given Budds and McGranahan’s only cursory look at how small scale operators are obscured in the privatization debate and how this is significant.
In “Liquid Assets,” Bakker states that proponents of water as a commons view “water crisis” as a product of socially produced scarcity. In what ways in this scarcity produced?
In “Private Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector,” Davis states that one benefit of Small Scale Independent Providers (SSIPs) is their extension of flexible financial arrangements to poor households, something which large companies do not offer. How might large companies incorporate flexible payment structures into their investment models so as to make underserviced markets profitable?
In “Liquid Assets” by Karen Bakker, the author provides an overview of the three main types of water resource management: Public, Private Sector, and Community-run. Bakker describes the different forms of management, their implications and the critiques associated with each.
Different types of management are not only about the logistics of who provides the service but also about how water is viewed and priced. Under a private for-profit system where pricing is full-cost and based on usage, water is commodified and commercialized. This contrasts with a public system that often provides water to the public at a subsidized rate and is priced based on ability to pay rather than water at a fixed price for everyone. Another management type is community-based management in which water is managed by the users, usually in the form of a collective or co-operative. Both of these management styles frame water as a public good that should be accessible to all. Another contrast in these management styles is how they conceive methods of conversation. In the private sector, they propose that pricing will be an effective way to deter excessive use. In contrast, the public and community-based approaches argue that conservation can be promoted through an “environmental, collectivist ethic of solidarity” and will not occur solely through pricing.
I think that water should be a public good with equal access for everyone. The critique I have of private sector pricing is that while I think that high costs are an effective deterrent for usage, it does not equally affect everyone and disproportionately hurts those with lower incomes. Furthermore, without a collective mindset of responsibility, the costs associated with one’s volume of water usage may not be at the forefront of the user’s consciousness making pricing an ineffective deterrent. Growing up I was always taught to not be wasteful, be that of food, clothing or water. This consciousness of waste deterred me from excess usage before I considered the costs of utilities. However, collective responsibility is more difficult in large communities such as cities, due to the lack of public knowledge of their community members. In other words, because one’s amount of water usage is not visible to others it decreases the accountability one feels to others. Additionally, a system of conservation that does not incorporate pricing leaves the choice to conserve up to individuals and therefore relies more so on the collective’s culture.
Commons are perceived to be so valuable that access to them is a human right and, therefore, should not be commodified and priced. The problem with viewing water as a public good without pricing or with heavily subsidized pricing is that it becomes, in a way, valueless. Living in Canada, where we are taught that we are one of, if not, the most water-rich country in the world, which the article “Great Wet North? Canada’s Myth of Water Abundance” by John Spague highlighted how heavily this narrative is perpetuated, water is often taken for granted. This perceived abundance means that conservation actions are taken up mainly out of attempts at environmentally conscious action, rather than fear of water shortages.
Which system or combination of systems is most equitable in relation to water management? Why?
What problems could arise from the two main perspectives: water as a commodity and water as a public good?
In their article “Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia, and Latin America” Budds and McGranahan contend that the scale of water privatization employed in the 1990s to meet the Millennium Development Goals in the Global South have not delivered in the scale and benefits anticipated. Budds and McGranahan situate their debate beyond simply describing the good and the bad of privatization, but argue that much of the success around privatization, “depends on the way privatization is developed and the local context” (2003, p. 88). I found the various allocation of responsibilities for public private partnerships depicted in Table 1 on page 89 to be fascinating with all the different combinations at hand. Coming from both a geography and political science background, blending the two disciplines to see how they intersect with regards to water and wastewater management in urban areas peaked my interest. In particular, POLI 428/504 (Comparative Public Management) exposed me to topics around the debates and ramifications of contracting out and engaging in public private partnerships for vital services such as water management.
Underpinning the shift from the public provisioning of essential goods and services to a blend of public and private delivery is the logic of neoliberalism. Written in 2003, Budds and McGranahan vitally touch on and unpack the neoliberal logic that favored (and continues to favor) the primacy of free markets and privatization. Though I should not have been so surprised, I was shocked to see how entrenched the neoliberal logic was with one of the four principles encouraging “the increased role of markets,” as outlined so explicitly in the 1992 Dublin Principles. It is imperative to problematize and contextualize the origins of such logic and its pervasiveness to usher in a new understanding of water as an economic good with competing users. A common theme stemming from readings across multiple weeks is the influence and impact of international organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, and WTO (with roots from the Bretton Woods Agreement).
What I appreciated most from the article is that Budds and McGrahan are intentional in detailing the complexities of the public and private debate, and stray away from dichotomy that view one form of provisioning as superior than the other. Turning our attention to the diverse actors and agents simultaneously involved at multiple levels. The Dublin Principles, while imperfect, draw our focus on the right of access to clean water. To see water as a human right, though it may seem trivial or commonplace, is not a luxury but a privilege in the world.
