RECLAIMING THE FLOW: GLOBAL LESSONS FROM WATER
PRIVATISATION AND THE RETURN TO PUBLIC CONTROL
This work examines the
global trajectory of water governance, focusing on the rise and subsequent
retreat of privatisation in favour of public control. Through a
multidisciplinary lens, it explores how neoliberal reforms commodified water,
leading to widespread price hikes, service inequality, and governance failures.
In response, over 300 documented cases of remunicipalization—the reversion of
water services to public ownership—have emerged across continents. Drawing from
case studies in Cochabamba, Paris, Berlin, Jakarta, and beyond, the text
illustrates how grassroots activism, judicial rulings, and civic engagement
have driven this shift. The remunicipalization movement represents a
transformative paradigm rooted in democratic governance, transparency,
financial equity, and climate resilience. Ultimately, the study positions water
not as a commodity, but as a fundamental human right, asserting that public
trust, not private profit, must anchor water policy in an age of inequality and
climate disruption.
1
The Rise
and Retreat of Privatisation
1.1
From Public Good to Commodity
The commodification of water
in the late 20th century marked a significant turning point in global water
governance. Under the influence of neoliberal economic policies promoted by
international financial institutions, water services—once universally regarded
as public goods—were reframed as market commodities. This shift was central to
the structural adjustment programs imposed across the Global South, forcing
governments to reduce public spending and liberalise essential services,
including water (Araral & Wang, 2013).
Governments, especially in
developing countries, were urged to embrace privatisation as a pathway to
efficiency. Water management was no longer driven by public welfare but by
financial profitability. The promise was that competition would lower costs and
improve service delivery. However, the reality proved starkly different.
“When your faucet turns
off—not because of drought, but because you cannot afford the bill—you begin to
question who really owns water.”
This powerful reflection
encapsulates the human cost of treating water as a product rather than a right.
Across continents, from the hills of Bolivia to the boulevards of Paris,
citizens began to push back. Privatisation, initially touted as a silver bullet
for public inefficiencies, became synonymous with rising tariffs, deteriorating
infrastructure, and growing inequality (Hassan, 2011; Côrtes et al., 2021).
Private operators betrayed
the promise of efficient, well-financed water services through widespread
underinvestment and disregard for local and Indigenous systems. In Brazil, for
example, the exclusion of poor communities from privatised networks fueled
public outcry and grassroots advocacy for remunicipalization (Libânio, 2020;
Gonçalves, 2017).
1.2
Privatisation’s Global Shortfalls
The failures of privatised
water systems are well-documented and global in scope. Empirical studies have
repeatedly shown that private water operators often prioritise short-term
returns over long-term sustainability, leading to a range of adverse outcomes:
- Price Hikes: Users in privatised systems
frequently faced unaffordable tariffs, especially in low-income areas
(Ioris, 2012; Côrtes et al., 2021).
- Underinvestment: Contrary to promises, many private
firms delayed critical infrastructure upgrades, focusing instead on profit
extraction (Figueroa et al., 2022).
- Inequity: Privatisation exacerbated
disparities in service delivery, with marginalised communities—often
rural, poor, or Indigenous—bearing the brunt of exclusion (Gonçalves,
2017).
- Erosion of Indigenous Systems: Traditional water management
practices were displaced or ignored under market-based models, undermining
community resilience and cultural continuity (Libânio, 2020).
In Spain and Brazil,
resistance movements arose to defend public water access. These campaigns
exposed the contradictions between privatisation and the principle of water as
a human right (Berge et al., 2023; Gonçalves, 2017). The remunicipalization
movement was born out of this discontent—a movement now documented in more than
300 global cases since the early 2000s (Figueroa et al., 2022).
1.3
Resistance, Reclamation, and the Birth of a New
Paradigm
As privatisation faltered,
civil society mobilised. Citizens reframed water governance as a matter of democracy,
dignity, and accountability, rather than efficiency alone. The
remunicipalization movement emerged from this context, anchored in collective
resistance and informed by the practical failures of privatised models
(Bulengela, 2024; Krisnajaya et al., 2019).
From Paris and Berlin to
Jakarta and Cochabamba, cities reasserted public control, motivated by the
principle that water is not a commodity, but a fundamental human right
(Gonçalves, 2017; Figueroa et al., 2022). These remunicipalization efforts
often led to better service delivery, increased transparency, and community
engagement in governance.
📊
Visual Infographic Box: “25 Years of Water Privatisation: A Timeline of
Crisis and Reversals”
|
Year |
Location |
Event |
|
1989 |
UK |
Complete privatisation of
England and Wales’ water |
|
1997 |
Jakarta, Indonesia |
Water PPP with Aetra and
Thames |
|
2000 |
Cochabamba, Bolivia |
Mass protests overturn
privatisation |
|
2010 |
Paris, France |
Establishment of Eau de
Paris (public utility) |
|
2013 |
Berlin, Germany |
City repurchases water
services |
|
2017 |
Jakarta, Indonesia |
Supreme Court rules
privatisation unconstitutional |
|
2023 |
Global |
Over 300 cases of
remunicipalization documented |
The lessons learned from
these cases are converging into a new paradigm of public-citizen
partnerships, where communities demand not only access to water but also a
voice in its governance (Howell et al., 2023).
1.4
Public Governance Reimagined
Beyond simply reversing
privatisation, the remunicipalization wave is ushering in new governance
models. These emphasise:
- Democratic Control: Establishing participatory bodies
and public boards.
- Transparency: Making financial and operational
decisions open to public scrutiny.
- Accountability: Embedding ethical standards into
water provision (Figueroa et al., 2022).
- Community Engagement: Including citizens in planning,
monitoring, and evaluating water services (Eakin et al., 2011; Sheng-quan,
2023).
Governments respond to
public pressure with reforms and systemic transformation. This shift
acknowledges that water governance is not merely a technical challenge; it is
deeply political, social, and moral (Ravnborg, 2016).
The resurgence of public
water services reflects a broader reevaluation of what essential services
mean in a world confronting inequality, climate change, and broken trust in
markets. It also serves as a foundation for more inclusive and resilient
infrastructure planning.
Privatisation once promised efficiency,
innovation, and sustainability, but reality exposed its limits. As public
dissatisfaction swelled, so too did a counter-movement that redefined water as
a human right. The retreat from privatisation is not just a technical
correction—it is a moral course correction in the global governance of
water.
Chapter 2 will explore the
anatomy of remunicipalization: how communities are taking back control, what
challenges they face, and the blueprint for democratic water futures.
2
Defining
Remunicipalization – A Global Wave
2.1
What is
Remunicipalization?
Remunicipalization is the
process of reversing privatisation by returning water services to public
ownership and management. This global trend has gained significant momentum due
to unmet service promises, increasing tariffs, citizen activism, and legal
mandates affirming water as a human right (Porcher & Saussier, 2017; Bel,
2020). Since 2000, over 300 documented cases of remunicipalization have
occurred, signalling a transformative shift in water governance (Berge et al.,
2023).
The underlying motivations
for remunicipalization reflect widespread public dissatisfaction with privatised
water systems. Common grievances include a lack of infrastructure investment,
opacity in contractual agreements, rising costs, and exclusionary practices.
These shortcomings have sparked legal referendums, community resistance, and a
broad-based push for democratic and transparent management of water services
(Albalate et al., 2024; Gonçalves, 2017).
More than a mere
administrative shift, remunicipalization embodies a moral and political stance:
Water must follow the principles of public trust and equity, not the logic of
profit. This growing movement draws strength from cities both affluent and
under-resourced, indicating its universal relevance and ethical appeal (Bel,
2020).
2.2
Global Drivers of Reversal
Structural failures and
socio-political responses drive the remunicipalization movement.
- Financial Failures: Privatised systems have frequently
failed to deliver promised investments, leading to deteriorating
infrastructure and declining service quality (Rodina, 2018).
- Escalating Tariffs: Tariff hikes under private
operators have made water unaffordable for many, especially in vulnerable
communities (Yasin et al., 2020).
- Legal and Civic Action: Court rulings, referendums, and
citizen-led lawsuits have affirmed the right to water, often catalysing
the transition back to public control (Razavi, 2019).
- Transparency and Trust Gaps: Opaque contracts and mismanagement
have eroded public trust in private operators, strengthening the call for
transparent public governance (Berge et al., 2023).
Community-driven mobilisations
have proved especially powerful in triggering these reversals. In Cochabamba,
Bolivia, mass protests overturned a privatisation scheme following a 200%
tariff hike. In Jakarta, Indonesia, the Supreme Court ruled privatisation
unconstitutional, restoring public control (Razavi, 2019; Berge et al., 2023).
Global narratives linking
water governance to human rights amplify the momentum of remunicipalization,
sustainability, and social justice (Porcher & Saussier, 2017; Rodina,
2018).
2.3
Where It is Happening – A Timeline of Reversals
The movement toward remunicipalization
has taken root across six continents, reflecting its global resonance. The
table below highlights key cases that showcase the rationale and results of
this transition:
🔍 Comparative Matrix: Why Public Models
Worked
|
City |
Year Privatised |
Year Reversed |
Reason for Reversal |
Outcome of Public Control |
|
Cochabamba |
1999 |
2000 |
200% tariff hike, protests |
Restored affordability, equity |
|
Paris |
1985 |
2010 |
End of contract, public demand |
€35M annual savings, transparency |
|
Berlin |
1990s |
2013 |
Secretive contracts, high prices |
Improved governance, democratic
control |
|
Accra |
2000s |
2011 |
Poor performance by PPP |
Better service by GWCL |
|
Jakarta |
1997 |
2017 |
Supreme Court ruling |
Legal precedent for public water |
|
Barcelona |
2010 |
Pending |
Public lawsuit filed |
Rising citizen pressure |
These cases illustrate the
widespread and multifaceted pushback against privatised water regimes. Legal
rulings, public pressure, and financial data all converge to validate
remunicipalization as a viable and preferable alternative.
2.4
The Ethical Turn in Global Water Governance
As climate change and urbanisation
intensify global water stress, the remunicipalization movement aligns with the
broader ethical shift in public policy. The reassertion of water as a public
good redefines governance not just as administration, but as stewardship rooted
in justice and human dignity (Berge et al., 2023).
Thus, remunicipalization
represents a significant reclamation of public rights and responsibilities,
asserting a new paradigm in how essential services like water are managed and
governed globally (Porcher & Saussier, 2017).
3
Case
Studies in Action: Lessons from Six Cities
3.1
Bolivia – Cochabamba’s Water War (2000)
In 1999, Bolivia awarded a
water contract to Aguas del Tunari, a consortium led by Bechtel. It triggered a
200% increase in tariffs, sparking mass protests known as the “Water War.”
Citizens flooded the streets, and global solidarity movements amplified the
cause. By 2000, the government cancelled the contract, reinstating public
ownership—a watershed moment in resistance to privatisation (McGoldrick, 2018;
Razavi, 2019).
The Cochabamba Water War
serves as a pivotal case study in the dynamics of water privatisation and
public resistance. It highlights failures in equitable access and showcases the
transformative power of grassroots mobilisation (Fabricant & Hicks, 2013).
Stakeholder engagement, particularly addressing citizens’ rights, was notably
absent—a key factor in the protest’s success (Otto & Böhm, 2006; Loomis,
2013).
Gender dynamics were also
central. Laurie (2010) underscores women’s roles in these protests, reflecting
the intersection of water rights with broader issues of equity and social
justice. The case also sparked international debates on water commodification,
igniting activism that emphasised water as a public good (Razavi, 2019).
3.2
France –
Paris Reclaims Its Flow (2010)
After 25 years under Veolia
and Suez, Paris did not renew its contracts, forming Eau de Paris, a publicly
owned utility. It yielded €35 million in annual savings, enhanced transparency,
and enabled infrastructure reinvestment (Zhang et al., 2021; Martínez et al.,
2023).
The decision reflected a
governance shift focused on democratic management and social equity. It
challenged the myth that privatisation is inherently more efficient. The Eau de
Paris model prioritised community engagement and accountability, prompting
other cities to reevaluate their governance (Martínez et al., 2023).
3.3
Germany – Berlin’s Democratic Turn (2013)
Berlin’s partial privatisation
in the 1990s led to rising costs and opaque contracts. A 2011 referendum
demanded transparency. By 2013, the city repurchased its water services,
restoring democratic ownership (Figueroa et al., 2022; Romanò et al., 2022).
