1
Water for Sale: Rethinking the Promises and
Perils of Privatised Water Services
1.1
The Global Shift to Private Control
The
Birth of Privatisation in Water Governance. The era of privatisation in water
services emerged prominently in the late 20th century as governments worldwide
faced pressures to address infrastructure deficits and dwindling public funds.
Many nations adopted privatisation policies that allowed private entities to
manage water resources traditionally viewed as public commodities. This shift
sought to inject efficiency and expertise into the management of water supply
systems while raising questions about accessibility and public welfare (Bakker,
2004; Pempetzoglou & Patergiannaki, 2017).
Neoliberal
Roots and Global Influence, Policymakers and advocates often frame the privatisation
of water services within the broader context of neoliberal agendas, notably the
structural adjustment programs enforced by international financial institutions
like the IMF and World Bank in indebted nations (Pempetzoglou &
Patergiannaki, 2017). These programs typically required the privatisation of
critical utilities, including water, under the premise that such measures would
yield improved operational efficiencies and investment levels. However, the
empirical results of these privatisation efforts present a complex narrative,
where anticipated benefits have proven inconsistent, sometimes leading to
deteriorating service quality and public dissatisfaction (Zheng & Flanagan,
2017; Schack et al., 2020).
1.2
Impacts, Inequities, and Resistance
Social
Resistance and Urban Disparities, Communities and civil society groups have
often met the transition to privatised water services with local discontent and
sociopolitical resistance. Studies indicate that the dynamics of social
citizenship and privatised systems significantly alter access to water, where
the focus shifts from public good to economic commodity, resulting in a
marketplace that may exclude those unable to afford services (Spronk, 2007; Hirvi,
2012). In urban centres like Accra, Ghana, the privatisation process
transformed access patterns, creating disparities that left marginalised
communities without equitable water supply options (Hirvi, 2012). The protests
against water privatisation in Bolivia exemplify the clash between privatised
water governance and public rights, illustrating the potential for popular
mobilisation to challenge privatised regimes (Spronk, 2007).
Environmental
and Public Health Risks. The impact of these shifts extends beyond immediate
service delivery to encompass broader environmental and health outcomes. The
privatisation model often leads to over-reliance on private wells, particularly
in rural areas, where users may remain uninformed about potential contamination
risks, resulting in significant public health concerns (Zheng & Flanagan,
2017). Research has highlighted that private well owners frequently
underestimate risks associated with water safety, thus increasing vulnerability
to waterborne diseases (Hooks et al., 2019; Burch et al., 2021). Researchers
and public health officials have linked the privatisation of water supply to
rising incidences of waterborne illness in regions with weak or non-existent
regulatory oversight (Schack et al., 2020).
Efficiency
Claims Versus Evidence, Despite assertions that private management can offer
superior efficiency, studies comparing public and private water services reveal
a more nuanced reality. A benchmarking study in Portugal found that, over time,
performance metrics for private water utilities were comparable to, if not
inferior to, their public counterparts (Marques & Simões, 2020).
Conversely, criticisms of privatisation highlight the inherent risks of
profit-driven models, particularly in areas marked by poverty and insufficient
regulatory frameworks (Tariq et al., 2019).
1.3
Governance,
Equity, and Future Pathways
Economic
Trade-offs in Privatised Models. Economically, the privatisation approach has
produced mixed outcomes. While marketed as a means for infrastructure
investment, evidence suggests that private companies sometimes prioritise
profit maximisation over equitable access and quality service delivery (Clarke
et al., 2004). For example, analyses of Water and Sewerage companies in Latin
America demonstrated significant divergence in service quality post-privatisation,
with poorer populations receiving less attention (Tariq et al., 2019; Clarke et
al., 2004).
Governance
Structures and Accountability, The governance and regulatory frameworks
accompanying privatisation efforts also significantly influence outcomes. Cases
from Mexico illustrate how public-private partnerships can vary in efficacy and
public perception based on governance structure, oversight authority granted to
private entities, and community involvement in decision-making (Rincón, 2016;
Wilder & Romero‐Lankao,
2006). These findings underscore the complexity surrounding the introduction of
market mechanisms into traditionally public water management.
Toward
Equitable Water Governance. As countries continue to confront water-related
challenges, lessons from privatisation must inform future water governance
policies. There is a growing need for models prioritising environmental
sustainability and social equity over strictly financial returns (Ogden, 1995).
Activists and scholars advocate for frameworks recognising water as a human
right, stressing the need for a return to community-oriented management
practices that prioritise equitable access and environmental stewardship (Baer,
2017; Unesco-Ihp, 2011). Implementing such frameworks necessitates a
fundamental rethinking of water governance that acknowledges its historical
significance as a public good and crafts policies that enhance participatory
governance.
Balancing
Public Good and Private Interests. Ultimately, the discourse on water service
privatisation requires an integrated approach that synchronises economic,
social, and environmental considerations. Effective water management should not
just seek private investment but ensure that service delivery aligns with the
foundational principle of the public good. In conclusion, while water supply
privatisation offers potential avenues for efficiency and growth, Policymakers
and public health authorities must address significant challenges to safeguard
public health and maintain equitable access for all communities. Privatisation
must not come at the expense of equity and public health. While private
investment can support infrastructure goals, reforms must integrate
environmental and social protections. Effective water governance should unite
economic, civic, and ecological priorities to secure clean and fair access for
all (Baer, 2017; Ogden, 1995; UNESCO-IHP, 2011).
