Results for “water”

831 found

Chapter five of Common Wealth is called "Securing Our Water Needs," an important topic but one neglected by most economists.  One lesson is that climate change will put a big stress on water supplies.  So far, so good, but the recommendations start with greater international cooperation:

A first step, at least, would be to focus on the hardest-hit lands, specifically the world’s drylands.  Fortunately, these are covered by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, which has 191 member governments as signatories.  Unfortunately, the treaty as it now stands is little known and has little clout and financial backing.  Rather than reinvent the treaty, however, it would be better to reinvigorate it.

I would say it needs invigoration, not reinvigoration.  It is no accident that the Convention has little clout and little financial backing.  Many such Conventions are toothless objects, designed to appeal to a least common denominator within the process of the Convention itself (recall, it has 191 signatories).  No one is opposed to "international cooperation" but it is no accident that truly international bodies have to either find a way to make profit (e.g., the World Bank lends to China) or they are usually very strapped for funds.  That’s just not where the political rents are and that isn’t going to change.

Since Sachs calls this a "first step," his position is in some sense invulnerable.  Whatever you really think should be done can be called the next step.  Sachs writes, however, that the next step is more finance if I understand him correctly he wants to increase funding by more than a factor of 100).  I would prefer finance from national governments, or even from the states or provinces, than finance at the level of international organizations.  Most of the 191 signatories just aren’t that good at R&D, funds accountability, or even technology adoption.

I might add that national governments are the ones that subsidize the price of water to ridiculously low levels, most of all for agriculture.  My first step is to remove all these water subsidies, allow water prices to rise, institute more water trading, and then see which innovations the private sector decides to finance (hmm…those are my first four steps).  One role for government would be to ensure that patent law does not hinder international transfer of worthwhile innovations, a point which Sachs makes in other contexts.  That sounds less glamorous than a big international plan, but I think it has a better chance of succeeding.

Presented in one long, excellent blog post (do read it), here is a partial response.  I’ll note that water policy has long been an area where libertarian insights are hardest to apply.  Property rights in water (to the molecules?  to a flow?  to water of a certain quality?  what is the natural unit?  …and don’t even get me started on water tables) are more of a fiction than, say, property rights to your toothbrush.  That makes administrative law more important, more valuable, and more of a balancing effect for water than for most other sectors of the economy.

If you wish to purge yourself of all libertarian tendencies, just study water law for a few months.

If you wish to increase your libertarian tendencies, study farm policy, corporate welfare, teachers’ unions, or anti-marijuana laws.  A stroll by the HUD building isn’t a bad refresher course either.

While most countries are committed to increasing access
to safe water and thereby reducing child mortality, there is little consensus
on how to actually improve water services. One important proposal under discussion
is whether to privatize water provision. In the 1990s Argentina embarked
on one of the largest privatization campaigns in the world, including the privatization of local water
companies covering approximately 30 percent of the country’s municipalities.
Using the variation in ownership of water provision across time and space generated
by the privatization process, we find that child mortality fell 8 percent in
the areas that privatized their water services and that the effect was largest (26 percent) in the poorest areas.  We check the robustness of these estimates using cause-specific mortality.
While privatization is associated with significant reductions in deaths from
infectious and parasitic diseases, it is uncorrelated with deaths from causes
unrelated to water conditions.

That is the abstract to a very important paper, Water for Life: The Impact of the Privatization of Water Services on Child Mortality, by Sebastian Galiani, Paul Gertler and Ernesto Schargrodsky in the February 2005 issue of the JPE.  (free working paper version).

In theory, water services are not an easy thing to privatize well because of natural monopoly problems and because some of the benefits of clean water are externalities.  In practice, however, governments in developing countries do such a poor job at providing water that there are large potential gains to privatization even given such problems.

See also Tyler’s post Will the Middle East run out of water? for more on where water privatization may have benefits.

Here is a general listing, with photos, and sometimes prices.  Here is the most advanced "tourist submarine" available.  You can buy this "acrylic viewport globe" — modeled by an Italian designer — for only a few million.  Nor should you ignore this aquatic home, which remains unpriced and perhaps does not yet exist.  Here is evidence that the company is for real; see here also.  The film industry is one of their customers.  Here is their rationale for price discrimination.

Many thanks to Catherine for the pointer.

Farmers, who account for 70 percent of the world’s water consumption, are often hugely uneconomical about it.  For example, in growing water-intensive crops they derive a less-than-optimal nutrition content from a given quantity of water.  Agriculture, in fact, is one of the real villains in the global water drama…Half the water used by the world’s farmers generates no food…A 10 percent improvement in the distribution of water to agriculture would double the world’s potable water supply.

Middle Eastern countries could solve many of their water problems with free trade, economic diversification, and better agricultural incentives, and yes that means don’t grow bananas in the desert.  Yemen needs to stop growing qat; this addictive drug accounts for over seventy percent of their water use.

Ideally the relatively water-rich Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey could be selling water to the rest of the region but for political reasons don’t expect much of that anytime soon.  Sometimes the easiest way to trade water is inside a tomato.

As for desalination, the costs have fallen dramatically over the last decade, and may continue to fall.  The real problem is not producing the water but rather transporting it uphill.  Desalination won’t solve your problems if you live in the mountains.

The above passage is from Fredrik Segerfeldt’s excellent Water for Sale: How Business and the Market Can Resolve the World’s Water Crisis, published by Cato, and thanks to Alex for the pointer.