This case illustrates the
success of citizen mobilisation in reversing privatisation. It highlights how
democratic mechanisms can reclaim public resources and re-centre water
governance on transparency, accountability, and public interest.
3.4
Ghana – Accra Ends Private Contract (2011)
Ghana terminated its
contract with Aqua Vitens Rand Limited in 2011 after the company failed to meet
performance targets. Public dissatisfaction and underperformance led to a
return to public ownership via Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) (Aigbavboa et
al., 2023; Harris, 2019).
The case underlines how
privatisation often fails to address infrastructure and access needs. Public
control restored trust and redirected focus toward service quality and
transparency (Hirvi, 2012; Ameyaw & Chan, 2015).
3.5
Indonesia – Jakarta’s Judicial Turnaround (2017)
Jakarta’s 1997 privatisation
through PAM Lyonnaise Jaya and Aetra led to poor access and secretive
agreements. In 2017, the Indonesian Supreme Court ruled the privatisation
unconstitutional, restoring public control (Setiadi & Pratiwiningrum, 2020;
Oktaviani et al., 2020).
This legal milestone emphasised
the role of judicial systems in defending public water rights. The ruling
marked a historic moment in reaffirming water as a constitutional right in
Indonesia (Colven, 2022).
4
Patterns and Principles – Why Reversals Succeed
The patterns and principles
of remunicipalization highlight critical trends in returning water services
from private to public management. This chapter analyses five key themes that
have consistently emerged across global remunicipalization efforts: lack of
investment, high prices, secrecy, public protest, and legal action.
4.1
Lack of Infrastructure Investment
One of the foremost reasons
for remunicipalization is the frequent failure of private operators to reinvest
in infrastructure, leading to long-term service decay. Deferred maintenance and
short-term profit motives contribute to the deterioration of essential water
systems (Bel, 2020). In contrast, public ownership has shown greater commitment
to long-term investment, as public utilities are typically more aligned with
community needs (Romanò et al., 2022). The reversion to public control often
highlights the inadequacy of private oversight mechanisms and the unsustainable
financial models employed under privatisation (McDonald, 2016).
4.2
Tariff Hikes and Economic Exclusion
Privatisation is frequently
associated with significant tariff increases, rendering access unaffordable for
many citizens (Papenfuß & Aufenacker, 2011). Authorities often justify
these hikes as necessary for cost recovery or infrastructure upgrades. However,
they disproportionately burden low-income households. In contrast,
remunicipalized systems have often succeeded in stabilising or reducing water
rates, emphasising equitable access and challenging the commodification of
water (Bel, 2020; Figueroa et al., 2022). Public water operators often adjust
tariffs based on social equity considerations, reflecting a governance model
grounded in public welfare rather than shareholder returns.
4.3
Contract Secrecy and Governance Failures
Opaque governance is a
hallmark of many privatised water arrangements. Non-disclosure agreements and
confidential clauses often prevent public scrutiny, contributing to growing
mistrust (Voorn, 2021). Remunicipalization processes frequently restore
transparency by implementing public oversight structures and requiring the open
disclosure of operational and financial data (Bel, 2020). Such reforms are
critical to rebuilding trust, enabling communities to monitor and participate
in decisions that affect their access to water services.
4.4
Role of Public Protest
Citizen mobilisations have
repeatedly proven pivotal in prompting remunicipalization. Protests in cities
such as Cochabamba and Berlin exemplify the power of grassroots movements to
challenge entrenched private interests and influence political will (Razavi,
2019; DeRidder et al., 2020). Public demonstrations often compel leaders to
reevaluate contractual arrangements and prioritise citizens’ rights to
essential services. As shown in numerous cases, such activism acts as a
catalyst for broader legal and institutional change (Porcher & Saussier,
2017; McDonald, 2016).
