2008 Woodie Awards
View print edition front page as a PDF
Opinions
Drowning the Leviathan...The Politics of Water Scarcity
By Erin Wildermuth on 3/29/07
Last Thursday was the United Nation's World Water Day. The day is meant to promote awareness about water resources, scarcity and development. This year's theme was "coping with water scarcity."
On Thursday, I decided to follow the U.N.'s advice and promote awareness about water scarcity. I skirted up to two of my liberal classmates and announced that it was World Water Day. My colleagues were not impressed.
"Oh, it is 'look how many poor people have died from lack of clean water day,'" one retorted. I was pleased that she was familiar with the issue and excited to tell her about the major successes water privatization have had in solving the problem of scarcity. I didn't get far. I have had this reaction from liberals before.
I would think that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would place politics aside and work toward a viable solution to water scarcity, even if the solution didn't fit into their political ideology. I doubt that all liberals place ideology above the poor, but I am beginning to think that a small number of influential people would rather capitalism take a hit than poor people get access to water. It seems that these people are able to instill enough doubt as to the benefits of privatization that those who would rather find an anti-capitalist solution are able to justify their opposition.
I know, it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the documented merits of privatization are so strong that I simply can't think of any other reason for opposition. It would be impossible to show all this evidence in a short column, but I will explain the basics. I encourage every reader to research this issue on his or her own; you too will see the overwhelming evidence in favor of privatization.
Governments often fail to deliver safe water to their citizens for two reasons: inefficiency and a lack of resources for investment. A corporation can solve these problems. Since corporations receive a profit dependent upon efficiency, service, number of customers and often times in accordance with various regulations, they have strong incentives to provide clean, safe water to all citizens at the lowest possible cost. This will leave more room for profits. They also usually have a better sense of how to run the utility than a state government does, which also increases efficiently.
On Thursday, I decided to follow the U.N.'s advice and promote awareness about water scarcity. I skirted up to two of my liberal classmates and announced that it was World Water Day. My colleagues were not impressed.
"Oh, it is 'look how many poor people have died from lack of clean water day,'" one retorted. I was pleased that she was familiar with the issue and excited to tell her about the major successes water privatization have had in solving the problem of scarcity. I didn't get far. I have had this reaction from liberals before.
I would think that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would place politics aside and work toward a viable solution to water scarcity, even if the solution didn't fit into their political ideology. I doubt that all liberals place ideology above the poor, but I am beginning to think that a small number of influential people would rather capitalism take a hit than poor people get access to water. It seems that these people are able to instill enough doubt as to the benefits of privatization that those who would rather find an anti-capitalist solution are able to justify their opposition.
I know, it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the documented merits of privatization are so strong that I simply can't think of any other reason for opposition. It would be impossible to show all this evidence in a short column, but I will explain the basics. I encourage every reader to research this issue on his or her own; you too will see the overwhelming evidence in favor of privatization.
Governments often fail to deliver safe water to their citizens for two reasons: inefficiency and a lack of resources for investment. A corporation can solve these problems. Since corporations receive a profit dependent upon efficiency, service, number of customers and often times in accordance with various regulations, they have strong incentives to provide clean, safe water to all citizens at the lowest possible cost. This will leave more room for profits. They also usually have a better sense of how to run the utility than a state government does, which also increases efficiently.
Be the first to comment on this story