Question Over the Privatization of Water

The water wars in Bolivia had varying different forces, which helped shift the country into poor economic status and depressing the people by subjugating them to corrupt leaders and pressure form international organizations. The political and societal atmosphere that developed in Bolivia during and after the implementation of policies from the corrupt public officials and the international organizations was the outcome of bad policies of privatizations, based off of profit driven ideologies, could the waterfall of events that caused the tribulations in Bolivia be a precursor to a world pandemic of water privatization?

To understand why the effects of privatization and commoditization are so perverse in nature, one must critical analyze the situation in Bolivia before and after the World Bank enacted policies that were the driving force behind the changing economic policies and corruption. Oscar Olivera claims that “Since the start of the new Economic Policy (NEP) in 1985 there are fewer jobs and more unemployment. Working conditions have deteriorated substantially. Services are becoming more and more expensive. Because of lower revenues and higher costs, the state no longer has enough money to maintain public services. For sometime now, because of this and pressure form international lending agencies, the government has sought to privatize the public services sector,” (7).   This occurrence of unfortunate down turn in the Bolivian peoples standard of living is shown by the domino effect of the government privatizing most jobs arenas to private companies. “Bolivian labor was rooted in the extensive apparatus of the Bolivian state, with the state providing at least sixty percent of the country’s employment until DS 21060 took effect,” (12). The neoliberal ideals hold that by privatizing the state there will be “a deep transformation of the economic, political, and social structures of the country. Everything is geared toward being ‘a viable country’ … Viable, for those who propagate this euphemism, is gained by enriching the bank, not for maximizing democracy or the control of social resources from below. It is gained by gained precisely by ignoring the welfare of the population.

After years of oppressive economic policies of privatization and a perceptual lack of democracy,  a new labor force had emerged focused on survival not working for the better of the country. “The[se] tens of thousands of unemployed workers had come to constitute an important reserve army of people who were willing to work in less than human conditions,” (17) with less reward for their harder labor. Though the neoliberal ideas claim that privatization with encourage democracy, the participation of the citizenry, in effect the last threads of democracy were being torn apart. “The increased repression of dissent and the attempts to squelch protest that have accompanied the introduction of neoliberlism are an indication of its failure,” (17).

With regards to the privatization of water, a cultural belief “that water is a natural gift and that its distribution should be considered a public service instead of a business,”(11) was stomped out by informal and formal rules. After the World bank brought in a private consortium, called Aguas del Tunari with its primarily shares being held by Bechtel; people were suddenly consuming terrific more quantities of water than before. “there were bills that said water usage increased form 5 cubic meters to 20 cubic metes per person in one month. It simply was not possible,” (10). Because of this “increase” in water use peoples “water bills skyrocketed as much as 300 percent,” (10). House holds making around $80 a month saw increases in water bills from $5 to $25 a month. This situation was the creation of an informal rules, causing people to not to be able to afford the water they needed to survive. Also laws “went so far as to include wells established in pole’s houses…to pay to use them – or the company could cap it,” (9). Citizens were also denied, unless a request was submitted and granted, to have water cisterns on their houses or property.

In the US and other places of the world the same situation of the privatization of water is happening.  And in effect could and is causing the same problems of people not having access to even if there is plenty to go around.  Water and any other life essential resource “should be designed not from the point of view of mercantile logic and the pursuit of profit, but rather form a perspective that clearly subordinates the business aspects – investment criteria, expansion plans, and rates – to the common interest,” (11). The privatization and monopolistic characteristics attached to the private distribution of water does not adequate serve the needs of the public of any given country or the citizenry of the world.