Question 1: The international arena of development agencies such as the World Bank, IMF, and WTO have a potted history of lifting countries out of poverty but often through extremes measures such as draconian structural adjustment, neoliberal entrenchment, and debt traps. On the other hand, international organizations such as the United Nations can give rise to international agreements such as the 1992 Dublin Principles or 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Given the marred history of development agencies and international organizations, what role should these institutions play in water governance in the 2020s and beyond?
Question 2: Given the rise of movements around corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environment social, and governance (ESG) investing, are private companies more trustworthy today than they were in the 1990s, or is this another form of greenwashing to mask profit-driven realities? What are the limitations and/or benefits of CSR and ESG?
Response to Bakker, K. (2003). Liquid Assets. Alternatives Journal 29(2): 17-21.
I was able to explore some of the ideas addressed in Bakker (2003) in another course (GEOG 410: Environment and Society), in particular the question of common resource or private commodity. The shift from the state regulation and centralized and hierarchical scheme of water management to a more market-based model in the 1990s presented complex arguments of how water should be managed. This shift was largely triggered by a failure in state-run utilities for water, and as stated in the reading, this is an argument that is repeatedly used by the proponents of water commodification. However, although I think that state-run water governance used to be and continues to be fraught with issues, the commodification of water imposes inequality and inaccessibility, and therefore becomes exploitative. The participatory potential for water management in a community-based level and co-operatives have also evolved over time. If the government were to invest more in public water infrastructure there could be a democratization of water resources that will be able to address a lot of the social inequity behind water management issues today. It will empower people to become more aware of water usage, and oftentimes we are familiar with the “tragedy of the commons” situation, we become less familiar with the “tragedy of enclosure” where a public resource that used to be governed by the people in a sustainable manner becomes taken away and commodified. In particular with developing technologies, there will be more potential for more technological regulations to support more decentralized ways of water governance.
I think another issue with the categorization of water, and why it’s such an “uncooperative commodity” would be due to its many definitions and valuations by different groups of people, but also because of its multifunctionality as a resource. Different cultures also use water differently and using one universal model to manage water does not account for not only the physical differences of the land but also indigenous irrigation and water withdrawal techniques, such as the Huertas in Spain. The reading also mentioned how role of the users and how they change in relation to how water management changes, where commercialization “redefine users as individual customers rather than a collective of citizens.” I think perhaps water governance should be moving in a direction where people can become participants in the management of their own water supply and are informed on the issues of conservation around this resource, although, as this would lead into my question, I am curious about the possibility of this on a large-scale scheme.
1. What types of systemic shifts would it take in order to shift our current market framework of water management into one where water is considered a “commons”?
2. Does the enclosure of water increase water scarcity around the world, and if so, would it directly contradict the argument that private sector participation is not an efficient management of water?
The reading titled “Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America” by Jessica Budds and Gordon McGranahan was incredibly insightful and descriptive. Their understanding of water management regimes in the present is informed through a historical perspective on the important system through time. This helps to define their argument as a whole. They take a look at the dichotomy between the private and public sector to highlight the key differences in each. They take a very holistic approach when examining the issue, taking into consideration the broader implication of water governance on human rights and economic goods. All the while doing a good job highlighting the inefficiencies of both the private and public sector. The description of how neoliberal ideologies impacted the global discourse on water management systems drew very interesting parallels to many of the other pertinent issues that are being debated in society today. An overconfidence in the infallibility of the free market has led to widespread loss of community and social safety nets. A problem that exists with the neoliberal agenda as a whole. Another interesting point that was raised by the article is the dichotomy between water management systems and sewage management systems. While technically falling under the same jurisdiction they are in practice treated very differently due to the fundamental differences between the two services. This is an issue in that it creates a scenario in which the systems may fall under differing management types due to financial differences. Which is a concept that is not often mentioned when looking in other water management papers. The paper does a good job highlighting the colonialist undertones of these water management regimes in the global periphery without making it the only theme. They allow the reader to understand how these ideologies would have developed to understand how we have reached the point that we are currently at. The paper does a great job quantifying how each case of privatization is different and very much dependant on the specific parameters. The article also discusses how privatization can be a bit of a red herring as it states on 5% of the world’s population is served by the private sector. But I would push back on this claim as this is a significant number. A large percentage of the world’s populations is not served by water management systems to begin with. Not to mention the numerous variations on the divestiture model that are mentioned early on in the article which may or may not fall under the broader heading of “the private sector”. All in all this article does a fantastic job framing the issues and benefits of water privatization and highlighting the different ways it has evolved as to show how we have gotten to the point we are at today.
Do you believe as the authors do that the international promotion of private sector participation, particularly when conditional on development assistance finance, is undermining both democracy and the capacity of local polities to resolve their own water and sanitation issues?
Which of the privatization methods explained in the “A note on definitions” section seems the most friendly to marginalized individuals?
In Liquid Assets, published in 2003, Karren Bakker explains us how water management is a complex issue involving many problems. She starts by explaining us that “the question of whether to privatize is more than merely technical; it is a political debate about how we SEE water and ourselves”. She draws the parallel between commercialization/privatization and individual customers and between public good and collective of citizens.
Concerning the question of our vision of water, I think it’s very interesting because when looking for a definition on google, the first things I have found (which was not very useful) was “Water is a chemical compound consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The name water refers to the liquid state of the compound. The solid phase is known as ice and gas phase is called steam. Under certain conditions, water also forms a supercritical fluid”. This definition, even if it is correct, is very scientific and does not explain how water is a concept. What I found very interesting in this article is that the author makes a good distinction between the different aspects of water and it helps to understand why this resource can be approached in different ways. The different aspects of water described by the author (water as a vital resource, water as an economic resource) make it possible to address the issue of privatization in a more neutral way.
It is hard to say how I see water because on one hand, access to water is link to a vital need and is consider as a human right. We need water to survive as we need air to breath, that’s why in most country today, governments are responsible for providing universal access to water and protection of public health. It is considered as a right and a necessity, in the same way that it would be considered strange to ask people to pay to have access to fresh and clean air, we could consider that access to clean water should be free and normal. On the other hand, water also have an important economic aspect because it is used and needed by people in their daily lives, but also by a lot of industries to run their business. In some case, markets and market norms are applied to water supply management. The fact that we have to pay for water is also logic because unlimited consumption would obviously lead to a depletion of this resource. Thus, its commercialization allows a degree of control. Plus, I think it can be benefic for the environment because it encourages people to consume less.
As doctor Bakker emphasizes it, one important distinction in water supply management is the role of the consumer. In fact, if the consumer is a citizen, a customer or a community member, rights and responsibilities are not the same. That’s why the question of privatization depends on how we see water (as a vital need? As a economic good?) and how we see ourselves (citizens or customers?). Concerning our vision of water, when looking for a definition of water, the second thing I have found was “Is water a concept?”. Regarding the distinction that the author does between commons and commodity, I think is idea of water as a concept is quite interesting.
This article therefore raises some very interesting questions about the issues related to water privatization and, of course, about water in general. Access to water remains a crucial issue because the resource is so vital. However, the environmental and economic dimension is also crucial. We must be able to preserve this threatened resource (both through depletion and deterioration of its quality) and allow poor countries to have access to it in order to continue their development. In order to do so, I believe that water management must be adapted to each situation, consider many characteristics and be adapted to the local and social context. Taking into consideration the different aspects of this concept and analyzing it as “a commons, a public good, a commodity or an economic good” is in my opinion necessary for better management. This makes it possible to take into consideration all the actors concerned (populations, public authorities and government, and companies) without losing sight of the political, economic, social and environmental objectives.
In your opinion what model of water supply is the best? Why?
To what extent can we put a price on water? Do you think we could do it for other resources such as air?
Budds and McGranahan provide an excellent social justice centred analysis of water privatization in their journal article “Are the Debates on Water Privatization Missing the Point?” as they assess the impacts of commercialization on vulnerable social groups. More specifically, the authors examine rural populations as well as urban communities that lay on the peripheries of cities in the Global South. They note that when water systems are corporately run, it does not always reach rural and marginal urban communities. As a result, these communities are completely ostracized from accessing legitimate sources of water. As rural and marginal urban communities are already quite isolated from other necessary resources for livelihood, such as sources of food, this position that privatization risks them with exacerbates their precarity. Furthermore, illegitimate sources of water can be dangerous as well as sporadically given. Often times people from these communities are given just small amounts of water for tenfold the price in addition to this informal source being a rarity. Budds and McGranahan even cite that informal water sources could be one hundred times more expensive that formally piped water from private or public run programs.
Privately run water system contracts often favour the interests of the firm. As rural and peripheral communities in the Global South are inconveniently geographically located for these corporations, they will simply choose not to run their water systems that far out. The increased cost of extending their systems for communities, who are often low-income, does not allow for a significant chance of increased profit for the firm. As Budds and McGranahan put it, these communities are too poor to be profitable for corporations. These low-income populations will not be using a significant amount of water in comparison to densely populated urban cities and therefore will not remarkably increase corporate profits. Consequently, these communities are left without legitimate and reliable water sources.
As Davis notes in “Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector,” ostracized rural communities as well as urban communities that lie in the geographic margin sometimes do have privatized water systems that reach them. However, unfortunately, connection charges do exist. These connection charges exist on top of already increased rates of water use with privatized prices. In addition to this, low-income communities that live in rural and urban areas on the geographic margin often host larger households. This could be due to having a larger number of children or extended family all living together in one household in order to decrease rent prices, among other factors. These larger households inevitably use more water per person and thus bear the burden of paying more if water systems choose to use Inclining Block Tariffs (IBT). IBT’s burden low-income communities with larger households by necessitating a larger price for increased water usage. Ultimately, this exacerbates these vulnerable communities’ already precarious financial situation.
The article ‘Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America’ by Jessica Budds and Gordon McGranahan (2003) asserts that promoting private sector participation in order to achieve international water and sanitation targets cannot be justified. The paper discusses how neither private or public provision is inherently superior, but explores arguments against relying solely on either sector.
Water is one of the most basic needs for human survival. From a human rights lens, defining water as an essential need as opposed to an economic good grants people a right to access regardless of ability to pay. From a public health perspective, clean drinking water and sanitation services are essential; these networks provide public benefits like protection from infectious diseases. If people are unable to purchase clean water, this affects not only their individual health but the health of their community.
The authors point out that large private companies do not necessarily profit from being efficient. When a few large companies or a natural monopoly take over the sector, they can realize excess profits by overpricing and underproducing. Attempts to promote competition to avoid natural monopolies have proven difficult in water and sewage contexts. To avoid high financial risks associated with low-income areas, private companies tend to direct finances to areas that are already well-served. Issues with risk and profitability result in a cherry picking issue at all scales. This leaves rural and low-income users without clean water which is a basic human need.
In terms of the role of the state, the authors noted that areas where provision is most needed tend to have weak local governance and be inexperienced with addressing regulatory issues and negotiating contracts, resulting in private companies underbidding for contracts. The authors noted that state failure in the W&S sector affects low-income groups most, resulting in reliance on informal vendors charging high prices. Davis (2005) also noted that areas of developing countries are often supplied by small-scale independent provides (SSIPs), and that while prices are generally high, this is most often not exploitative as they earn profits comparable to unskilled labour, and actually deliver reliable service and flexibility needed by poor households in the short term.
While Budds and McGranahan (2003) indicated that governments can be inexperienced with the W&S sector, and a power imbalance occurs in dealing with large companies, I wonder more collaboration between SSIP and local governments could provide a better solution for underserved areas. The authors indicate problems associated with a large-scale actors, such as monopolies setting a high price for a basic need. Perhaps increased government support and regulation around a network of small scale providers could limit problems associated with larger companies.
The authors noted that dichotomous arguments lump together diverse actors, but the paper was broad and similarly did that. With W&S, the importance of factors specific to a particular locality results in a complex problem that cannot have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution. A better approach to searching for solutions might involve delving deeper into specific case studies of successful water and sanitation provision, and considering similar solutions in areas where similar factors come into play, rather than focusing on general arguments against particular types of actors.
Q1. Can you discuss any particular cases where fully private or fully public water and sanitation provision have been successful?
Q2. In what ways do the impacts of large-scale privatization differ from the impacts of small-scale privatization, and is either inherently better or worse in terms of ability to play a role in improving water and sanitation access in low income areas?
The article written by Karen Bakker, titled “Liquid Assets” continues the debate on water supply management. She introduces the reader to the public utility, private sector, and community governance models of water supply management and highlights the important role that the consumer plays within each model. Furthermore, she reiterates the importance of the different socioeconomic definitions of water. On one side of the debate, water is a commodity and should be seen and used as an economic good. On the other side, water is labelled as a commons and should be seen and used as a public good. The author does a very good job at providing an unbiased tone throughout the article and clearly outlines the strengths and weaknesses for both opinions equally. Before reading Bakker’s article, I strongly believed that water should not be privatised. I thought that making people pay for a resource that is quite literally needed for our survival and that is labeled as a human right was unethical. However, although I still believe in this, Bakker opened my eyes to some of the benefits to privatizing water and allowed me to expand my knowledge on the issue.
One main argument for the privatization of water is that private sector management of water supply infrastructure will increase efficiency and allow for those who currently lack access, to now have access to clean water. Those in favour of water privatisation accuse governments and aid agencies for failing to achieve universal water supply and for the low-efficiency rates of public utilities. Private companies, because they must respond to both customers and shareholders, are held accountable and therefore are seen to have more reason to efficiently run water supply systems. Considering there are over one billion people who lack access to a water supply, those in favour of privatisation believe that private sector management is the most beneficial way in achieving universal water supply. Another argument in favour of water privatisation is that it can be used as an incentive for water conservation. Based on the fact that economic incentives impact our product use drastically, we can predict that an increase in water price will lead to a decrease in water usage. This will allow for the public to be more considerate when deciding if they should water their lawn two days in a row or take an extra-long shower. Since they are the ones paying for it, they will ultimately be more considerate, leading to a decrease in wasteful behaviour.
It would be interesting to know whether or not communities in developing countries have benefited from the privatisation of water and if increased efficiency has actually lead to the equitable distribution of water. Just because infrastructure is able to increase efficiency, that does not automatically correlate to an increase in the equitable distribution of water. It would also be interesting to know their opinion on the issue. I wonder how governments of developing countries perceive this issue and which model of water supply they believe would be most successful in their country.
Do you believe that increasing efficiency will improve the equitable distribution of water? Why?
Which model of water supply do you believe is best for Canada? Why?
In their article “Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America”, Jessica Budds and Gordon McGranahan make the case that in the debate over public vs. private water there is no ‘one size fits all’ model of water provision services. The debate over the superiority of private or public methods of water provision is an unhelpful dispute, as water privatization exists on a spectrum, and the suitability of water privatization is dependent on factors such as the nature of the private-public relationship, the sociopolitical context of a given region. It is not the case that water privatization is inherently exploitative, and it is not the case that public ownership will effectively support human rights- under particular economic and regulatory conditions.
While I tend to associate private sector water providers with a greater tendency to exploit resource users, this article pointed to the fact that that public water services have the potential to perpetuate injustices and to exploit local users under certain conditions, especially when the public sector is deeply corrupt. I found several studies beyond our assigned readings which discussed corruption in public water utilities. Bribery in exchange for Illegal connections to water lines, the need to bribe engineers to extend what is ostensibly a public service line to your household, and so forth. For major infrastructure projects, corruption can lead to a lack of competitive bidding, delays, and overall higher recovery costs embedded in the utility’s bills of the people.
I was also curious about water provision in post conflict regions where both public and private delivery seem likely to fail. Such nations or regions may have a weak regulations or low capacity for enforcement that might not be able to constrain largely private water providers- which could result in higher rates and refusing to connect certain low-income communities. However, in nations immediately post-conflict public sector may also be riddled with corruption or may be in the midst of bureaucratic reorganization. When nations have deeply corrupt public sector and low ability to enforce regulations on private sector providers, what is the ‘ideal’ method of water provision? Are deeply corrupt states or post-conflict instances where charities, NGO’s and community groups are the ideal candidates to manage and deliver water resources?
1. How might natural disasters which destroy critical water infrastructure provide new opportunities for private-sector participation and/or exploitation?
2. Are the costs for extending water lines or sewer lines to First Nations communities subsidized? Or do they pay higher utility costs to be on par with the rest of the province?
n “Are the Debates on Water Privatization Missing the Point?” from Environment and Urbanization, authors Jessica Budds and Gordon McGranahan explore the public/ private sector debate surrounding water management and mention many of the debates limitations. The first part of the paper explained the history of global trends surrounding this debate, beginning in the 19th century. At this time, water was provided almost exclusively by the private sector, however this eventually ended up with monopolies that then became public enterprises throughout the first half of the 20th century. Public sector dominance dominated up until the 1980s. During this time, under neoliberal ideology, there was a growing belief that private sector action could bring clean water to everyone on the planet. This began a long debate that has continued until today.
The next part of the article outlines the main arguments of either side of this debate. Firstly it explains the “public” arguments of water being a public good (non-rivalrous, non-excludable and non-rejectable). The authors then go on to explain that many proponents of public management argue that privatization violates a growing UN consensus that defines water as a human right since low income groups are excluded from access if they cannot afford the private firm’s prices. The authors also mention that water (and many other utilities) tend to form natural monopolies. An important part of the paper is the fact that the author mentions limitations of these arguments. The authors explain how it is not exactly factual to say that these arguments (or the ones for the private side) suggest that one way is better than another. The authors explain that water provision and sewerage provision are neither public nor economic goods. They expand on this by stating that the type of good that it is does not necessarily determine the role of either sector in provision of said utilities.
The authors then go on to explain a few cases of private sector participation, notably in the global south. They explain that while the debate on the topic has been huge, implementation of private projects have been minimal. Investment in private sector water/ sewerage provision climbed from 1990-1997 and then began to decline. Some reasons cited for this low amount of investment are: high risk of projects, attractive sites being limited to higher income areas, and water provisions inherently higher level of attraction for capital than sewerage provision. The main drawback of private sector participation has been its failure to provide for low income areas within the global south, and that local companies have little power to compete due to lack of access to financial resources. These issues have been combated in a small number of cases, and present a strong argument for subsidies inclusion in these projects. All in all, the private sector only provides water for 5% of the worlds population.
I found this article to be very enlightening. I appreciated how the authors added nuance to a seemingly binary debate at the surface. The world still faces an issue of over a billion people without access to clean water and it is inaccurate to reduce possible solutions to simply “public” or “private”. The article was incredibly informative when it comes to explaining how both sectors can coexist in management strategies.
My two questions are:
What are some models of public-private partnerships that you believe would be most effective and why?
Do you believe increased private sector participation could coexist with protecting water as a human right?
