http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/03/the-market-solution/
In the Macleans article “Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?” (3 September 2009) the author, Nancy Macdonald, attempts to construct a general understanding of the positives and negatives of fresh water privatization in order to allow the reader to construct their own opinion on the matter. However, several of the points Macdonald details lack validity, are not exceedingly ethical and no set opinion or conclusion of points on the matter is stated in the article by the author. This in turn makes the article extremely contradictory, causing the authors points to be proved and disproved throughout the editorial.
Firstly, Macdonald states that “it has long been assumed that privatizing water services is bad for the poor, bad for the environment, and leads to the inequitable distribution of water…However, new evidence has emerged showing that the opposite may be true. Right now, more than 90 per cent of the world’s local water distribution systems are state-controlled, and in many countries, they’re doing a terrible job”. With this statement comes no evidence to support it. Even though this “new evidence” may state that over 90 percent of the world’s drinking water systems are state-controlled, and that in some countries they are doing “terrible job”, the author fails to inform the reader what a “terrible job” is considered to be. Without this clarification it is hard for the reader to agree with this point, and make an informed decision on the topic. This statement does not address its initial point, which many people believe that the privatization of water services is bad for the poor, the environment, etc.
Another conflicting issue with this article is the fact that economical considerations are not taken into account, which are during these times of difficulty, a major deciding factor in solutions to the world’s problems. With privatization, the price of water is determined by private organizations and water is then turned into a commodity. In order for certain industries, such as agriculture, to produce their products they would need to raise the cost of set product in order to pay for the water used. Therefore in a sense, privatization would hinder the economy greatly due to the fact that it would affect both the price of water and potentially the price of food. In the article it is stated that “some worry that charging market prices for water could lead to humanitarian concerns: the poor, who don’t have the money to pay for it, could be cut off…people living in slums and rural areas do without [already]”. This statement implies that if a market was implemented for the sale of water, that many people who do not already have access to water will not suffer since the implemented price would not affect them.
The last issue that arises from this article is the lack of ethical considerations. The question of whether or not access to clean water should be declared a human right (the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled) or a commodity (a product that is in demand, and supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market) is a major part of the privatization issue, and it is not mentioned by the author in the article. In my personal opinion, I believe this lack of information on the subject matter to be the biggest problem in the article. Without discussing the ethical aspects of the fresh water issue, no sensible solution to the problem can be produced.
The author, Nancy Macdonald, has written a piece about the positive and negative aspects to the solution of fresh water scarcity- privatization. However, most of the points the author has discussed have not been supported with justified evidence, and the author has contradicted herself with beliefs that privatization is a good thing as well as being a bad thing. In conclusion, the argument in this article is not clearly stated by the author, and the evidence that is provided is weak. Not enough is explained by the author for the reader to create their own informed opinion. The article should be read critically by any reader in order to insure that facts without support are not blindly followed.
-Emily Hartwig, 0660947
References:
Macdonald, Nancy. (2009) “Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?” Macleans,
3 September 2009
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/03/the-market-solution/
Accessed September 28th 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Macdonald did touch on the ethical quandries associated with freshwater privatization. She wrote about how many people already have limited access to freshwater resources and are already paying premium price for miniscule amounts of water and how privatization could only make this situation worse. I think that one of the most important aspects to consider when considering privatization are the ethical issues associated with it. Unfortunately we all pay for our water, and increasing the cost of water used in industries such as agriculture would only increase the cost of many goods and services that we rely on.
ReplyDeleteI think that Macdonald asked some important questions about this ongoing debate, and brought up some interesting points, but they would have been much more valid if all of the statistics she stated had been backed up by proper citation. This is an interesting topic that deserves more attention and consideration, as water is essential to everyone and everything on earth.
Elisabeth Shapiro
While I agree with Elisabeth that Macdonald did touch on the ethical debate about privatizing water, I don't think it was done to a great enough extent. This is something that people have been arguing about for a long time as both sides seem to have valid arguments-- privatizing water is like putting a price on air, putting something essential to life on the market to be bought and sold BUT if there was a price on water, people might attempt to conserve more as they would be more aware of how much they were using. I think that before weighing in that privatizing is a good thing, Macdonald needed to justify the ethical aspects of that decision.
ReplyDeleteAs well, as Emily stated, the authour vigorously claims nationally run water systems are in terrible state but makes absolutely no attempt to show that privatized ones would be any better, they might be a lot worse and even more corrupt!
-Olivia Mussells
This is a well worded blog, but I don't think that the point of the article was to give a vote for or against privatization. I think that Macdonald wanted the reader to be able to make a well informed decision on their own. Its a very tricky subject, and any argument in either direction could be picked apart. In this type of article, Macdonald simply states the facts as she sees them. If she were to give an opinion, the reader might let that alter how they read the article. If they were in agreement, they might ignore any arguments provided against their point of view. The same is true if the reader doesn't agree with what is said. Overall I think that Macdonald did quite a good job on covering all aspects of the possibility of the privatization of water.
ReplyDelete