Fun fact, while we learnt about the Bolivian Water War in India, we were never told that after the exit of the international consortium, about half the population of Cochabamba continue to lack access to water, while those who do have only intermittent supply. Meanwhile, SEMAPA, the government entity at the center of the protests, has a budget of only $5 million, which renders them unable to expand or revamp the current water supply network.
It's not a fun fact. Miracles don't happen. But what is a fact is that the World Bank fucked up terribly by more or less blaming the poor for being poor and putting a bunch of capitalists in charge of the water supply in a way that was bound to escalate.
The problem with privatization is that it tends to turn into a monopoly that extracts a toll from those worst positioned to bear the burden. That of course doesn't change if you let them to rot. What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation. How they would have done that in light of corruption and local graft is another problem entirely.
You can't just take 20% of people's meager income (more than they spend on food) for a first level requirement like clean water. That's the sort of infrastructure that the world bank exists to bankroll, once the necessities are taken care of a society has a much better chance to lift itself from poverty.
I'm not denying your PoV. Water is a basic necessity and shouldn't be charged a king's ransom for.
> What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation.
But does the World Bank even do that kind of financing? They and the IMF seem only intent on financing assured projects in developed countries or projects in developing countries which simply siphon money into politicians' pockets, with their tacit knowledge. That was part of the motivation behind Asian Investment Bank, and the other Chinese propped competitors.
My point was that in spite of the "revolution" succeeding, and in spite of the revolutionary leaders taking charge of power for a record number of years, the town continues to suffer from the lack of water.
They suffer from the lack of water but there is no clarity on whether or not they are better off than if they had not resisted, besides, some of the terms were so far beyond unacceptable that they had every right to protest the deal.
When the humanity about these things is lost and it all becomes just numbers people suffer. And right now they are suffering too but they are at least nominally in control of their fate. The best solution would be one where graft and greed would be cut out because to just have a choice between the two is always going to be bad for those caught in the middle.
> What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation
That seems like charity, which granted i am all for, but i don't think the World Bank is a charitable organization, plus 300 million is a MASSIVE amount for charity. In the absence of charity it seems like the two choices are 1. Have no water or 2. Pay a lot to have water. At least with 2 you have the potential for the lowering of water prices over time.
Is there an alternative? Or am i wrong about the world bank and these charitable acts are it's purpose?