4.5
Legal Action as a Tool of Justice
Judiciaries have
increasingly become active defenders of public water rights. Landmark rulings
in countries like Indonesia have reinforced constitutional guarantees,
asserting water as a human right and legitimising remunicipalization efforts
(Porcher & Saussier, 2017; Marwa, 2019). Courts are playing a growing role
in curbing the overreach of privatised models and ensuring that water
governance aligns with human dignity and public interest. Legal frameworks thus
provide an essential backstop when market mechanisms fail to deliver just and
equitable outcomes.
These five
principles—investment failure, economic exclusion, contract secrecy, public
protest, and legal remedy—serve as foundational elements in the growing global
trend toward remunicipalization. Together, they reflect a broader shift in the
understanding of water governance: from a commodified utility to a shared
public trust. As global pressures such as climate change and urbanisation
intensify, these patterns offer a roadmap for building more resilient,
equitable, and accountable water systems worldwide.
5
Innovations After Remunicipalization
5.1
Participatory Governance Models
Participatory governance
models have gained traction in various cities, ensuring that civic engagement
plays a crucial role in public service accountability. Cities like Naples and
Paris implement citizen boards, audits, and participatory budgeting practices
that allow residents to influence resource allocation and policy decisions.
Such frameworks encourage transparency and foster community trust by involving
citizens directly in governance processes (Kitchin et al., 2015; Degbelo et
al., 2016). Citizen involvement not only helps to hold public officials
accountable but also promotes a better understanding of community needs and
preferences, thus aligning government actions with public interests (Kitchin et
al., 2016; Kitchin, 2016). The implementation of these models demonstrates a
shift toward more democratised governance structures, where citizens are not
merely recipients of services but active participants in decision-making
(Kitchin, 2016).
5.2
Digital Transparency
Digital tools and
technologies are reshaping public service transparency through the integration
of innovative billing systems, online dashboards, and complaint tracking
mechanisms. These innovations foster trust in public utilities by providing
real-time data and facilitating user engagement in service delivery. For
instance, interactive dashboards can offer citizens insights into service
performance metrics, operational efficiency, and expenditure (Kitchin et al.,
2015; Whittington & Nauges, 2020). Such digital platforms enable
authorities to provide timely information and respond to public inquiries
effectively, enhancing accountability (Soundararaj et al., 2022). Furthermore,
the evolution of urban dashboards reflects broader innovative city initiatives
that prioritise data accessibility and stakeholder engagement, essential for
fostering informed decision-making among residents and local governance (Young
et al., 2020).
5.3
Climate-Resilient Infrastructure
Investments in
climate-resilient infrastructure are becoming increasingly vital as public
utilities face the challenges of climate change. Cities are moving towards
decentralised systems and nature-based solutions that not only mitigate
environmental impacts but also enhance community resilience. By adopting
sustainable practices, municipalities are recognising the interconnectedness of
urban infrastructure and environmental health (Julihi et al., 2019;
Contreras-Figueroa et al., 2023). The implementation of such strategies is
closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS), reinforcing the
commitment to resilience in urban planning and service delivery (Fagundes et
al., 2024; Zdraveski et al., 2017). This shift illustrates a growing
understanding among public utilities that climate resilience is essential for
long-term sustainability and operational effectiveness, which in turn supports
community well-being (Nayak et al., 2023).
5.4
Financial Equity Reforms
Financial equity reforms in
public utilities have emerged as critical measures to ensure that essential
services remain affordable, particularly for vulnerable populations. Strategies
such as cross-subsidisation and progressive pricing models allow municipalities
to balance cost recovery with social equity, enabling access for low-income
households while maintaining service quality (Whittington & Nauges, 2020;
Beecher, 2020). These reforms are significant in addressing disparities in
service access, as they create a more equitable framework that accounts for
varying socio-economic contexts (Chen et al., 2021). Additionally, the
introduction of extensive affordability analyses informs policy-making,
ensuring that public utilities align their pricing structures with the
financial realities of the communities they serve, thereby promoting greater
inclusivity and social justice in service delivery (Badii et al., 2018).
In summary, the innovations
following remunicipalization reflect a comprehensive approach to governance
that integrates participatory models, digital transparency, climate resilience,
and financial equity. By embracing these frameworks, municipalities can enhance
accountability, promote inclusive participation, and adapt to contemporary
challenges in urban governance.
6
Outcomes of Remunicipalization: What Changed?