2
Privatising the Flow: Unpacking the Global Shift
Toward Private Water Governance
2.1
Global Origins of Water Privatisation
Debt
and Structural Reform in the Global South. The privatisation of water services
is a multifaceted process influenced by various socioeconomic and political
factors that emerged predominantly in the late 20th century. The debt crises
that struck many nations in the Global South during the 1980s sparked the
initial impetus for privatisation. Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPS)
imposed by international financial institutions such as the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank required underfunded countries to
privatise various public utilities as a condition for receiving financial
assistance (Nyangena, 2021; Tan, 2013). Policymakers and international
financial institutions framed this requirement to privatise as a necessary step
toward improving efficiency in the water sector, but it also raised concerns
regarding the implications for equitable access to this essential resource.
Neoliberal
Policy Influence from the Global North. Moreover, neoliberal reforms within the
Global North, particularly those enacted during Margaret Thatcher’s tenure in
the UK, contributed significantly to the global trend of privatising public
services. The privatisation of water services became emblematic of broader
neoliberal policies that favoured market mechanisms and privatisation as
solutions to perceived inefficiencies in public sector management (Ohwo, 2019; Helm,
2020). This shift not only established a model for other countries but also
fostered a belief that private management could deliver better outcomes than
public administration.
2.2
Efficiency Claims vs. Practical Realities
Efficiency
and Infrastructure Investment Promises, Proponents of water privatisation
marketed it as a remedy for declining infrastructure, arguing that private
companies could lead to increased capital investment and modernisation efforts
necessary for improving service delivery. Efficiency gains were touted as a
primary benefit of privatisation, suggesting that the profit motive inherent in
private management would enhance service levels compared to stagnant public
utilities (Ohwo, 2019; Ohemeng & Grant, 2011). Studies suggest that
governments and financial institutions presented the shift towards privatisation
as essential for overcoming challenges related to ageing infrastructures and a lack
of investment in many developing countries (Tan, 2013).
Mixed
Results and Unrealised Expectations. However, the realities following these
privatisation initiatives have painted a more complex picture. Evaluations of
privatised water services often reveal that expected efficiency gains have not
always materialised. Research comparing public and private water utilities has
demonstrated mixed results regarding performance and service quality. For
instance, while some studies indicate operational improvements under private
management, others illustrate that privatisation does not necessarily guarantee
better service quality or increased coverage, particularly among underserved
populations (Ohemeng & Grant, 2011; Suárez-Varela et al., 2016; Estache,
2002). This inconsistency raises critical questions about whether privatisation
is truly an effective solution for the global water crisis.
2.3
Public
Backlash and Rights-Based Critiques
Tariffs,
Inequality, and Public Discontent, In the Global South, scepticism about
privatisation has become more pronounced. In regions where private companies
have assumed control over water services, rising tariffs and declining service
quality have sometimes led to public backlash and social unrest. In the
Philippines, for example, the privatisation of water services in Metro Manila
was initially celebrated for bringing better infrastructure and management but
soon faced criticism for price hikes and inequitable access to clean Water
(Nyangena, 2021; Tan, 2013). Researchers and analysts have observed similar
trends in other countries, where privatisation efforts have sometimes resulted
in greater inequalities in water access, contradicting the promises made by
advocates of privatisation.
Water
as a Human Right, Not a Commodity. Furthermore, the discourse surrounding water
as a commodity versus a human right becomes essential in understanding the
consequences of privatisation on governance and citizen rights. Critics argue
that treating water primarily as a commercial commodity undermines its social
value and right to accessibility. Activists have promoted the notion that water
should be recognised and managed primarily as a public good rather than a
profit-driven resource (Helm, 2020). This perspective emphasises the need for
governments to prioritise equitable access to water services, particularly for
marginalised groups often left behind in privatised models.
2.4
Ecological Consequences and Policy Lessons
Environmental
Risks of Market-Driven Management. The implications of privatisation extend
into environmental considerations as well. The management practices adopted by
private entities can heavily influence resource sustainability, with profit
motives sometimes leading to the over-extraction of water resources (Tan, 2013;
Suárez-Varela et al., 2016). As price structures change under privatised
systems, the incentives for responsible Water use become muddled, potentially
resulting in long-term ecological damage.
Rethinking
Governance in Retrospect, In hindsight, understanding the origins of privatisation
and its widespread adoption requires a critical analysis of the economic,
political, and social frameworks established during the late 20th century.
Overreliance on the private sector, inspired by neoliberal ideologies, has
produced mixed outcomes, requiring policymakers to re-evaluate the
effectiveness and ethics of privatising essential services such as water. There
exists a pressing need for sustainable management approaches that balance
market efficiencies with public welfare to restore trust in water governance
systems globally.
The shift towards privatisation in the water
sector was motivated by various factors, ranging from debt-induced structural
adjustments and neoliberal reforms to the promise of improved efficiency and
modernisation. It has become increasingly clear that these reforms have not
universally yielded positive results. Ongoing debates continue to focus on
finding the right balance between public accountability, private efficiency,
and equitable access to one of humanity’s most essential resources. Lessons
learned from both successful and failed privatisation initiatives will be
crucial in informing future governance frameworks in the water sector
(Nyangena, 2021; Tan, 2013).
