Recently I was
communicating with a long time friend Peter Koenig of Switzerland. Peter Koenig is an economist, and was a former World Bank staff member.
He worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water
resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, the Voice of Russia,
now Ria Novosti, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He
is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War,
Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on
30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.
Recently I asked him his opinion of water and sewer privatization,
and the following is his response:
“To privatization --- there is not
much to say, other than what I said already.
It is a crime against humanity to privatize
public goods and public assets, give them to a private operator so he makes a
profit on the back of the very people to whom the public asset belongs, i.e.
the infrastructure of a water and sanitation system - or health care, or
education, for that matter. they were paid for with public funds.
Privatization of water - is taking a
public good, which is water - and selling it for a profit, but the profit
doesn't stay in the public domain, but transfers into the private domain.
A private enterprise has no real
interest in conserving and preserving the resource either, as his main interest
is a quick profit - as is characteristic for capitalism and even worse for
neoliberalism - the world dogma we are condemned to live with today.
Since its public, it can be used at
will; nobody is responsible for the good's conservation and protection,
especially if a corrupt 'leader' as given the concession of exploitation to a
private operator.
This is the 'curse of the
commons' - nowhere more obvious and visible than with water.
Privatization of water and
sanitation - or education and health services - takes a public service out of
the public domain, where it belongs to the 'commons' and levies profit yielding
tariffs. First, (the) priority of such privatized public services are not (for)
the needy, (or) the poor, who cannot pay tariffs that allow a hefty profit - so
the private service provider will serve first those who can pay. The poor in
the end will be left out.
This, in fact, logical phenomenon
becomes even more critical as the resource is becoming scarcer and scarcer, as
is the case with water. Not that the resource water as such becomes scarcer -
the amount of water on our planet is constant - but drinking quality water is becoming
scarcer, as more unregulated industries pollute water bodies, surface, and
underground.
These are a few arguments why water
- and education and health services - should never be privatized, but should
remain in the public domain. There are many ways of improving services,
rendering them more efficient - other than privatizing. For example, running a
public enterprise for water like a commercial enterprise, where staff is
evaluated, judged and paid according to performance, so salary wise they are at
similar levels as are private enterprises. 'Profits' go into reserves for new
investments and rehabilitation.
Another way, often used in
developing countries, but not exclusively, is what is called 'twinning'. A
public enterprise establishes a two, three or four year contract with another
public enterprise - maybe from another country - in your case form perhaps from
another state, or other county...? - that operates under similar conditions but
has a well working operation.
Training programs are designed,
visiting tours with capacity building, technical assistance teams from the
'twinning' operator.... when the targets are fulfilled, the contract ends; when
it takes longer, it will be extended - or it can be gradually phased out.
The objective is that the public
enterprise that seeks to improve its services, at the end is capable of
accomplishing its duties at a highly improved rate.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment