PP929

Should Water be Privatized?

Should Water be Privatized?

It is at the maxim of ethical human beings to utilize the resource within their vicinity, not only in .an efficient manner, but also in a sustainable way. The question of what is a sustainable way of exploiting resources is however controversial when the resource in question is not enough for the current users. Maler & Vincent (2005) defines sustainable exploitation as the use of resources by the current generation in a way that does not compromise with the future generations’ use of the same resource. [Maler & Vincent do not define sustainable exploitation] Therefore, depletion of a resource trying to save the current generation would technically be killing future generations. This raises the question on what should be privatized and what should be left for public utility. In today’s overpopulated, globally warming and highly business-oriented world, water is becoming a bone of contention. Water scarcity in the world is being evidenced by prolonged droughts and increasingly low rainfall and precipitation. Besides these natural causes, artificial causes include overuse, misuse, and inefficiency in handling water. This leaves one thinking of ways to save the highly precious resource from depletion. Business minded individuals would, therefore, propose for privatization of the world's water reservoirs. This would limit access to water to only those who can afford the property rights to it but in turn, would be ensuring sustainable exploitation. However, at the same time, it would deny humanity a right given by nature. This would lead to a chain of problems beginning with health issues, hunger to death. Therefore, water is a right for all humans and cannot become the property of any business.

Foremost, water is life. This is an old-time saying, which may sound cliché to the rich but has a lot of weight when examined critically. Simple biology asserts that Water is a basic daily necessity without which no fauna nor flora can survive (Ouchley, 2010). [Ouchley did not make this statement in the book] Privatizing water to be owned by a corporation selling only to those who can afford it is therefore simply denying humanity survival. In the long run, this will be like adding a price to everything man needs for his survival. For instance, agriculture becomes more expensive, in turn inflating food prices which in turn cause a rise in the price of services such as healthcare and education. The price of clothing (from cotton) will reflect the increased price of water. Hydroelectric power companies will inflate energy prices to cater for the increased cost. The price increase effect will be felt in every aspect of humanity. According to Maler & Vincent (2005), privatization is supposed to eliminate the problem of the commons. This, in turn, does away with the issues of inefficiency and unsustainable exploitation. Therefore, privatizing water would be solving the problem. What proponents of this unethical move forget is that at the end, a common property becomes a public good, accessible to all and is bound to be over-exploited. In that case, therefore, privatizing water is a baseless move only to be supported by the wealth greedy.

Besides, privatization undermines water quality. The main aim of corporations indulging in business is to make profits (Schein, 2009). [Schein discussed culture but never made this statement] Therefore, corporate agendas are only driven by profit motives instead of the public welfare. This ends up compromising the environmental standards; starting another cycle of side effects. Majority of the private companies exploit the water reservoirs such as springs until there is none left completely. Rather than focusing in being in business for long, they focus on ultimate revenues within the shortest time possible. Where competition in the water industry is stiff things tend to be worse for the environment as competitors will do whatever it takes to outshine each other. Water is an environmental resource which upon degradation of the environment losses quality. It may be argued that privatizing water increases overall access to the water supply through filtration and efficiencies adding to the local water table. However, this would not make sense at all when the quality of the supply is undermining the public health. Weighing the costs and benefits of privatizing water only compromises the regulations in place to ensure quality, meaning that the public health is put at risk to pave the way for more profits.

Moreover, corporations are accountable to stakeholders but not consumers. This implies that the desire to fulfill shareholders' wants coming prior to the consumers' needs. Water being an extremely basic need those households cannot survive without leaves the corporations under minimal pressure to respond to consumers’ concerns. The issue is made worse when the distribution rights granted by governments to corporations last for long periods. According to Hayman (2016), the majority of the government agencies enter into contracts lasting for more than two decades, thus giving particular businesses monopolistic powers in the sector. Hayman did not make this statement – the article talks neither about water nor about the duration of distribution rights.. URL in reference is not valid – this one works - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gavin-hayman/the-biggest-hope-for-endi_b_9879832.html

Although businesses try to be ethical, this is only to certain levels. When something is unethical but not illegal, businesses will pursue it to earn more profits. More profits mean more dividends and thus the wants of the shareholders are met at the expense of the consumers’ needs. Besides, privatization comes along with a great deal of layoffs. This is also a profit motive as it implies reduced costs for the companies thus more revenue. The job losers also happen to be the same consumers of the water from the company. This creates another problem of unemployed consumers who will not only be seeking employment but also basic life needs such as water. Reduced incomes imply reduced spending while on the other hand privatization of water resources imply increased water rates. When these two happen simultaneously, it's clear that the interests of the consumers are at stake.

Lastly, privatization reduces local control and fosters corruption. When the rights to water are owned by a business, it is difficult for the public and local community to monitor the operations of the former to ensure that it works in the best interest of the latter. Hayman (2016) posits that a community’s dissatisfaction with a company’s operations has very minimal effect in reversing the treaty and propositions are expensive. Furthermore, the processes of earning such contracts are corrupt from the beginning to the end (Hayman, 2016). Hayman did not make either of these statements. Procedures lack accountability, integrity, and transparency and are kept away from the general public, who ironically suffer the effects of such contracts. Arguing that most companies are on their way to foster ethical organizational culture and will perform to the expectations of the community counteracts the main motives of being in business: making profits. Such profits are made no matter the cost especially if the organizations’ culture fosters excellent performance.

Water is a right for all humans and should not be owned by any business. Although privatization may work well for other public resources that are on the verge of depletion, it may not be the same case for water resources. Governments should consider other methods of ensuring sustainable exploitation of water resources while ensuring supply to everyone. Such remedies as reusing, recycling and efficiencies in handling water resources should be implemented. Besides, the continued cry over alarming water scarcity cannot be answered by privatizing water resources because; doing so denies humans a life since water is life; Privatizing only leads to increased rates for every aspect of living; privatization undermines water quality as a result of environmental degradation; corporations are concerned of stakeholders rather than consumers; and Privatization processes are mostly corrupt thus neglecting the local community’s interests.

References:

Hayman, G. (2016). The biggest hope for ending corruption is open public contracting. Retrieved September 28, 2017 from https://www.open-contracting.org/2016/05/11/biggest_hope_ending_corruption_open_public_contracting/

Maler. & Vincent, J. (2005). Handbook of environmental economics. Amsterdam Oxford: Elsevier North Holland Elsevier Science.

Ouchley, K. (2010). Flora and fauna of the Civil War: an environmental reference guide. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Schein, E. (2009). The corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.