Water Privatization Pros And Cons

Whether water is a human commodity or basic human right has become a large problem around the world while dealing with the availability of clean drinking water in developing societies. If water is either recognized to be a right or a commodity, many complications come to these developing countries in several social and political aspects. A human right is a freedom and a right that belongs to everyone in the world. Water as a human right gives everyone the right to water as

According to McHarg et al. eds. (2010), in the last three decades world governments used to shed the burden of capital investment, especially in sphere of water, through privatization in order to achieve more efficiency of water supplies. This approach was developed deeply in European countries such as England, which is already famous for it’s the most highly regulated water companies. This method also enables the company to concentrate on the service, management and funding of the service, whereas the local government provides water services in developing countries and cannot afford investments in large hydraulic infrastructure. Those are the “Third World” countries and the most of them are Asian. However, I want to make a significant accent on one of the industrious world’s empires – China.

The city of Cochabamba, Bolivia put its water system up for auction in 1999. The company Aguas del Tunari promised to expand water services, in exchange the contract guaranteed the company a fifteen percent profit. The first people to question water privatization were local professionals and peasant farmers who rely on irrigation. Citizens began calling public meetings to speak their concerns. Sadly, the government ignored them and their concerns. With no disregard for the public voice, people began to protest. With that, in early 2000, the historic water wars began.

There is a common misconception when people think about tap water being unsafe to drink opposed to that of a water bottle. Bottled water holds up the image to the public as ‘pure’ and ‘healthy’ when in fact you’re in for a surprise. Bottled water is regulated by the FDA (Food Drug Administration) and goes through a process that isn’t exactly strict when it comes down to the requirements for bottled water to be sold in retail stores. Tap water on the other hand is regulated by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) which goes through a much stricter process in ensuring the water is as pure as can be/ Tap water has traces of fluoride and chlorine to kill the bacteria that may be found in it. Bottled water could potentially leak plastic into

I grew up in Las Vegas where the tap water tasted horrible. To make matters worse, my grandmother always told us not to drink the tap water because it was not safe or good for us. So out of habit I have always drank bottled water. However, after doing a bit of research, it seems my grandma’s fears may have been unwarranted. Bottled water is not always better and in some cases may be worse than tap water.

Although privatization seemed to help the economy at first, the country’s economy continued to decline in the late 90s. By then, the country had privatized their national airline, electric utilities, and national train services. But no privatization brought more public opposition as the privatization of the water of Cochabamba, Bolivia’s 3rd largest city, which became widely known at the “water wars”.

Bolivia has endured poverty and governmental instability since 1825, when the Napoleonic wars ended and the nation gained independence from Spain. Bolivia currently has a per capita income less than one third of most other Latin American countries, and more than half of its citizens living below the poverty line. Cochabamba is Bolivia's third largest city with a population of 600,000. Cochabamba experienced a water crisis in which only 57% of the city's population had water coverage until the public utility (SEMAPA) and the Bolivian government took action toward this in the late nineties. The World Bank and IMF offered a $14 million loan and $600 million in debt relief to Bolivia, under the requirement that Bolivia privatized Cochabamba's water. Advocates of this deal believed that corporate control would allow the water to reach more people and be provided more efficiently.

As we all known, humans can survive weeks without foods, but only days without water—for special conditions, only hours. That's why we call water as "blue gold". This "gold" occupies 71% of the Earth and 60% of our bodies and is a rare resource over the world. So what will happen when some private companies control this scare resource? When a private company operates public water facility is often considered as a solution to improve the overall water supply and make water systems more efficient. However, this more often cause some social issues. I will talk about water privatization from two sides.

Worldwide one point one billion people live in countries that do not have access to clean safe water according to the Cato Institute. Yet with this, Cato goes on to state that it is due to bad policies that currently stand in the way. In essence Cato is arguing that privatizing the water industry would reduce that. “Cherrapunji, India, the wettest place on earth, suffers from recurrent water shortages” Cato continues with the theme of laying out logical explanations as to why water is alright to be privatized. Their use of this compels the reader to follow the train of thought and beginning looking t the benefits. If the policies in India have led to the wettest place on Earth suffering from water shortages under public policy, we would be

There are some people who believe that There is nothing wrong with believing that water is a commodity. That means that select companies view water as a way to make a profit because in their opinion it is considered to be a commodity. This is the wrong perspective to have on water since it should be considered a basic human necessity and not something to be bought and sold on the market. In many parts of the world obtaining clean and bacteria free water is already an issue, and to add to that by requiring individuals to purchase water is inexcusable. By privatizing water, it shows how little others care about the people who are unable to have money and would not be able to afford water. The participation in privatizing water has placed an undue

Privatization refers to the transfer of business, property or ownership of the government to the private sector. The government will not own the entity or the production anymore. By Kosar (2006), it is a shift of the function from the state to the private sector. Privatization is often used to increase the revenue of the government, it is a common economic tool. (Addams, 2006). According to Poon (2004), privatization can be divided into four categories which is sales arrangement: meaning of transferring ownership of the government to the private enterprises, contracting arrangement: it involves transfer of service productions from the in-house government to the private contractors, deregulation: reducing the state regulation by market entry restrictions to increase market competition, user pay: it assumes people are rational and separate individuals who aim to earn profit in everyday lives. These are some definitions

Bolivia is in a state of economic crisis, caused by the limited access to, excess pollution, and scarcity of fresh water. Privatization will provide the economic stability necessary to advance technology and spread water into poor

The extended view of corporate citizenship as discussed in the chapter for the privatized water companies are about the “Civil rights” of the citizen .It reveals the governmental failure to addressing the important issues in the society. In the case study some governments have acted in favor of the society by imposing fines and compensations, asking the companies to involve in different environmental programs for conservation of water also by imposing a ban on the bottled water in 12 municipal premises and supporting the corporate citizen actions.

A modern state is a set of organisations and institutions related to the function of the government; its role is to provide order, policy, revenue, internal and external representation, and services.1 When the state fails to govern the commons, that is, the land or resources affecting the whole community, private companies take over. Within the past several decades privatization of the freshwater sources and public water systems is widespread worldwide. Yet, private companies provide water guided by the principle of the financial gain and not based on the equal distribution paradigm, and such approach makes poverty-stricken suffer the most, while the wealthy remain intact.

The landscape of Hyderabad’s water utility today is characterized by inadequate water supply outpaced by growing demand, an unreliable network, inequitable water access for low-income households, and a tense political climate. If these issues are not urgently addressed in the private-sector participation (PSP) sought by the city, they will continue to plague Hyderabad into the future. After thorough analysis, we recommend the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) strive for an output-based concession that grants a private company flexibility to expand as desired, but also ties financial incentives to expansion and performance to ensure pro-poor coverage.