Replies

Let's see, who puts the price on a carton of milk? The free market or the government? Who prices the wheat and corn and who pays farmers NOT to produce? Who gives away surplus cheese to the people it thinks ought to have it? Who regulates the trucks and trains that ship the product? What is the Dept of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration and what do they do? Who has recently told the farmer that they must get a PERMIT before they can even plow their land? Who has implemented laws to make it cheaper to buy apple juice concentrate from China, rather than use the product of our own fields?

And all of this shows what? That the government really does own food and does distribute it? As excited as as you are about trying to show that I'm "wrong", you've forgotten what I said originally. "Regulation" is something different than the government owning and distributing food, as you of course know. And most regulation is aimed at keeping food prices up, not down. Most regulation is unnecessary to ensure wide and cheap distribution of food, in other words. What is necessary hardly constitutes government ownership.

But you're plainly infatuated with the idea that you've come across an "exception" to the efficiency of the market. You're not alone. The NYTimes writes an article a week explaining how education/health care/political consultation/advertising/power/phones/banks/pick anything is an exception to market economics. They've been wrong every time I've read the paper, and you're wrong about water. If food, gasoline, clothing, housing, and the other necessities of life can be efficiently privatized so can water.

But privatization critics say the (World) Bank’s calculus (for privitizing water) is flawed on numerous grounds.

First, higher prices for water mean the poor have to use less or go without. In Ghana, for example, price increases have already forced many poor people to cut down drastically on their use of water. People often go to public places to fetch water for free or for a token fee, and children spend a lot of time fetching water and carrying it back to their parents.

The University of Ghana, which has adopted the philosophy of “struggle alongside the people,” permits community members to use the university’s water. People travel from all parts of Accra to the university to fetch water.

Public health officials recognize that serious health risks are imposed by the lack of access to clean water, including transmission of water-borne diseases such as guinea worm, cholera and other diarrheal illnesses. The World Health Organization estimates more than 2 million deaths annually from diarrheal diseases due to lack of access to adequate water and sanitation services. “The situation will get worse with the full cost recovery policies placed on the Government of Ghana as part of the World Bank loan conditions,” says Amenga-Etego

In South Africa, water charges imposed in 1999 forced some poor people in Kwagulu-Natal to rely on polluted river supplies for their water. Public health officials trace a 2001 cholera outbreak, which has killed dozens, to the water pricing policy.

In Latin America, cholera has returned to the continent after being absent for nearly a century.

In addition, increased consumer fees for water may also hurt those who are not even part of the formal water pipe system. In many countries, private tanker truck operators buy water from the public water utility. Increased wholesale water prices trickle down to the poor.

What is often referred to as “leaks” include illegal hook-ups and other informal survival strategies used by the poor. Thus, World Bank policies to reduce “leaks” can actually reduce poor people’s access to water, since households with “illegal” hook-ups may end up having to pay for services.

Finally, there is little evidence of the multinational water companies’ commitment to expanding service, especially to poor communities where the ability to pay increased fees is limited. Instead, the multinationals, which have only recently started their major moves into developing countries, have quickly racked up very poor social and environmental records. In Indonesia, Suez and Thames Water have both been charged with tampering with water pricing. In South Africa, protesters claimed that Suez was taking excessive profits, grossly overcharging for its services, and leaving the municipality unable to pay its workers a living wage. Saur (a subsidiary of Bouygues) is alleged to have made the largest of 12 bribes that are the subject of various investigations into corruption and political pay-offs in the World Bank-funded Lesotho Highlands Water Project [see “Falling for AES’s Plan?” Multinational Monitor, June 1999]. There are many other cases.