Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
The case for water privatization
The case for water privatization
Apr 24, 2026 3:48 PM

To provide water for munities have usually turned to two different options: public or private utilities. However, if Bolivian President Evo Morales, leader of the Movement Towards Socialism Party, gets his way, the United Nations will pass a resolution blocking the sale of public water utilities to panies. If adopted, this resolution will cause problems for many nations, especially the undeveloped countries receiving support from the U.N. that will be forced to abide by one option—public supply of water—instead of being permitted to consider privatization which may be more efficient and cost effective. The makes the global water crisis much worse.

It will not help any country to limit its options when searching for the most efficient and cost effective solutions for providing a clean, sanitary, and abundant source of water.

Theories and examples in support and against both private and public water utility systems are numerous. A study conducted by the University of Michigan showed that water prices, in general, are too low. The study explains that direct and indirect subsidies, in both developed and undeveloped countries, have caused low prices, resulting in water waste. Furthermore, the study argues that if the subsidies are removed, the price of water will increase and provide an incentive for those utilizing water to not waste it. This, in turn, will result in the investments that are needed to develop more efficient technologies. If subsidies are removed, then a lighter burden is placed on public funds.

Lending support to the findings of the University of Michigan study, a survey conducted in 2004 by Global Water Intelligence found that the under-pricing of water is widespread. The study analyzed the prices charged by water utilities in 132 major cities worldwide and found that 39 percent of water utilities had average tariffs that are set too low to cover basic operation and maintenance costs. Some 30 percent had tariffs that are set below the level required to make any contribution toward the recovery of capital costs.

Changing the price system may be a solution. Some argue for a metering that charges water users based on consumption. However, while subsidies are proving to be largely inefficient the question must be asked: Can those in undeveloped countries, who are already living in a state of grave poverty, afford increased prices on water?

The International Development Association and the World Bank are quick to point out the success of private water utilities. Examples can be found in Rwanda and Mozambique where the private sector helped provide, improve, and/or expand the water supply. The U.N. has acknowledged five reasons to pursue private sector partnerships.

A private sector supply of water can be more efficient and cost effective. According to the World Bank, it is estimated that in the United States each dollar of public funds raised for utilities has an opportunity cost of $1.30 of private consumption, and the average opportunity cost for each dollar of tax revenue raised is $1.17 for 38 African countries.

Critics of the privatization of water argue that while it is more efficient and cheaper, the private systems fall short of social equity in supplying water and charge higher prices. While there have been unsuccessful stories of privatization, the aforementioned examples in Rwanda and Mozambique are a just a few of the many success stories, and, as The Economist notes, when private utilities charge higher prices, that often corresponds to higher rehabilitation investments, better water quality, and better service.

Privatization will also promote the decentralization of government, and in the case of many developing nations, remove the control of water out of the hands of corrupt bureaucrats. A large overarching centralized government is not needed. Instead, the principle of subsidiarity should be applied.

Private entities are able to supply an efficient and cost effective supply of water. Privatization is an effective solution, and its ability to meet the needs of consumers has improved. As a result, water supply can follow the principle of subsidiarity by utilizing other alternatives to supply water instead of through a system brought forth by a centralized government.

It is important to note that just as public utilities are open to corruption, inefficiencies, and poor management, so is privatization. Privatization can fall subject to a corrupt government. The example of Detroit is instructive here. For example, when a government decides to contract a private utility to supply water, instead of having an open bidding process, the government accepts no outside bids and picks pany that is owed a political favor. If privatization is to succeed government must take the appropriate actions to allow it to succeed and also nurture an environment that is open to decentralization, promoting business without unnecessary government interference.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
U.S. House unanimously passes bill declaring Islamic State guilty of genocide
UPDATE: (3/17/16) United States: Islamic mitted genocide against Christians, Shi’ites. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry: “The fact is that Daesh kills Christians because they are Christians. Yazidis because they are Yazidis. Shi’ites because they are Shi’ites,” Kerry said, referring to the group by an Arabic acronym, and accusing it of crimes against humanity and of ethnic cleansing. Video of Secretary Kerry giving his statement on the Islamic State is now included at the bottom of this post. ✶✶✶✶✶ In...
Video: A Gentleman’s Debate – Distributism vs. Free Markets with Jay Richards and Joseph Pearce
On February 18th, the Acton Institute was pleased to e Jay Richards and Joseph Pearce to our Mark Murray Auditorium for an exchange on two distinct ideas on economics: Distributism vs. Free Markets. The gentleman’s debate was moderated by Acton Institute President Rev. Robert A. Sirico. Joseph Pearce, writer in residence at Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee, and Director of the college’s Center for Faith and Culture, argued in favor of distributism; Jay Richards,Assistant Research Professor School of Business and...
Feel the Romantic Bern
“Do voters have a mitment problem’ with Bernie Sanders?” asks Dylan Pahman in this week’s Acton Commentary. So why would someone who seems really to want to be President (unlike candidates who appear to be using their campaigns to promote a book, for example) tell Americans he’s a socialist when half the country says they wouldn’t vote for one? How does that serve his interest? Shouldn’t it hurt his electability? The full text of the essay can be found here....
Shareholder Activists Drop Religious Pretext
Religious shareholder activist group As You Sow released its 2016 Proxy Preview last week, and it’s a doozy. Tellingly, AYS has dropped religious faith as a rationale for its climate-change and anti-lobbying efforts. From the panying press release: More 2016 shareholder proposals than ever before address climate change — pared with 82 in 2015. Of the resolutions, 22 ask energy extractors and suppliers to detail how the warming planet will affect their operations and how they will respond if governments...
Explainer: What You Should Know About GMOs and Mandatory Food Labeling
Last year, the House passed a bill to preempt states from imposing mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food (GMOs). But as Daren Bakst notes, “While it looked like the Senate was going to follow suit, in the last minute, the new Senate bill would actually effectively mandate the labeling of genetically engineered food.” “In the Senate bill, there would be a national mandatory labeling requirement unless the Secretary of Agriculture determines that there has been substantial participation by labeled foods...
Audio: Todd Huizinga Talks Global Governance and the New Totalitarian Temptation
Todd Huizinga, Acton’s Director of International Outreach, joined host John J. Miller of National Reviewto discuss his new book,The New Totalitarian Temptation, on the Bookmonger Podcastat Ricochet.They discussed the problems afflicting the European Union, the potential Exit of the UK from the EU, and whether or not the United States faces the same problems with unaccountable government that bedevil Europe. You can listen to the podcast here. If you find the topic interesting, you can join us tomorrow here at...
Is the Government Ever Big Enough?
Can the government ever be too big? How much spending is enough spending? And if there can be too much spending, where is that point? “When was the last time you heard a liberal politician say, ‘Yeah, we solved that social ill. We’re just going to close up that government agency now, zero out the budget and move on to another problem,'” asks William Voegeli, Senior Editor of the Claremont Review of Books. In the video below, Voegeliexplains why our...
Breaking: City of Grand Rapids drops property tax dispute against Acton
Acton Building located in downtown Grand Rapids’ Heartside District A two-year dispute between the Acton Institute and the City of Grand Rapids over the non-profit’s exempt status under state property tax law is over, with Acton emerging the victor. In 2014, the City rejected Acton’s request for a tax exemption on its building, parking areas, and personal property at 98 E. Fulton. Acton purchased the property in 2012 and spent much of the next year renovating the property. An appeal...
To Reduce Human Trafficking, Increase Economic Freedom
Trafficking in persons is estimated to be one of the top-grossing criminal industries in the world (behind illegal drugs and arms trafficking), with traffickers profiting an estimated $32 billion every year. So what can be done to end this scourge? A recent report from the Heritage Foundation mends an oft-overlooked solution: adopting policies that promote economic freedom. A close examination of human trafficking and the principles of economic freedom—especially strong rule of law—reveals the robust connections between these two desirable...
Elon Musk on the Problem with Regulators
“Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives,’” says economist Steven E. Landsburg. “The rest mentary.” When governments create a regulation, they are creating an incentive for individuals and businesses to respond in a particular way. But the people who create the regulations —government regulators — also respond to incentives. As Elon Musk, the CEO of Space X and Tesla Motors, explains, There is a fundamental problem with regulators. If a regulator agrees to change...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved