A Pledge Against Water Privatization
The World Bank has predicted that by 2025, more than half of the population will start running out of drinking water. When such numbers are presented as cold facts to the population, non-action is becoming less and less an option. This gloomy prediction however, is not unanimously seen as bad news; in fact, this impending doom is seen as a valuable business opportunity for numerous multinational business who are trying to monetize the misery of water starving regions. The water privatization movement is gaining more momentum every day and it is often supported by the government who is gradually discontinuing protection of this vital resource, transferring control from public sector to the private sector. …show more content…
A glaring example is the period between 1995 and 2000 in Nelspruit, South Africa when the British company Biwater managed to increase the water rates by more than 400% which turned out to be a direct cause for a cholera epidemic that was triggered when people had to drink water from the river, as they could not afford the significant price increase (Weeks).
A second interrelated major problem that arises with water privatization is a massive loss of jobs. This is related with the previous issue as this is commonly a direct consequence of companies attempting to further maximize their profits, and one of the techniques that allows them to do so easily is to lower costs by simply laying off employees, even if it is at the expense of providing a high quality service. This means that the layoffs are not only detrimental to the ex-employees, but also to the consumers who will be provided a lower quality service for the same (or, typically, higher) …show more content…
1. Shows the difference in the number of jobs before and after privatization. “Water Privatization Threatens Workers, Consumers and Local Economies”. Food and Water Watch.
A common counter-argument is that the loss of jobs is justified by the decrease of prices. However, not only that prices inevitably grow higher as shown in the previous argument, but the quality of the water also has to suffer because of this, thus directly impacting the health of the citizens that make use of the fresh water provided by the company. Finally, this leads to another argument against water privatization which is the negative effects it has on the health of the customers due to improper regulations. A major study that backs up this assertion is a research paper which studies the child mortality rates during a 6 years period in Argentina (Galiani, Gertler, Schargrodsky). The study shows that child mortality increased by 8% in cities that had privatized their water as opposed to those that remained under public management, with a more accentuated effect towards the end of the timeline. The highest negative effect was in the poorest areas (reaching to
The World Bank has predicted that by 2025, more than half of the population will start running out of drinking water. When such numbers are presented as cold facts to the population, non-action is becoming less and less an option. This gloomy prediction however, is not unanimously seen as bad news; in fact, this impending doom is seen as a valuable business opportunity for numerous multinational business who are trying to monetize the misery of water starving regions. The water privatization movement is gaining more momentum every day and it is often supported by the government who is gradually discontinuing protection of this vital resource, transferring control from public sector to the private sector. …show more content…
A glaring example is the period between 1995 and 2000 in Nelspruit, South Africa when the British company Biwater managed to increase the water rates by more than 400% which turned out to be a direct cause for a cholera epidemic that was triggered when people had to drink water from the river, as they could not afford the significant price increase (Weeks).
A second interrelated major problem that arises with water privatization is a massive loss of jobs. This is related with the previous issue as this is commonly a direct consequence of companies attempting to further maximize their profits, and one of the techniques that allows them to do so easily is to lower costs by simply laying off employees, even if it is at the expense of providing a high quality service. This means that the layoffs are not only detrimental to the ex-employees, but also to the consumers who will be provided a lower quality service for the same (or, typically, higher) …show more content…
1. Shows the difference in the number of jobs before and after privatization. “Water Privatization Threatens Workers, Consumers and Local Economies”. Food and Water Watch.
A common counter-argument is that the loss of jobs is justified by the decrease of prices. However, not only that prices inevitably grow higher as shown in the previous argument, but the quality of the water also has to suffer because of this, thus directly impacting the health of the citizens that make use of the fresh water provided by the company. Finally, this leads to another argument against water privatization which is the negative effects it has on the health of the customers due to improper regulations. A major study that backs up this assertion is a research paper which studies the child mortality rates during a 6 years period in Argentina (Galiani, Gertler, Schargrodsky). The study shows that child mortality increased by 8% in cities that had privatized their water as opposed to those that remained under public management, with a more accentuated effect towards the end of the timeline. The highest negative effect was in the poorest areas (reaching to