Improved Service Delivery
Public utilities often outperform their private predecessors in quality,
access, and reliability. Enhanced accountability ensures a stronger focus on
equitable distribution. It also addresses rising concerns over bottled water
consumption, environmental degradation, and the commodification of water.
Cost Savings Cities like
Paris and Berlin report significant annual savings post-remunicipalization. Utilities
reinvest these funds into infrastructure, staff development, and customer
service.. The Paris example, with 35 million euros in yearly savings,
demonstrates fiscal prudence under public models.
Democratic Governance
Remunicipalized systems frequently establish public boards and participatory
mechanisms, fostering local ownership and inclusive decision-making. This model
promotes resilience and flexibility in the face of urbanisation and climate
change challenges.
Re-legitimisation of the
Public Sector. Successful remunicipalization restores public confidence in the government’s
ability to deliver essential services, proving that state-run models can be
both practical and ethical. It rejects the neoliberal paradigm that equates
privatisation with efficiency and places human rights at the centre of water
governance.
The outcomes of
remunicipalization reflect significant shifts in water governance, leading to
improved service delivery, cost savings, enhanced democratic governance, and
the re-legitimisation of the public sector. Each of these elements underscores
the substantial benefits that can arise when communities regain control over
essential water services.
6.1
Improved Service Delivery
Research indicates that
public utilities frequently outperform their private predecessors in terms of
water quality, access, and reliability. Enhanced accountability within public
systems facilitates a stronger focus on equitable distribution (Romanò et al., 2022).
The transition towards public management not only addresses issues related to
service decay and inefficiencies often linked with privatised operations but
also attempts to counter rising concerns over bottled water consumption and
environmental degradation (Voorn et al., 2020). For example, cities that have
remunicipalized, such as Paris and Berlin, have reported significant
improvements in service delivery metrics, providing residents with better
access to clean water.
6.2
Cost Savings
Numerous cases of
remunicipalization document significant financial savings. For instance, after
reverting to public ownership, Paris reported annual savings of 35 million
euros and reinvested them into infrastructure improvements and customer service
enhancements(Spang et al., 2020). Similarly, Berlin has also experienced
financial benefits reported in the literature, although specific figures for
Berlin were not substantiated, indicating a trend towards fiscal savings that
support ongoing upgrades and staff development within the public utility
framework (Albalate et al., 2024). This trend illustrates how
remunicipalization can lead to fiscal prudence while maintaining service
quality and affordability for citizen
s.
6.3
Democratic Governance
The establishment of public
boards and participatory mechanisms is a hallmark of remunicipalized systems,
fostering local ownership and inclusive decision-making (Berge et al., 2023).
This model strengthens community engagement and resilience amidst the growing
pressures of urbanisation and climate change, empowering citizens to influence
how their water resources are managed (Nagaraj & Anitha, 2022). By
democratising decision-making, public utilities pave the way for governance
structures that prioritise local needs while ensuring transparency and
accountability.
6.4
Re-legitimisation of the Public Sector
Successful
remunicipalization has restored public confidence in government capabilities to
deliver essential services effectively and ethically. By proving that state-run
models can operate efficiently, these transitions challenge the neoliberal
paradigm that equates privatisation with efficiency, repositioning human rights
at the centre of water governance (Berge et al., 2023). This re-legitimisation
process emphasises the importance of prioritising public welfare over corporate
profits, fundamentally reshaping how societies view public services.
In summary, the outcomes of
remunicipalization are extensive and transformative. Improved service delivery,
significant cost savings, enhanced democratic governance, and the re-legitimisation
of public services collectively illustrate the multifaceted benefits of
transitioning from privatised to public management of water resources. These
changes not only enhance community equity but also affirm the principle that
access to water is a fundamental human right, deserving of prioritised
protection and management.
7
A Right
Reclaimed, A Future Redesigned
The phenomenon of
remunicipalization signifies more than a mere reversal of privatisation; it
represents a transformative leap towards a more effective paradigm of
governance that prioritises public welfare over profit maximisation.
Communities across the globe have successfully reclaimed the management of
their water resources, demonstrating that treating water as a public good is
not only feasible but imperative in combating growing inequalities, addressing
climate stress, and rectifying the shortcomings of privatisation (Neves-Silva
et al., 2020).
This reassessment of water
governance stems from a recognition of water as a fundamental human right—an
idea that has gained traction in various legal frameworks, emphasising that
access to water should be universal and equitable (Syafrida & Marbun, 2020;
Marco, 2023). The United Nations has underscored this perspective,
acknowledging that equitable access to safe and clean drinking water and
sanitation is essential to the realisation of all human rights (Cardoso &
Wichman, 2022). Furthermore, in light of climate change and environmental
degradation, there is an urgent need to redesign public systems to enhance
resilience, thereby securing both ecological integrity and social equity in
access to clean water (Szwedo, 2021).
Innovative practices rooted
in transparency and participatory governance are critical for the future of
water management. Mechanisms such as citizen engagement in decision-making
processes not only bolster accountability but also foster a sense of communal
ownership and responsibility towards water resources (Rajala et al., 2019;
Zegeye, 2024). As evidenced in remunicipalized contexts, integrating digital
transparency tools, participatory budgeting, and audits can empower local
populations to influence water governance directly, ensuring that public
services adapt to their evolving needs and priorities (Nababan et al., 2024).
Additionally, financial
equity reforms are paramount. Implementing progressive pricing mechanisms and
cross-subsidisation can help alleviate the financial burden on vulnerable
populations, ensuring that access to water does not depend on the ability to
pay but rather is recognised as a fundamental human entitlement (Zdraveski et
al., 2017; Syafrida & Marbun, 2020). Such reforms reflect a more profound
ethical commitment to equity and sustainability in public service delivery
(Neves-Silva et al., 2019; Barnard, 2020).
In conclusion,
remunicipalization heralds a potential renaissance for water governance, moving
towards systems that genuinely respect and enforce water as a human right. To
advance this evolution, stakeholders must embrace innovations in transparency,
financial methodologies, and participatory frameworks that honour the intrinsic
value of water as a life-sustaining resource. By doing so, communities can
reshape the future of water governance into one that is equitable, sustainable,
and resilient, thereby reclaiming their rights and ensuring a better tomorrow
for all.
References
Abubakari, M.,
Buabeng, T., Ahenkan, A. (2013). Implementing Public Private Partnerships in
Africa: The Case of Urban Water Service Delivery in Ghana. Journal of Public
Administration and Governance, 3(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v3i1.3252
Albalate, D.,
Bel, G., Gradus, R., Reeves, E. (2021). Re-municipalisation of local public
services: incidence, causes and prospects. International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 87(3), 419-424.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211006455
Albalate, D.,
Bel, G., Reeves, E. (2021). Are we there yet? Understanding the implementation
of re-municipalisation decisions and their duration. Public Management Review,
24(6), 951-974. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1877795
Albalate, D.,
Bel, G., GonzálezGómez, F., Hernández-Gutiérrez, J.C., PicazoTadeo, A.J.
(2024). Changing prices after the reform of local public services:
remunicipalization versus privatisation. Journal of Regulatory Economics,
65(2025-03-01 00:00:00), 2026-01-01 00:00:00.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-024-09472-7
Bel, G.
(2020). Public versus private water delivery, remunicipalization and water
tariffs. Utilities Policy, 62, 100982.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2019.100982
Bustamante,
R.G. (2004). The water war: resistance against privatisation of water in
Cochabamba, Bolivia. Revista De Gestão De Ãgua Da América Latina,
1(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.21168/rega.v1n1.p37-46
Danso, E.
(2019). Anatomy of the Privatisation of State-Owned Enterprises (SOES) in
Ghana: Implications for Policy and Accountability. Journal of Public
Administration and Governance, 9(4), 181.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v9i4.15600
Fabricant, N.,
Hicks, K.L. (2013). Bolivia's Next Water War. Radical History Review,
2013(116), 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-1965757
Geagea, D.,
Kaïka, M., Dell™Angelo, J. (2023). Recommending water: Crossing thresholds
under citizen-driven remunicipalisation. Urban Studies, 60(16), 3294-3311.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231169612
Gómez, L.Ã.S.
(2009). Cochabamba Water Wars. nan, , 2025-03-01 00:00:00.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0360
Heriyanto,
D.S.N. (2016). LEGAL CHALLENGES TO IMPROVE AND REFORM THE PRIVATISED WATER
SERVICES IN INDONESIA. Public Goods & Governance, 1(1), 2018-11-01
00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.21868/pgng.2016.1.2.
Hines, S.
(2021). 5. The Water Is Ours: Water Privatisation and War in Neoliberal
Bolivia. Nan, 151-194. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520381650-009
Hines, S.
(2023). Cochabamba™s 2000 Water War in Historical Perspective. Nan.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.013.1108
Koumpli, A.,
Kanakoudis, V. (2022). Privatisation and Remunicipalization of Water Supply: A
Global Research. nan, , 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/environsciproc2022021068
Marwa, M.
(2019). Changing Water Regime: Remunicipalization in Indonesia under the Global
Hegemony of Privatisation. Global South Review, 1(1), 6.
https://doi.org/10.22146/globalsouth.33131
McDonald, D.A.
(2016). The weight of water: Benchmarking for public water services. Environment
and Planning a Economy and Space, 48(11), 2181-2200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x16654913
McDonald, D.A.
(2019). Remunicipalization and the human right to water. Nan, 143-160.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429453571-11
McDonald, D.A.
(2018). Remunicipalization: The future of water services?. Geoforum, 91, 47-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.02.027
McDonald, D.A.
(2016). The weight of water: Benchmarking for public water services. Environment
and Planning a Economy and Space, 48(11), 2181-2200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x16654913
Ohemeng,
F.L.K., Grant, J.K. (2011). Has the Bubble Finally Burst? A Comparative
Examination of the Failure of Privatisation of Water Services Delivery in
Atlanta (USA) and Hamilton (Canada). Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis
Research and Practice, 13(3), 287-306.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2011.565915
Onuzik,
N.d.C., Mikael-Silva, T., Modena, C.M., Heller, L. (2024). "Fora Saneouro,
a água é do Povo": social representations of residents of Ouro Preto,
Brazil, on the privatisation of water and sanitation services. Observatorio De
La EconomÃa Latinoamericana, 22(8), e6279.
https://doi.org/10.55905/oelv22n8-118
Porcher, S.,
Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath
remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings,
2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract
Porcher, S.,
Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath
remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings,
2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract
Porcher, S.,
Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath
remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings,
2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract
Porcher, S.,
Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath
remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings,
2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract
Porcher, S.,
Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath
remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings,
2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract
Razavi, N.S.
(2019). ˜Social Control™ and the Politics of Public Participation in Water
Remunicipalization, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Water, 11(7), 1455.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071455
Razavi, N.S.
(2019). ˜Social Control™ and the Politics of Public Participation in Water
Remunicipalization, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Water, 11(7), 1455.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071455
Razavi, N.S.
(2019). ˜Social Control™ and the Politics of Public Participation in Water
Remunicipalization, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Water, 11(7), 1455.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071455
Romanò, G.,
Guerrini, A., Vernizzi, S. (2013). Ownership, Investment Policies and Funding
Choices of Italian Water Utilities: An Empirical Analysis. Water Resources
Management, 27(9), 3409-3419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0354-8
Schiel, R.,
Langford, M., Wilson, B.M. (2020). Does it Matter: Constitutionalisation,
Democratic Governance, and the Human Right to Water. Water, 12(2), 350.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020350
Setiadi, W.,
Pratiwiningrum, A.Z. (2020). A Remunicipalization Idea on Water Management in
DKI Jakarta Province. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 19(3), 630.
https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2019.19.3.2657
Silver, J.
(2023). Infrastructuring Urban Futures. Nan,.
https://doi.org/10.47674/9781529225648
Tuslian, W.N.,
Rinwigati, P., Sandyawan, S. (2024). In Pursuit of Water Justice in Jakarta. The
Indonesian Journal of Socio-Legal Studies, 3(2).
https://doi.org/10.54828/ijsls.2024v3n2.3
Valdovinos, J.
(2012). The remunicipalization of Parisian water services: new challenges for
local authorities and policy implications. Water International, 37(2), 107-120.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2012.662733
No comments:
Post a Comment