In response to Liquid Assets, by Karen Bakker
The debate about water management models is an ongoing and contested topic. There are cases that can be pointed to around the world where public, governmental, PPP, and private management models have worked. At the same time there are cases where each of the management models have failed. The question should not be “what could work?” but instead “what will work for our society?” and “what are the consequences of choosing this management style?”. These questions are better suited for the locality required when thinking of what water management model to adopt. Understanding the history of the area’s water supply, the infrastructure in place, the infrastructure needed, and the values held by the people. It makes sense that Western capitalist countries (like America) often have private models: their history of the infrastructure development, views on property rights and resources, and respect for capitalist corporations culminate to make a mindset that normalizes the idea of a privatized water system. This management model does not work, however, when one leaves the big cities. It is uneconomic for these corporations to create new piping systems that feed small rural communities far from the “grid.” Additionally, these private corporations are focused on maximizing profit while minimizing costs, this leads to a lack of maintenance for the pipes, primarily going to poor neighbourhoods. This explains the biggest problems we see with water management in North America. Instances like Flynt Michigan and the lack of water supply in the Canadian indigenous communities reflect this flaw in capitalistic management; ignoring the areas that are not seen as lucrative. Furthermore, the privatization of water creates the mentality outlined by Karen Bakker: water as a commodity. Viewing water as a commodity implies that its sole purpose is to be sold for profit. In Canada we have huge amounts of fresh water sitting in lakes but our renewable source of water is much less than most people know, unable to refill these lakes quickly. Viewing water as a commodity opens up the rights for corporations to over-extract this water, draining the life from ecosystems. While privatization might make sense in our current society it has major flaws the make it incompatible with sustainable management practices. It is true that access to water is a right for all people, but it is also a right for all animals. To find a balanced and equitable management of water we need to detach it from a monetary value.
-Kevin
my questions are:
-Is there a possibility to shift BC Hydro from a PPP to a community/government run management model?
-What are some alternative ways of supplying water to communities off the grid? could they be used to help the lack of water in Canadian indigenous communities?
In their 2003 article, Budds and McGranahan provide a comprehensive overview of the trends in privatisation of water utilities. The article unravels some assumptions and generalisations made about private versus public management of water, and the authors successfully steer the dialogue away from a binary argument in favour of either one.
The article begins by discussing how privatisation was a central development policy for Africa, Asia and South America in the 90’s, to raise the global South up to the same standards enjoyed by the global North. Privatization as a development trend peaked in 1997, then started to decline. Privatization was supposed to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals, specifically, to halve the number of people without access to safe drinking water, by 2015. After reading this, I was interested to find out whether the target was actually met, and especially the role that privatisation (if any) had played in meeting this goal.
An intrinsic difficultly with privatisation of water is that a private company is trying to manage a public good (non- rival in consumption and non-excludable by nature). Because the private sector will not provide these goods for free, they are often argued to be managed and subsidised by the public sector, so they are priced fairly. Provision of water and sanitation services on a profit-making basis is therefore quite a sensitive issue. On the one hand, the argument for privatisation takes its’ basis from the Dublin Principles, that is: that water is an economic good, and pricing it encourages efficient use. The assumption is the private sector, through external funding, greater efficiency (lower prices) will extend and improve services to the poor. Conversely, pricing water ignores the public benefits of water provision, sanitation, and drainage (i.e. neglects to put a price on the alternative, the cost of controlling a public health outbreak). The counter argument for public sector provision of goods at a discount is that it can incentivise overuse.
I found the conditions that attract foreign private investment quite interesting. Privatization was an attractive option for a low-income country in the 90’s, as it was linked to aid, access loans or debt relief. However, the reality is that very low-income populations are not an attractive market for foreign companies. Those countries are too risky and too poor to be profitable. Companies need assurance that their users will be able to pay for the service to offset the costs of investment.
In reading this article I was particularly interested in provision of water services to the poor, because privatization doesn’t directly address this. The article mentions of the use of the phrase “public private partnership” and addresses how the phrase can be misleading, as it implies that the major stakeholders (company and government) have the same overall goals across all areas, which is simply not true. Interestingly, there is no evidence that low income countries are better off under privatization. Additionally, even under a private network, subsidies may be required either directly (pay the utility company to provide the service for free) or indirectly (provide welfare payments to people).
The article provides a highly nuanced answer to the question of whether privatisation is the silver bullet to meet accessibility, pricing and efficiency woes that many countries experience in this sector. The authors reiterate the effectiveness of a public or private solution is not actually about which management framework is chosen. Determining the best system is often down to a case by case basis. Public benefits can be provided by a well-regulated private utility, and private benefits can also be provided by a well-regulated public utility.
Q1: The term “Privatization” currently serves as an umbrella term lumping together any additional stakeholders, including informal vendors and civil society organisations (like not for profits). Do we need new terminology to differentiate the involvement of these groups?
Q2: What are some other methods that have been tried (outside of the public vs private management framework) to ensure the human right to water is met?
“Liquid Assets” by Karen Bakker, identifies and compares the ways in which water is viewed on a global scale throughout the 19th century, the 20th century as well as today. Throughout the article, Bakker identifies water as both a public and an economic good while exploring the multiple ways that water is managed across the globe. The First means of water control identified in the article was the “public utility model” where the government would run most of the water supply. Through this model, water was viewed as a public service and was a type of model that was most commonly ran at a municipal level. This model is used in Canada as we view water as public good, rather than a commodity simply due to the fact that the consumption of water is a necessity to human life. Contrasting that of the public utility model is the approach of community ran systems. In Canada, this model is more commonly found in rural communities throughout Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec, where water users themselves own and control their supply of water. On an international scale, developing countries use this model on a much more widespread footing. Stepping away from the public and community models that were first mentioned, Bakker’s article transitions to a focus on the privatization of water. This involves private corporations involvement of managing various aspects of municipally owned infrastructure. Today, more than half of France is served through private-public partnerships. On an international scale, there is a rapid rise in private-public partnerships (PPP’S). PPP’s are commercialized which means that the water is market based and people are paying for water based on how much of it they use. This approach in my opinion would do wonders through out the middle and lower classes in Western society. By charging people by the amount of water in which they use, I believe there would be some dramatic cut backs to the volume in which water is used and wasted. Where the comparison between privatization and the public and community approaches is that privatization transforms water from a relatively obtainable good to something that can be exchanged as a good. Bakker mentions that privatization has created a “water crisis”; A combination of short term economic growth and a rise in corporate power has shifted the abundance of water resources into insufficient water levels. From a political standpoint, the privatization of water has altered the previous concept of water as a commons into a commodity; leaving an overall negative influence on people trying to obtain water. These same objectors to privatization point there finger in the direction of successful public water systems, arguing that privatization is not always more efficient.
Questions:
Considering that the overall goal of privatization is not to make money, but to provide people around the globe at an opportunity at clean water, is the privatization of water morally sound?
Considering what we know about Aboriginal land and resources being taken advantage of in Canada, what method would best benefit the Aboriginal peoples in the Peace River currently.
Reflection #3
In the article Liquid Assets, professor K. Bakker discusses the privatization of water supply and the issues it raises. In the article, the author emphasizes on the relations of power that emerge around the question of water management and what it implies for the citizens/people as well as for the environment. Taking the side of the public sector management, the author still put examples of the arguments from both sides.
In that way, the privatization of water management tends to accentuate the inequalities and disparities in the society. It also leads – as shown in some cases – to sanitary issues due to the competition and the lack of means of the poor classes. The privatization of water management then failed to ensure the universality of the water providing and its equality. The private sector would not respond adequately to the basics rights of the citizens, as historically water was seen as a “precondition to participation in public life and a material emblem of citizenship”.
On the other hand, the public sector would be seen as a better match, as its considerations are focused on the common good and on the public interests. Although, the past decades have seen an increase number of private-public partnerships, the public sector should always be involved. The author also mentions another alternative which is the cooperation, the management by community of users, who will be more likely to manage water in strict consideration of the population need, their own need.
In this article there is also the mention of the status of water, which is central. Water as a commodity or an economic good. The link between its status and the definition of individuals, and its relationship to environment. From the status of water depends the involvement of the private or public sector in the management of water supply, and so the consideration around environmental issue and people demand.
It looks like the national configuration, though under the constraints of the monopole imposed by the nature of the resource, is influenced by the international system. As the United Nations recognized water as a basic human right, we can think of a stronger protection around the management of water supply, and maybe in the future, an uniformization of the rules worldwide.
In the article, there is the mention of the international rules, and the status of “water”. It would be interesting to consider how the international set of rules influenced the national systems, specifically in terms of water supply and privatization?
The article focused mainly on the industrialized/developed countries, then so it would be interesting to consider the situation of the developing countries, considering among other things, the conflicts over water in some regions.
Budds, J. and McGranahan, G. (2003). “Are the Debates on Water Privatization Missing the Point?” Environment and Urbanization 15(2): 87-114.
In their paper, Budds and McGranahan address the very question they pose in their title: are the debates on water privatization missing the point? It seems like the answer could be a clearcut yes: the debates are missing the point, but it could also be a definite no: debates are being thorough. It’s a question that requires a lot of research, perspective and facts, and that’s precisely was Budds and McGranahan provide in their paper. They begin by introducing the topic of water privatization and how it was positioned as the solution for water management and sanitation issues. At its best, privatization would provide clean, safe, accessible water to communities at a lower cost. However, privatization fell short in multiple areas, and in many cases ended up failing. While privatization had the ability to improve efficiency and infrastructure, it also lacked the accountability and transparency needed to gain people’s trust. Despite its failures, from the way it’s talked about, it seems as if privatization exists nearly everywhere across the world. In actuality “only around 5 per cent of the world’s population is currently served by the formal private sector”. What causes that perception then? In part, it is due to the wide-scale failure that privatization has achieved, but it is also because water is one of life’s necessities. Having one of life’s necessities suddenly become a commodity that you have to pay for can invoke strong responses, as we see with the case studies that Budds and McGranahan discuss. Following this introduction, they discuss the history of privatization and how it emerged in the water sector. This then led into a description of the types of privatization and an outline of the debates that emerged between public and private sectors. After all the debates and criticism, the trend of privatization has now slowed because of “underestimation of risks, overestimation of profits and problems with contracts”.