3
Privatising the Public Tap: Lessons from the UK’s
Full-Scale Water Privatisation Experience
3.1
Setting the Stage – A Landmark Reform
A
Bold Move Toward Privatisation, The full-scale privatisation of water services
in the United Kingdom, initiated in 1989, represented a significant shift in
the governance of public utilities. All ten water authorities in England and The
government sold water services in Wales to private firms under the assumption
that privatisation would lead to increased efficiency, higher levels of
investment, and ultimately mitigate the financial burdens on taxpayers (Booker,
1994; , Wang, 2022). Following this decision, the UK became a pioneering case
study in the global trend toward privatisation of essential services,
particularly Water (Abdeldayem & Dulaimi, 2019).
Regulatory
Architecture and Market Principles. Initially, Private companies accompanied
the transition to a privatised water system with substantial capital
investments aimed at modernising infrastructure. Governments had underfunded
the system for decades. The government aimed to inject efficiency into service
provision, boosting its operational capabilities through competitive practices
and private management (Lynk, 1993). Regulatory bodies, such as the Office of
Water Services (OFWAT), were established to oversee the newly privatised water
companies and ensure that they performed to standards befitting shareholder
expectations while safeguarding consumer interests (Booker, 1994; Lynk, 1993).
Advocates argued that private firms could manage resources more effectively
than governmental entities, especially under the added pressure of
profitability. Policymakers and private companies believed privatisation would
drive innovation and responsiveness to customer needs.
3.2
Cracks
Beneath the Surface
Consumer
Burden and Environmental Scandals. However, the promise of privatisation soon
gave way to a plethora of challenges and controversies that have left a lasting
impact on public perception and policy discussions. Despite initial capital
investments, the benefits did not uniformly extend to consumers. Rising water
bills became a prevalent issue, prompting criticism that privatisation led to
increased financial strain on households, particularly among the lower-income
segments of society (Lynk, 1993; Ogden & Anderson, 1995). Moreover,
pollution scandals emerged, raising questions about the accountability of
private companies in maintaining environmental standards and the integrity of
water quality (Booker, 1994). These incidents fueled public disillusionment
with privatisation, suggesting that the quest for higher profits could
undermine essential public health considerations.
Corporate
Profits and Public Outrage. Further complicating the assessment of privatisation
outcomes were the controversies surrounding executive pay within the privatised
water companies. Analysis revealed that amidst rising consumer costs, some
firms prioritised substantial dividends for shareholders and generous
compensation packages for executives over investments in infrastructure and
service quality (Ogden & Watson, 2008). This perceived misalignment between
corporate incentives and public welfare exacerbated criticisms of the privatisation
model, making it a target for reform discussions.
3.3
Global
Lessons and Comparative Frameworks
A
Model Exported – With Caveats, The legacy of the UK’s privatisation experience
has implications extending beyond its national borders. It has sparked global
interest in privatising water services as countries facing similar challenges
of underfunding seek solutions for their water management issues (Speight,
2015; Hidayat, 2023). Proponents of privatisation point to the UK’s reforms as
exemplars of potential success, while critics highlight the adverse
consequences that arose, emphasising the need for caution when considering
similar policies. They reiterate that privatisation, particularly of essential
resources like water, is fraught with complications that can lead to poor
economic outcomes, social inequalities, and environmental negligence (Bakker,
2017).
The
UK as a Global Outlier, Today, the UK stands as one of the few countries to
have fully privatised its water system, making it an outlier in global water
governance frameworks, particularly in comparison to the more common public
ownership models found throughout Europe and other regions (Hidayat, 2023; ,
Harold & Hutchinson, 2004). The effectiveness of this privatisation remains
contentious; while some data might suggest improvements in efficiency, the
discourse surrounding customer satisfaction, social equity, and environmental
stewardship continues to cast doubt on the overall success of the model (Lynk,
1993; Adamou et al., 2021).
3.4
Rethinking Public Goods and Private Interest
Navigating
Public-Private Tensions. Fundamentally, the British experience in water privatisation
illustrates the intricate balance required between providing public goods and
the imperatives of a capitalist framework. Although the intention behind
privatisation was to create accountability and improve service quality through
competitive dynamics, the consequences of rising costs, corporate scandals, and
long-term sustainability issues create a narrative that urges for nuanced
discussions about the roles of private and public sectors in essential service
delivery (Ogden & Watson, 2008; , Cairney et al., 2012).
Conclusion:
A Case Study in Accountability, the UK’s full-scale water privatisation not
only transformed the regulatory landscape of water service delivery but also
ignited profound debates about the efficacy and ethics of privatising essential
public goods. The lessons gleaned from the UK’s experience serve as critical
case studies for other nations navigating similar reforms within their water
management sectors, emphasising the need for transparency, accountability, and
a steadfast commitment to the broader public interest (Booker, 1994; , Adamou
et al., 2021; , Reid et al., 2003).
4
Privatisation at the Crossroads: Case Studies and
Consequences from the Global South’s Water Sector
4.1 Diverging
Paths in Water Privatisation
Fragmented Outcomes in the
Global South. The privatisation of water services in the Global South has been
characterised by a spectrum of experiences, with varying outcomes and
significant implications for governance and equity. Notably, the privatisation
efforts in cities such as Buenos Aires, Manila, and Jakarta reveal a complex
interplay of ambitions versus realities, often amplifying existing governance
challenges rather than providing sustainable solutions.
Buenos
Aires: A Cautionary Transformation. In Buenos Aires, Argentina, the privatisation
of water services commenced in 1993 with Aguas Argentinas, a subsidiary of the
multinational Suez. Initially, the initiative was heralded as a success,
pointing to increased coverage in water access. However, tariff hikes quickly
led to public discontent and mounting service complaints from residents (Wu, 2024).
The situation deteriorated following Argentina’s 2001 financial crisis,
culminating in the termination of the privatisation contract and subsequent
renationalisation in 2006. This case underscores the potential pitfalls of
privatisation in a vulnerable economic context and highlights the transient
nature of initial success claims, as privatisation cannot insulate essential
services from broader financial instability.
4.2 Regional
Case Studies in Tension
Manila:
Divided Waters and Rising Dissent. Observers have noted a similar trajectory in
Manila, Philippines, where the privatisation of water services began in 1997,
splitting the city into East and West service zones managed by two private
companies: Manila Water and Maynilad. Although initially celebrated for
expanding access and reducing water loss through improved administration, this
initiative soon faced challenges as rising tariffs provoked protests and
disputes over contracts and service delivery emerged as significant issues (Mao
& Zhao, 2023). The mismatch between private profit motives and public
service expectations raised critical questions about the viability of privatised
water management, especially in a city like Manila, which struggles with severe
inequities in urban access to essential services.
Jakarta:
From Controversy to Courtroom, Jakarta, Indonesia, experienced one of the most
contentious cases of water privatisation during the Suharto regime, starting in
1997. Critics underscored the adverse impacts of privatisation, which resulted
in elevated service prices and a decline in service quality for many residents.
Decades of complaints culminated in a ruling by the Indonesian Supreme Court in
2017, which declared that the privatisation of water services violated citizens’
rights to Water (Abraham, 2018). This ruling underscores the potential for
legal recourse against privatisation models that undermine fundamental human
rights and highlights the urgent need for governance reforms that prioritise
public welfare over corporate profit.
4.3 Privatisation’s
Pitfalls and Political Contexts
Structural
Failures and Social Inequity. These varied experiences across major cities in
the Global South illustrate the nuance inherent in implementing privatisation
within politically volatile or economically unequal settings. While the promise
of efficiency and resource injection often drives such initiatives, the
outcomes frequently reveal deep-rooted governance challenges. Rather than
remedying the infrastructural deficits that necessitated privatisation, these
programs often exacerbate inequalities, with access to safe and affordable water
becoming contingent on profit-driven agendas that fail to accommodate the needs
of lower-income and marginalised populations (Bakker, 2003).
Global
Institutions and Public Resistance. Critics have also pointed to the role of
international financial institutions like the World Bank in promoting privatisation
agendas, often equating them with modernisation and development. However, this
approach has faced backlash from communities who view the commodification of water
as a betrayal of human rights, asserting that access to clean water should be
guaranteed irrespective of economic status (Adams et al., 2020). The call for a
human right to water has gained traction, advocating for water as a public good
rather than a market commodity (Hamouchene, 2022).
4.4 Lessons
for Future Governance
Toward
Inclusive and Contextual Reform, the case studies of Buenos Aires, Manila, and
Jakarta signify the complex and often tumultuous journey of privatising water
services in the Global South. These experiences highlight the broader
implications of governance, citizen engagement, and human rights, underscoring
the urgent need for inclusive frameworks that prioritise public interests over
privatisation imperatives. A future-oriented approach must balance efficiency,
equity, and sustainability, reinforcing the necessity of considering local
contexts and engaging communities in decision-making processes concerning
essential resources (Inglis, 2023).
5
The Global Water Giants: Privatisation, Power, and
the Fight for Public Access
5.1 Global
Expansion and Institutional Backing
The Rise of Multinational Water
Corporations. The rise of global water giants such as Veolia and Suez has
become a defining feature of the water privatisation landscape over the past
few decades. These multinational corporations have established themselves as
dominant players by securing contracts in numerous cities across Africa, Latin
America, Asia, and Europe. Influential international financial institutions,
such as the World Bank and IMF, often facilitated this expansion as the World
Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which promoted privatisation
as a development strategy, asserting that private sector involvement could
address the chronic mismanagement and inefficiencies plaguing public utility
services in many regions Chaisse (2017), Phoenix, 2004).
The
Development Narrative and Its Limits. The support from organisations like the
World Bank has not only provided financial resources but has also lent
credibility to the privatisation agenda. By advocating for privatisation as a
means to foster economic growth and improve infrastructure, these institutions
have significantly influenced global water governance (Maxwell, 2006). However,
it is important to recognise that the privatisation of water services is not
without significant challenges. Unlike industries such as electricity or
telecommunications, which have substitutes, water is an essential resource with
no viable alternatives, creating unique challenges for privatisation (Bakker,
2004).
5.2 Challenges
in Implementation and Retrenchment
Irreversibility
and Community Impact. Once governments privatise water services, it becomes
politically and economically complicated to reverse the process. The entrenched
position of corporations, combined with the failure of privatisation efforts in
several locations, often leaves communities with limited options for recourse
(Morgan, 2007). In many instances, privatised models have resulted in adverse
outcomes, including increased tariffs, decreased service quality, and
diminished accountability. The experience in Buenos Aires and Jakarta, where
privatisation led to rising costs and service complaints, highlights the
complexities involved in exiting privatised contracts (Bakker, 2008; Maxwell,
2003).
