Neither Pro nor Anti-Privatization

Karen Bakker, a geography professor at UBC, has written a series of interesting papers.

In her 2001 paper [PDF], she describes how privatization in England and Wales changed the structure of water charges from "socially equitable" to "economically equitable," i.e., from charges that were the same for everyone and/or based on income to charges that were based on the cost of water provision (what economists call "efficient"). Not surprisingly, when the 1974 nationalization of water services was reversed in the 1989 privatization, prices rose more quickly in areas where provision was more expensive and for people who were using more water. Bakker is not happy with this result.

In her 2005 paper [PDF], Bakker claims that post-privatization improvements in environmental water and drinking water quality resulted not from private water provision but from "reregulation" of the water industry. Her claim does not hold water with me: In the top figure [click to enlarge], per capita water consumption falls (no doubt due to metering and higher prices); in the bottom figure, "environmental pollutants" fall, post-1990.

In her 2008 paper [PDF], Bakker discusses the false dichotomy between private and public water provision. Her point -- and a point I agree with -- is that community water management is more important AND that community water management doesn't work automatically, i.e.,

proponents of the concept of community tend to assume that 'community' management necessarily implies greater accountability. The obvious counter‐example is that of the British water supply utilities: more transparent, and subject to closer regulatory oversight and political pressure following privatization (Bakker, 2004). Equally, examples of the seeming unresponsiveness of public water authorities to the needs of poor families abound in the literature (e.g. Castro, 2007), co‐existing with case studies of well‐performing public services (e.g. Tendler, 1998). From this, we might conclude that 'ownership' (i.e. public versus private) is less important than institutions (rules, norms, and laws) and governance (decision‐making processes); it follows that the imposition of 'public' or 'community' management is not a sufficient condition for better water services.

Bottom Line: It's interesting to see the evolution of Bakker's thought as she moves from unrestrained criticism of "neoliberal" water policies to a nuanced understanding of how water management depends more on underlying institutions than overlying ownership structures.