What I found most interesting about this topic was the diversity of it. There are cases where privatization has improved areas, and there are also cases where public has been better. It is incredibly dependent on multiple complex factors that are constantly changing; there is no way one can predict what management system will be best and there is no guarantee that the system that worked in 2010 is going to work in 2030. To answer the question of if debates on water privatization are missing the point, I think no. Because of the constantly shifting nature of both the issue and solution, the best thing we can do is to constantly consider all perspectives, look at all the facts and look at each case individually. So, if debates on water privatization seem to miss the point, it might be because there is, in fact, no single point that this highly contested topic can be placed upon.
Questions:
1. How could public-private partnerships be improved so that they are truly a partnership that can provide the benefits both sides offer?
2. Technology is often pointed at as being a solution. While it doesn’t solve everything technology has definitely helped, how could technology be used to improve water management? And what technology would we use?
Bakker, K. (2003). Liquid Assets. Alternatives Journal 29(2): 17-21.
The article written by Dr. Bakker explains the idea of liquid assets clearly to the reader. She states that water is a necessity for life and that converting it into a business opportunity would be unethical. I agree with this statement that Dr. Bakker makes to the reader. I believe that because water is a natural recourse, there should not be people making profits off of it by bottling it up and selling it for money. This is ridiculous in my view as it puts people who have money in a better position than others who do not have money to buy the necessity for life.
I do not believe in the commodification of nature. Although commodification of nature had been introduced in the 19th century, the introduction of the Industrial Revolution exacerbated commodification. Commodification of nature constructs humans to value nature as a commodity that can be bought and then sold for a profit. Through the commodification of nature it has created many conflicts between local communities and the company that is extracting the natural resources.
I agree with what Dr. Bakker has to say about how the real water crisis comes from. She states that the real water crisis “arises from socially produced scarcity, in which a short-term logic of economic growth, twinned with the rise of corporate power (and in particular water multi-nationals) has, as Vandana Shiva says, “converted abundance into scarcity” through pollution and appropriation of water resources from communities.”
Dr. Bakker then states that “at the risk of over-simplification, proponents of water as a commodity assert that private ownership and management of water supply systems (in distinction from water itself) is possible and indeed preferable.” In this view, water is treated as an economic good. This is not how water should be thought of because it is necessary for life but instead, people are profiting from bottling it up and selling it.
For years, humans have existed together with the idea of the commons. As these common properties were identified as valuable pieces of land, there were many attacks that took place in these common areas. I agree with Dr. Bakker by saying that the risk of over-simplification, in distinction from water itself, is possible and preferable. Commons played a central role in the development of capitalism as many commons were subject to privatization or enclosure. As time progressed, the value of land changed greatly with the introduction and implementation of these enclosed common properties.
I agree with Dr. Bakker’s views on the privatization of water and its implication that it poses on society as a whole.
Question 1: Do you support the privatization of water?
Question 2: Do you think that the real water crisis will move away from being socially produced?
In response to Bakker, K. (2003). Liquid Assets. Alternatives Journal 29(2): 17-21
Karen Bakker’s article, Liquid Assets, explores the emergence and embodiment of public and privatised water management models. Bakker establishes the socioeconomic definition of water under differing governance methods, identifying associated authorities and the historic emergence of such differing methods of water supply. According to Bakker, water exists as a commons under public ownership, and a commodity or economic good when privatised. The privatisation of the natural resource is associated with profit and efficiency as guiding principles of production. Bakker alludes to wealth inequalities in the emergence of water privatisation, whereby private corporations built and operated the first water supply networks to wealthier populations, leaving poorer communities reliant on public or unofficial sources. As epidemics spread throughout water systems, tighter regulations ensued, contributing to 20th century ideals of universal access and protection of public health via public utilities. As of today, a fully privatised water supply utility remains rare. Yet with instances of success surrounding the introduction of the private sector into water supply management, political debate about worldview(s) of water and society, as well as ethical considerations of water management ensue.
I argue that the approach to water governance either as a commons or commodity is significantly dependent on the embodiment of our dominant worldview(s). In modern day contexts of a consumer capitalist, hierarchical society, water is more likely to be commodified and subsequently privatised. Ethical considerations encourage me to believe that the commodification of any natural resource is inherently destructive and unsustainable, contributing to degradation and a water crisis. As explored by Bakker, the real “water crisis” stems from “socially produced scarcity, in which a short-term logic of economic growth, twinned with the rise of corporate power (and in particular water multi-nationals) has, as Vandana Shiva says, “converted abundance into scarcity” through pollution and appropriation of water resources from communities” (Bakker, 2003). However, I am left further pondering the impacts of privatisation. Perhaps economic incentives are a driving force for improved water quality and the provision of equality and equity in distribution and decision making processes. Yet as suggested by Bakker, an open, collective debate on water management methods remains necessary for environmental, political, and social progression.
Question 1: What alterations to current Canadian water governance schemes are required in order for water to be valued as a commons? Furthermore, can and/or should traditional ecological knowledge systems on water governance be implemented into Canadian law?
Question 2: If some governments enable the privatisation of water in an attempt to reduce burdens (be it fiscal or otherwise), is there evidence to suggest that privatisation has resulted in subsequent ‘restrengthening’ of said government?