Local
Failures and Legal Pushback. In Buenos Aires, the mismanagement and subsequent
termination of the Aguas Argentinas contract illustrate these dynamics;
However, the contract initially succeeded in expanding water coverage, the
financial crisis led to a backlash against privatisation and ultimately
prompted renationalisation in 2006 (Baer, 2017). Similarly, Jakarta’s
experience with privatisation under the Suharto regime was characterised by
increasing prices and poor service, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling that
deemed such privatisation unconstitutional based on the right to Water (Foster,
2020). This legal acknowledgement represents a growing trend in which local
governments and courts challenge privatisation practices on human rights
grounds, asserting the necessity of equitable access to water.
5.3 Corporate
Interests vs. Public Welfare
Profit
Motives and Infrastructure Neglect. As global water giants continue to expand,
criticisms regarding their operations have intensified. Critics argue that the
focus on profit can undermine public welfare, often resulting in price
increases and a lack of investment in essential infrastructure. Analyses of the
roles of Veolia and Suez in various global contexts reveal patterns of
corporate profit maximisation that frequently conflict with the goal of
ensuring equitable and accessible water services for all, especially in poorer
communities (Stoler, 2017; Adams & Halvorsen, 2014). The potential for
corporate interests to overshadow public needs necessitates ongoing scrutiny of
privatisation efforts and corporate actions in the water sector.
Governance,
Equity, and Resistance Movements, The legacy of privatisation and the emergence
of private water companies raise fundamental questions about governance and
accountability. There is a growing discourse advocating for alternative
governance models that prioritise community engagement, environmental
sustainability, and social equity over corporate profit (Huggins et al., 2020).
The recognition of water as a human right has gained traction, with various
civil society movements advocating against the commodification of water and
calling for public management that secures access for all (Juuti et al., 2010).
5.4 Conclusion
– Rethinking Water Governance
Privatisation’s
Legacy and the Case for Reform, the ascent of global water giants such as
Veolia and Suez epitomises the complexity of water privatisation initiatives
worldwide. Their entrenchment, bolstered by support from international
financial institutions, has reshaped water governance, often leading to a
myriad of challenges, including inequity and service inadequacies. Experiences
from various countries underscore the importance of critically evaluating the
goals and consequences of privatisation, advocating for governance frameworks
that prioritise public welfare and human rights in water management.
6
From Protest to Public Power: The Global Shift
from Water Privatisation to Remunicipalization
6.1
The Backlash Against Privatisation
Privatisation
Under Fire, By the early 2000s, a significant shift began to emerge globally
regarding the privatisation of water services, as widespread citizen movements
started challenging the principles of transparency and fairness that had guided
these ventures. Initial promises made by governments and private firms
concerning efficient service provision and minimal financial burdens on
consumers soon fell under scrutiny as many households experienced soaring water
bills amidst continued infrastructural inadequacies. These developments ignited
a wave of lawsuits, protests, and mass resistance that reshaped the landscape
surrounding water governance, ultimately setting the stage for a growing trend
toward remunicipalization in various regions (Spronk, 2007).
Grassroots
Movements and Tariff Resistance. Protests against rising tariffs became
increasingly common, particularly in the context of public-private partnerships,
Governments and private operators rarely realised the supposed advantages of
privatisation For instance, in Bolivia, citizen coalitions comprising diverse
groups emerged to resist what they viewed as unjust privatisation policies and
to advocate for the return of water services to public management (Spronk,
2007). The social movements in Bolivia exemplified a larger narrative that
linked the failure of privatisation to the broader crises of neoliberal
processes that often marginalised public needs while prioritising profits for
private companies. Grassroots actors actively engaged in resistance and
characterised it through protests, advocacy, and community organising, despite
the initial promises of efficiency and service improvement. Grassroots actors
found that privatisation resulted in rising costs and deteriorating service
quality.
6.2
Broken Promises and Social Unrest
Case
Studies in Consumer Discontent, The experience in various cities, such as
Buenos Aires and Manila, further illustrates the disconnect between the
expectations set by privatisation advocates and the lived realities of
consumers. In Buenos Aires, the privatisation model led to significant public
dissatisfaction, culminating in massive protests and the eventual nationalisation
of water services in 2006 (Baer, 2017). Similarly, Manila’s privatisation,
while initially touted for its ability to reduce water loss and expand access
to underprivileged segments of the population, soon gave way to social unrest
driven by tariff hikes and contractual disputes that many residents believed
unfairly burdened poorer neighbourhoods (Sharma & Nayak, 2013). These
instances reinforced the notion that privatisation without appropriate
regulatory mechanisms often results in elevated costs and inequities rather
than the anticipated benefits.
Reframing Water as a Public Good: The
resistance against privatised water services also intensified as citizens began
to vocalise the importance of not only access to water but also the principle
of water as a public good. This growing public awareness shaped the discourse
surrounding water management globally, subsequently leading to calls for
remunicipalization in several cities around the world as action against the
privatisation trend gained momentum. The concept of water as a human right
gained prominence, resonating with both policymakers and activists who argued
for a model that prioritises public welfare and equitable access over profit
maximisation (Pempetzoglou & Patergiannaki, 2017; Obani, 2020).
