The Privatization of Residential Water Supply and Sanitation Services: Social Equity Issues in the California and International Contexts
Berkeley Planning Journal 13 (1999): 37-73
The Privatization of Residential Water Supply and Sanitation
Services: Social Equity Issues in the California and
International Contexts
Isabelle Fauconnier
This paper reviews the theoretical and policy debates behind the global wave of infrastructure services privatization, focusing specifically on water and sanitation services. It explores two questions: first, what is the place of social equity considerations in the rapid spread of privatization endeavors in water supply and sanitation services around the world? Second, why has the water services privatization movement been so much slower to catch on in the United States? Equity in water services is defined along three dimensions: physical access to safe drinking water, economic access or affordability, and access to planning and decisionmaking for the services. The paper briefly reviews cases in France,
Great Britain and Argentina, then examines the case of California in more depth, and shows how equity concerns are constructed differently in these various settings. After discussing the pricing and regulatory implications of privatization from an equity standpoint, the paper concludes with some directions for further research. Introduction
The role of government in the provision of infrastructure goods and services has changed dramatically, in both industrialized and developing countries, over the past two decades. Until the late
1970s, the public sector in most countries was judged to be in the best position to provide water supply and sanitation, electricity, telecommunications and public transport services, because these services were labeled “public goods” addressing “basic needs.” The private sector was deemed unfit for public service provision, since its main goal is usually to achieve profit rather than enhance social well being. In addition, central governments were often better able to mobilize funds for investment and service
The Privatization of Residential Water Supply and Sanitation
Services: Social Equity Issues in the California and
International Contexts
Isabelle Fauconnier
This paper reviews the theoretical and policy debates behind the global wave of infrastructure services privatization, focusing specifically on water and sanitation services. It explores two questions: first, what is the place of social equity considerations in the rapid spread of privatization endeavors in water supply and sanitation services around the world? Second, why has the water services privatization movement been so much slower to catch on in the United States? Equity in water services is defined along three dimensions: physical access to safe drinking water, economic access or affordability, and access to planning and decisionmaking for the services. The paper briefly reviews cases in France,
Great Britain and Argentina, then examines the case of California in more depth, and shows how equity concerns are constructed differently in these various settings. After discussing the pricing and regulatory implications of privatization from an equity standpoint, the paper concludes with some directions for further research. Introduction
The role of government in the provision of infrastructure goods and services has changed dramatically, in both industrialized and developing countries, over the past two decades. Until the late
1970s, the public sector in most countries was judged to be in the best position to provide water supply and sanitation, electricity, telecommunications and public transport services, because these services were labeled “public goods” addressing “basic needs.” The private sector was deemed unfit for public service provision, since its main goal is usually to achieve profit rather than enhance social well being. In addition, central governments were often better able to mobilize funds for investment and service
References: Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). 1985. ACWA’s 75- year History Adam, Christopher, William Cavendish and Percy S. 1992. Mistry, Adjusting Privatization: Case Studies from Developing Countries. Baumol, William J., J.C. Panzar and R.D. Willig. 1982. Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure Blackburn, Stephanie J. and David E. Dowall. 1991. “The Tools for Financing Infrastructure,” Institute of Urban and Regional Brendan, Martin. 1993. In the Public Interest? Privatization and Public Sector Reform Briscoe, J. 1997. “Managing Water as an Economic Good: Rules for Reformers,” draft paper for presentation at the International California State Legislature, Senate Local Government Committee. 1991. Cooper, Erwin. 1997. Understanding California’s Water: an Introduction to Major Agencies, Projects and Controversies, self-published, (available Donahue, John D., 1989. The Privatization Decision: Public Ends, Private Means Dowall, David E. 1995. “An Overview of Private Sector Financing of Urban Infrastructure Services,” IURD Working Paper No Ferguson, Tim W. 1996. “Socialized Water,” in Forbes, March 11. Guislain, Pierre. 1997. The Privatization Challenge: A Strategic, Legal and Institutional Analysis of International Experience Gomez-Ibañez, José and John R. Meyer, 1993. Going Private: The International Experience with Transport Privatization Howe, Charles W. 1996. “Water Resources Planning in a Federation of States: Equity versus Efficiency,” in Natural Resource Journal Hundley, Norris Jr. 1992. The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770s-1990s Idelovitch, Emanuel and Klas Ringskog. 1995. Private Sector Participation in Water Supply and Sanitation in Latin America Israel, Arturo. 1992. “Issues for Infrastructure Management in the 1990s,” World Bank Discussion Paper No Jacobson, Charles D. and Joel A. Tarr. 1996. “No Single Path: Ownership and Financing of Infrastructure in the 19th and 20th Centuries,” in Kahn, Alfred. 1988. The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions Kahrl, William, L. 1982. Water and Power. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kessides, Christine. 1993. “Institutional Options for the Provision of Infrastructure,” World Bank Discussion Paper No Klappauf, Laurie. 1997. “Privatization Raises Both Questions and Opportunities,” in Water Sense Legrand, Julian. 1991. Equity and Choice: An Essay in Economics and Applied Philosophy McClurg, Sue. 1996. “Privatization of Water: Split Opinions,” in Western Water Miller, John. 1987. “Is the Cavalry on the Horizon?” in American City and County, January, pp.46-50. Mitchell, Davis and Steven Moss. 1996. “Maintaining Momentum on California Water Issues: Business Leaders’ Findings,” report Morgan, Stephen P. and Jeffrey J. Chapman. 1995. “Special District Privatization,” Report prepared for the Association of California Water Musgrave, R. and P. Musgrave. 1984. Public Finance in Theory and Practice Neal, Kathy, Patrick J. Maloney and Norma Morales. 1996. “The English Experience with its Privatization of its Water and Sewer Industries,” Ostrom, Elinor, Larry Schroeder and Susan Wynne. 1993. Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development: Infrastructure Policies in Plumb, John H. 1974. (Secretary and Manager of Public Affairs, East Bay Municipal Utility District)