Re: Is it now time to introduce water rates?
Given that Govts can generally borrow money at cheaper rates than the private sector, what is the benefit of turning to PPPs for infrastructural investments?
You're right - that's a huge leap, one that mixes up causation and coincidence. Just because things happened at a certain time does not mean that one caused the other. [broken link removed] makes a pretty good case for showing that there is no evidence internationally showing that privitised water services are more efficient than public.
Plenty of benefits. First is that the state doesn't have to borrow the billions it's likely to cost on it's own. The usual results (outside of Irish experiences...ahem, concede on that one) are that the private companies achieve a quicker turn around and with cheaper costs. Again,
not the Irish experience.
I didn't mix anything up, it was the result of different factors in the UK. But there was a lag in the upgrading of the English and Welsh systems with the following of Scotland (NI is different as they were a few years behind anyway). The regulatory change was a main thing because of how the LAs controlled everything from supply, foul as well as the regulation. But the counties slower to move over remained behind in their improvements.
Your report is right, I'm surprised they didn't also mention the failure of PPPs in Bolivia and other areas. Sadly it ignores the minor issue that both Turkey's and Bolivia's lack of investment prior to private investment meant the starting point was a disgusting mess. It also skips over the general culture of corruption in those countries as it is. Just as I'm not allowed to make a causation link between the statistics showing an improvement post privatisation, I don't think it fair to suggest that those same issues would arise here.
All those companies operate within the EU in various capacities, yet due to regulation we do not get the same issues. The lesson is to ensure good regulation.
However, here's the problem. They have one single example. One. The others in the report are the old leftie favourites of Coca Cola, Nestle and Dow Chemicals. Ummm, only problem there is they have nothing to do with providing water in a private capacity. All have been responsible to varying degrees of contamination in the Third World. Well guess what happens when they do that in a regulated region such as the EU? They get hammered and prosecuted.
If privatisation is so bad, where are the scare stories from Developed Nations that have private water supply? They're missing. Given they could only find the one example of a bad service (and there are others, beyond the Bolivia example I gave) I'd put it down to poor research more than anything else. But it's like comparing the customs, practices and pay rates of a McDonalds in Delhi to the one at Artane Castle.
Yes, given enough rope the multi-nationals will claw as much profit as they can out of a situation. But where there is regulation and enforcement they adhere to it.
Oh and hats off for the completely partisan report by the Public Service International. I deliberately didn't link to a glowing report on privatised water by the World Bank for precisely the same reason that it wasn't balanced.
However, given that they don't even look at the OFWAT (independent body) reports on water services and how that compares since privatisation. Given that they don't even look at one single case from the UK or US, you have to wonder.