6.3
Mobilising for Rights-Based Governance
Citizen
Pressure and Government Response, As communities organised and mobilised
against privatisation, governments found themselves facing mounting pressure to
re-evaluate their approaches to water governance. Narratives of justice and
rights powered the social and political dynamics surrounding citizen resistance;
citizens demanded participation in governance and greater transparency in how
water services were administered (Sharma & Nayak, 2013). The thematic
backlash against privatisation highlighted critical issues related to
governance, inequity, and the environmental sustainability of water resources.
Remunicipalization
and Public Governance Reform. Remunicipalization efforts that unfolded in the
2000s not only reflected a pivot away from privatisation but also indicated a
renewed focus on community-based management of water resources, which aligns
more closely with public needs and social equity (Baer, 2017). This shift
necessitates the creation of frameworks that amplify the voices of marginalised
communities, ensuring equitable access to water regardless of socioeconomic
status. Processes of remunicipalization have been seen not just as an end to
privatisation but as a reconfiguration of public governance models to better
reflect collective interests and responsibilities (Ameyaw et al., 2017).
6.4
Alternatives and the Road Ahead
Hybrid
Governance and Local Accountability, The tide of public dissent against privatised
water systems laid bare the persistent tensions between public needs and
private interests. In response to this dilemma, emerging forms of governance,
such as public-private community partnerships that include local stakeholders,
aim to balance the purported benefits of both sectors while avoiding the
pitfalls associated with traditional privatisation approaches (Sharma &
Nayak, 2013). Evaluations of these emerging governance strategies echo the
sentiments of communities advocating for rights-based approaches that prioritise
transparency, equity, and accountability.
Conclusion:
Toward Equitable Water Futures, the early 2000s marked a pivotal period in
water governance characterised by a profound rethinking of privatisation
strategies. Citizen movements, fueled by frustrations over rising costs and
poor service delivery, illuminated the fundamental issues within privatised
systems and the need for sustainable public management frameworks. The legacies
of these movements have paved the way for remunicipalization initiatives that
embrace community engagement, human rights principles, and the expectation that
Governments and policymakers should recognise access to clean and safe water as
a fundamental public good As societies grapple with the complexities of water
governance, these discussions must continue to prioritise equitable access,
sustainability, and responsible management practices to address future
challenges (Fernández & Smith, 2006; Hall & Lobina, 2004).
7
Trust on Tap: Reclaiming Water Governance in the
Wake of Privatisation
7.1
Privatisation’s Promises and Pitfalls
Privatisation
and the Decline of Public Trust. The issue of water privatisation has sparked
significant debate regarding its implications for public trust, financial
stability, and governance. Following the global trend of privatising essential
services, including water resources, stakeholders often prioritised efficiency
over equity, betting on the premise that private entities could better manage
these resources. However, numerous systems demonstrated that this shift
resulted in substantial risks, leading to significant erosion of public trust
in these privatised companies and their governance frameworks (Little, 2015;
Rahaman et al., 2013).
Disappointment
and Rising Discontent, Case studies reveal that the promise of water privatisation—namely,
improved efficiency and increased investment—often failed to materialise.
Instead, many citizens faced increasing water bills while the infrastructure
remained underdeveloped or deteriorated. In numerous instances, the perceived
cost savings and service improvements were contrasted with a decline in
quality, leading to discontent and protests that strained the relationships
between the public and private sectors (Bates, 2010; Rahaman et al., 2013). In
cities like Buenos Aires and Manila, for example, citizens expressed their
displeasure through protests demanding re-regulation and enhanced
accountability, reflecting deep discontent over privatisation’s failure to
deliver promised benefits (Li et al., 2024).
Profit
Versus Public Interest, The fallout from water privatisation also highlighted
the inherent conflict between profit motives and public interest. As
multinationals like Veolia and Suez entered the scene, their approach often
favoured financial performance over community welfare. Furthermore, when
service cuts or price hikes occurred, communities frequently experienced a loss
of confidence in both the providers and regulatory bodies tasked with
overseeing water management, leading to questions about legitimacy and
transparency (Little, 2015; Rahaman et al., 2013). This dynamic cultivated a
politicised environment where public resistance grew, escalating tensions
between citizens and policymakers who had embraced privatisation as a solution
to water management challenges.
7.2
Resistance, Rights, and Legal Pushback
Grassroots
Activism and Shifting Paradigms, Activist movements that emerged in the early
2000s began to question not only the financial practices of privatised water
companies but also the fundamental assumptions underlying privatisation itself.
Advocates emphasised the necessity of trustworthy governance mechanisms, with
many calling for a reevaluation of water as a human right rather than a
commodity to be primarily managed for profit (Rothenberger et al., 2005). This
grassroots pushback highlighted a critical perspective: water privatisation not
only affected the physical provision of services but also undermined the social
contract between governments, corporations, and citizens.
Legal
and Institutional Consequences: Legal implications followed, and communities
and advocacy groups are filing an increasing number of lawsuits against privatised
entities. Failure to meet service obligations reflects broader societal
concerns about the responsibilities of private actors in managing public
resources. Reports from around the world documented how the erosion of trust
led to significant legal and institutional challenges for both governments and
companies involved in water management (Bates, 2010). This situation often
poses considerable risks, as privatisation arrangements can become politically
difficult to unwind once established, creating a tangled web of obligations
that may be hard to dissolve (Little, 2015).
7.3
Toward Reclaiming Public Control
Inequality
and the Case for Remunicipalization. The tragic irony is that in regions where
the need for clean and affordable water is most pressing, the systems designed
to ensure access often end up exacerbating inequalities. This phenomenon has
resulted in remunicipalization efforts, as communities strive to reclaim
control over their water systems. Communities and civil society groups are
seeking to restore the foundational trust that privatisation undermined (Munro
& Kweka, 2021; Rothenberger et al., 2005). Acknowledging public objections
and prioritising inclusive governance structures have become essential steps in
the movement to restore public trust in water governance.
Rebuilding
Governance with Public Trust, the trajectory of water privatisation exemplifies
a critical tension between efficiency and equity. The evolution of public
sentiment from initial acceptance to strong objection illustrates the
consequences of failing to prioritise public trust in governance. As
communities work to reclaim their water services from private entities, the
underlying theme emphasises the necessity of embedding trust and social
accountability within water governance frameworks. The transformative potential
of remunicipalization reflects not just a shift in ownership but a broader
reclamation of public trust that the privatisation experience has fundamentally
challenged (Hyde et al., 2007).
8
References (APA Style)
Estache, A. (2002). Argentina’s
Privatisation of Water Services: A Tale of Two Concessions. World Bank
Institute.
Helm, D. (2020). The Water
Industry: Challenges for Regulation. Oxford University Press.
Nyangena, J. (2021). Water
privatisation in developing countries: A review of global patterns and policy
implications. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 23(4), 515–532.
Ohwo, O. (2019). An assessment of
water supply and sanitation in Nigeria. Environmental Management and
Sustainable Development, 8(2), 45–60.
Ohemeng, F. L. K., & Grant,
J. K. (2011). Neither Public Nor Private: The Efficacy of Mixed Enterprises in
Service Delivery. Canadian Public Administration, 54(1), 57–81.
Suárez-Varela, M., Gómez-Benito,
C., & González, C. (2016). Water management and quality performance
indicators: Comparative study of public and private utilities. Water Resources
Management, 30(2), 649–662.
Tan, H. (2013). Privatisation of
Water Services in the Global South: Reassessing the Evidence. Third World
Quarterly, 34(6), 985–1001.
Baer, H. A. (2017). Global
capitalism and climate change: The need for an alternative world system.
Springer.
Bakker, K. (2004). An
Uncooperative Commodity: Privatising Water in England and Wales. Oxford
University Press.
Burch, T. R., Mikulic, D., &
Brown, S. R. (2021). Private wells and waterborne diseases: A silent public
health issue. Journal of Water and Health, 19(2), 131–142.
Clarke, G. R. G., Kosec, K.,
& Wallsten, S. (2004). Has private participation in water and sewerage
improved coverage? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3445.
Hirvi, M. (2012). The politics of
urban access: The case of water in Accra, Ghana. African Studies Quarterly,
13(2), 24–38.
Hooks, C., Yoder, J., &
Harper, C. (2019). Risk perceptions among private well owners in rural America.
Water Research, 158, 132–139.
Marques, R. C., & Simões, P.
(2020). Public vs private water utilities: Evidence from performance
benchmarking in Portugal. Utilities Policy, 63, 101019.
Ogden, S. G. (1995). Transforming
frameworks of accountability: The case of water privatisation. Accounting,
Organisations and Society, 20(2–3), 193–218.
Pempetzoglou, M., &
Patergiannaki, A. (2017). The politics of privatisation in the global South.
Globalisations, 14(5), 722–735.
Rincón, E. R. (2016). Governance
dynamics in Mexican water utilities. Water Policy, 18(3), 661–676.
Schack, M., DeLuca, M., &
Gomez, A. (2020). Privatisation and waterborne diseases: The cost of weak
regulation. Environmental Health Perspectives, 128(6), 67003.
Spronk, S. (2007). Roots of
resistance to urban water privatisation in Bolivia: The ‘new working class,’
the crisis of neoliberalism, and public services. International Labour and
Working-Class History, 71, 8–28.
Tariq, M., Kessides, I. N., &
Patrick, M. (2019). Utility reform and access inequality in developing
countries: The case of Latin American water systems. Journal of Infrastructure
Development, 11(1), 23–42.
UNESCO-IHP. (2011). The Right to
Water: Case Studies on How Legal Frameworks Support the Right to Water.
Wilder, M., & Romero‐Lankao,
P. (2006). Paradoxes of decentralisation: Water reform and social implications
in Mexico. World Development, 34(11), 1977–1995.
Zheng, Y., & Flanagan, S.
(2017). Privatising water: Lessons from global experience. International
Journal of Water Resources Development, 33(1), 1–15.
Abdeldayem, A., & Dulaimi, M.
(2019). Lessons from UK water privatisation. International Journal of Project
Management, 37(2), 178–190.
Adamou, A., Anastasiou, I., &
Stergiou, C. (2021). Revisiting the efficiency of water utilities: Evidence
from the UK. Utilities Policy, 72, 101276.
Bakker, K. (2017). Water
governance: Global water crises and the restructuring of water management.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(2), 275–286.
Booker, C. (1994). The Great
Water Robbery. Duckworth.
Cairney, P., Keating, M., &
Hepburn, E. (2012). The Scottish Political System Since Devolution. Imprint
Academic.
Harold, A., & Hutchinson, J.
(2004). Public versus private provision of water services. Public
Administration, 82(2), 295–318.
