Synthesis And Discussion Essay Examples

Summary

The question on whether water should be privatized has raised concerns from different stakeholders. There is a section that has agreed with the idea, but others are opposed to it because of the harmful effects it has introduced. The paper will address the pros and cons on whether water should be privatized based on the author’s arguments. As a matter of fact, the paper will refute claims of privatizing water and leave the responsibility to safeguard water to the public.
Regarding the pros of privatizing water, Anderson argues, “Ownership is crucial to stewardship.” The author highlights the benefits associated with ownership and advises the interested parties to treat ownership in good faith. Water ownership should either be granted to municipalities, government agencies or individual farmers. The drought experienced in southeast raised questions regarding scarcity. The ownership must guarantee consumers of free markets by charging fewer amounts for water used in necessities and increases the charges for water used in luxuries. Political allocation remains the greatest hurdle towards the control of water markets since it fails to address the problem of vendors maximizing profits in water markets.
Hauter’s article significantly condemns the idea of privatizing water by highlighting how it has failed and linking it to high costs. For instance, in the United States, municipalities have tried to privatize water but corruption and poor services have always led to public outrage. There is no single project to privatize water that has succeeded. The author claims “In the U.S, Atlanta dismissed a 20-year contract only after the first four years of an agreement with United water.” Other countries that have encountered massive scandals in water privatization include Tanzania, Argentina, Philippines, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The author argues that safeguarding water should be a public responsibility and privatization should be avoided at all costs. Improved management system can improve the situation.

Terry has raised concern about the burden of the privatization to the poor while the rich will continue enjoying consumption of a huge amount of water. He refutes this argument by suggesting that there is a possibility of charging high price of water for luxuries and low price of water for necessity. However, this is not always the case, and if the privatization does not come with conditions, it can deny the poor people access to clean water. As a result of water scarcity, the multinational corporations such as World Bank are taking advantage by giving loans for water privatization. However, in the long run, such schemes result to inaccessibility to water by the poor people. Wenonah has embraced this argument by suggesting that the privatization of water is nothing but “new profit center” for the multinational corporations.
Terry has suggested that the solution for water scarcity is by clarifying “the ownership among municipal, agricultural, industrial and environmental users and allow trades.” This could be an effective solution especially to the developing world where countries have inadequate infrastructures, and the government cannot provide water services. However, the privatization is anticipated to foster corruption, poor services, high rates and public outrage among other issues. The privatization of water requires effective check and balances such as transparency and accountability to avoid corruption. If such measures are not taken, privatization would be open to bribery and would, therefore, be an enterprise to benefit the wealthy while the poor continues to suffer.
In conclusion, water privatization seems to contain more cons than pro and would only be a great incentive if it benefits the large population. Privatization can only be effective if certain measures are employed to prevent the impending factors such as corruption. Otherwise, the privatization effort would result to water scarcity, especially to poor, rather than enhancing proper allocation of water to all. The solution for water scarcity would be asking industrial and commercial water users to pay more than the household rather than privatization.