Implication of water Privatization in India Introduction The United Nations has recognized access to water as a basic human right, stating that water is a social and cultural good, not merely an economic commodity. Today, due to increasing consumption patterns water is becoming scarce and this scarcity is an emerging threat to the global population. Global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of human population growth.
Is access to water a right? By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion.
This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right as it protects the violation of our other rights a counter-argument to the notion that water could only be a "positive" right offered as a premium to citizens.
The problem is that companies are not fundamentally able to secure this right, without exception. This is why governments must act to secure it through public ownership and distribution of water resources.
Profit companies are inherently incapable of securing the right to water - Some argue that even if water is considered a right, companies can reliably possibly even more reliably than governments provide it to those in need.
This has not proven to be the case. Companies inherently have an interest in profits over the interests of individuals. Companies have an interest in charging as much as consumers are willing to pay for water. It is common that private companies increase rates dramatically sometimes as much as two to three times over in their profit interests.
The fundamental problem is that the profit interests of private water utilities lead directly away from the consistent, equatable, affordable protection of the right to water. This is a problem, primarily because anything that is considered a "right" should not be directly subject to fundamentally counter-veiling profit-interests.
Private ownership of water can threaten public health and citizen rights. This argument contends that public health is generally at greater risk with private ownership.
Part of this surrounds the nature of international trade agreements that often severely limit "non-tariff trade barriers" such as national safety standards that make the flow of water across borders more difficult. Because privatization of water often leads to the weakening of these standards, privatization also jeopardizes the rights of citizens that are protected by these standards.
Do people have a right to food or other necessities to sustaining life? We would hope that people would be able to afford water so that they can survive, but this need does not qualify water as a right that a government is obligated to provide to its citizens without fail.
Need is not a sufficient condition for making something a right. Such "positive" rights, which require a government to give something of value to individuals, are generally illegitimate.
Such "negative" rights are considered God-given and innate; the essential characteristics of a "right". Positive rights go beyond innate rights and offer something of value to an individual based on need or other illegitimate, generally liberal characteristics.
The basic problem is that, in offering "positive" rights, a burden is placed on other individuals to help pay to provide that good. In this way, in order to offer a "positive" right to an individual, the rights of others are necessarily violated.
Like any other good, water has a value to users, who are willing to pay for it. Like any other good, consumers will use water so long as the benefits from use of an additional cubic meter exceed the costs so incurred.
The answer includes private companies, which are generally capable of harnessing market forces more efficiently so that they can reliable provide quality water to those that need it.
Free market forces has consistently demonstrated themselves through history of being better able to supply demand, and fewer costs, more efficiently, more reliably, and more productively to an economy.
These forces should be harnessed in the supply of water globally.Mar 26, · Top 10 Reasons to Oppose Water Privatization. March 26, · by devsgroupfive · Bookmark the permalink. · Here are the reasons: Privatization leads to rate increases; Privatization undermines water quality; Companies are accountable to shareholders, not consumers;.
CELDF has assisted the first communities in the U.S. to prohibit water privatization. Learn about the harms from privatizing our water, how communities are organizing to stop them, and what you can do in your own community. this is inaccurate. Nine of the top ten selling brands either don’t disclose information about the source of the.
Water Privatization and Regulation in England and Wales lic flotation would succeed: the government wrote off most of the debt on the public com-. A Review of the Article "Top 10 Reasons to Oppose Water Privatization" PAGES 4.
WORDS View Full Essay. More essays like this: Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin - Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University. Exactly what I needed. - Jenna Kraig, student @ UCLA.
Wow. Most helpful essay resource ever! On top of privatization, the Stolypin reform provided peasants the right to consolidate their land holdings into one plot, again without the commune’s consent. Before , . While most criticized water privatization as increasing water costs to the poor, some noted that privatization is necessary for improving water access through increased capital investment.