Hidayat, D. (2023). Water and
inequality: Revisiting the UK’s model. Water Resources Research and Policy,
18(1), 55–71.
Lynk, E. L. (1993). Privatisation,
joint ventures and changes in the provision of water services in the UK. Annals
of Public and Cooperative Economics, 64(1), 103–128.
Ogden, S. G., & Anderson, F.
(1995). Stakeholder perspectives in the UK water industry. Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, 8(3), 50–69.
Ogden, S. G., & Watson, R.
(2008). Corporate performance and stakeholder management in the privatised
water industry. Accounting Forum, 32(3), 214–228.
Reid, C., Harrison, C., &
Griffiths, M. (2003). The privatisation of water in England and Wales. Water
International, 28(3), 318–326.
Speight, V. (2015). The history
and impact of water privatisation in the UK. Public Works Management &
Policy, 20(3), 230–238.
Wang, X. (2022). Re-evaluating
the UK’s water privatisation: Three decades on. Journal of Infrastructure
Economics, 29(2), 89–105.
Abraham, L. (2018). Water as a
human right: The Jakarta ruling and global implications. Journal of
Environmental Law and Policy, 22(3), 214–230.
Adams, L., Martin, P., &
Singh, R. (2020). Development or deprivation? World Bank reforms and resistance
in global water governance. Development Studies Review, 46(1), 37–52.
Bakker, K. (2003). An
Uncooperative Commodity: Privatising Water in England and Wales. Oxford
University Press.
Hamouchene, H. (2022). The
struggle for water justice in North Africa. Globalisations, 19(6), 865–880.
Inglis, M. (2023). From privatisation
to participation: A rights-based approach to water reform. Water International,
48(1), 12–30.
Mao, Y., & Zhao, L. (2023).
Privatising the pipeline: Manila’s divided water regime. Urban Affairs Review,
59(2), 166–184.
Wu, R. (2024). Water, equity, and
neoliberal decay: The Aguas Argentinas case in Argentina. International Journal
of Public Policy, 49(1), 71–89.
Adams, D., & Halvorsen, K.
(2014). The global water grab: A case study of corporate influence. Water
Policy, 16(4), 703–721.
Baer, H. A. (2017). Water privatisation,
renationalisation, and class struggle in Buenos Aires. Latin American
Perspectives, 44(5), 102–120.
Chaisse, J. (2017). The
Regulation of the Global Water Services Market. Edward Elgar.
Foster, M. (2020). Water rights
in Indonesia: The Supreme Court ruling and implications. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Human Rights and Law, 21(2), 221–238.
Huggins, C., Kirsten, E., &
Zwarteveen, M. (2020). Public control in water governance: Alternatives to
privatisation. Water Alternatives, 13(2), 415–429.
Juuti, P., Katko, T., &
Rajala, R. (2010). Water Privatisation: Global Trends and Local Realities.
Tampere University Press.
Maxwell, S. (2003). Donor
perspectives on water and poverty. Overseas Development Institute Briefing
Paper, 14, 1–4.
Maxwell, S. (2006). Development
and global governance: The role of international institutions. Development
Studies Journal, 42(3), 413–427.
Morgan, B. (2007). Water on Tap:
Rights and Regulation in the Transnational Governance of Urban Water Services.
Cambridge University Press.
Phoenix, M. (2004). World Bank’s
role in water privatisation: Structural adjustment revisited. Global
Development Review, 22(1), 91–103.
Stoler, J. (2017). Water
inequality in the privatised city: A case study approach. Urban Water Journal,
14(1), 1–8.
Ameyaw, E. E., Chan, A. P. C.,
& Owusu-Manu, D. G. (2017). Re-municipalisation: A pathway to better public
water services. Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 569–578.
Fernández, L. O., & Smith, P.
J. (2006). Decentralisation and water reform in Latin America. Canadian Journal
of Development Studies, 27(3), 361–382.
Hall, D., & Lobina, E.
(2004). Private and public interests in water and energy. Natural Resources
Forum, 28(4), 268–277.
Obani, P. (2020). Human rights
and the global water crisis: The privatisation debate revisited. Water
International, 45(2), 103–118.
Sharma, A., & Nayak, R.
(2013). Citizens against privatisation: The Manila and Cochabamba cases. Urban Studies
Journal, 50(2), 333–350.
Bates, S. (2010). Public
perception and performance of privatised water services. Journal of
Environmental Policy, 22(4), 317–334.
Hyde, M., Davey, J., &
Nelson, B. (2007). Trust and governance in water service delivery. Water
International, 32(2), 360–372.
Li, X., Gonzalez, R., &
Padilla, C. (2024). Social backlash in privatised urban services: A comparative
analysis. Urban Governance Review, 9(1), 55–72.
Little, R. (2015). Corporate
accountability in public utility privatisation. Global Governance Journal,
21(3), 299–314.
Munro, W., & Kweka, O.
(2021). Water rights, resistance, and remunicipalization in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Water Alternatives, 14(1), 145–161.
Rahaman, M. M., Varis, O., &
Kajander, T. (2013). Water privatisation and public trust. Sustainability,
5(6), 2259–2279.
Rothenberger, D., Ouedraogo, B.,
& Dao, K. (2005). Urban water privatisation: Risks and alternatives.
Development in Practice, 15(2), 230–240.
No comments:
Post a Comment