I don't know enough (make than anything) about SA to say anything intelligent about SA water policies. I do know this though: any sensible price-based system would lead to upper-income (presumably white) folks paying enough money to publicly owned or regulated water utilities to fund basic provision for the poor plus hefty sums left over. The economics, as they say, is impeccable. The utility initially owns the water. They establish a marginal cost pricing rule (or something similar incorporating externalities etc.) and make everyone pay. So that the poor can have a basic supply they would be issued vouchers on the proceeds from sales to the well-off. You could, of course, cut out the pay and voucher stages and just give the poor the water. Anyway, unless the supplies needed to furnish basic needs are a very large share of the total resource, revenue should be more than adequate. In fact, the unit cost of water use to paying customers should be set to more than recompense an equivalent use by the poor since the latter is inframarginal, right? Something tells me this is a liquid version of Henry George. Patrick Bond wrote: > > > From: "Paul Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Michael is right. In the case of Canadian water, we can control > > usage through community controls which are determined through a > > political process, not a 'free' market (though the controls may also > > include prices.) However, as many of us fear, NAFTA may be utilized > > to force Canada to give up controls and commodify water; i.e. common > > property will be converted into private property and Canada will > > lose control of its water utilization. > > To have a market and prices, there must be "ownership," right? > > Among South Africa's perplexing contradictions is the continual > tendency of the ANC leadership, advised by Washington-Consensus > consultants, to smash apartheid privileges with a neoliberal hammer. > So in fact, in order to price water, it turns out you have to > overthrow riparian rights and in effect nationalise water, even that > which for instance falls from the sky straight onto pine and gum > plantations. > > Our water minister is a social democrat and in our 1996 Bill of > Rights we find the right to water, so his resolution is to begin > pricing all water (the comment period for his regulations is 31/3/99 > if anyone wants to get involved in a practical debate -- I can send > you the policy and our critiques offlist) and to reserve around 5% of > all water in our ecosystem for a combination of "basic human need" > and environmental uses. All very abstract. > > >From national to catchment-area to municipal tiers the bureaucrats > become more decidely Old-Guard, disparaging of lifeline > access, and willing to cut off people who can't pay their bills. In > this context water pricing is not going to redistribute SA's shocking > resource maldistribution (white households use 11% of all water at > present, of which more than half goes to gardens and swimming pools, > while all black SA households consume 1% of water). > > The progressive forces have argued for -- and in a few cases > actually won -- a rapidly rising block tariff (with the first 50 > litres per capita per day free), but World Bank pressure to privatise > municipal water includes a critique of such incorrect market > signalling (diverging marginal cost and pricing curves) and > unfortunately the British and French companies are wandering around > doing their various corrupt deals with even black liberation movement > leaders and so lifelines are fading fast and water cut-offs are > rising inexorably notwithstanding a terrific battle by the municipal > workers union to put the brake on privatisation. > > The other progressive strategy has been to push for administrative > controls on water, as well as "demand side management" techniques to > reduce hedonistic consumption and fix the leaking apartheid-era pipes > in black townships (which lose 50% of flow). But again, power > relations being what they are, progress here is terribly slow... > Instead, we get more World Bank-catalysed supply side "solutions" > like building another $1.5 bn dam in Lesotho (which was a key reason > for SA's infamous invasion last September), again, notwithstanding > spirited critiques of big dams from greens and some of the township > comrades. > > The economic logic of dumping a load of toxic waste on the > lowest-wage country is impeccable, I was telling my students a couple > of nights ago, and so too is the economic logic of pricing water > at marginal cost and cutting people off if they can't pay. Our water > minister -- who also runs the World Bank/IUCN "World Commission on > Dams" -- hasn't even got the gumption to compel his underlings to > factor in the externalities (public health, gender equalisation, > environment, desegregation, economic multipliers) that come from a > universal lifeline supply. Instead, marginal cost pricing is all the > rage. The bastards have even tried to define "lifeline" as "operating > and maintenance costs." > > Water wars will predominate across the world in the next century. Our > supplies are due to run out in 2030. As ever, SA is likely to remain > at the cutting edge of inequality and violent social resistance. > *************************************************** > Patrick Bond > 51 Somerset Road, Kensington 2094 > Johannesburg, South Africa > phone: (2711) 614-8088 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > office: University of the Witwatersrand > Graduate School of Public and Development Management > PO Box 601, Wits 2050 > phone (o): (2711)488-5917; fax: (2711) 484-2729 > email (o): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Dorman
