英语论文网

oNormal'> Market environmentalism is seen as a way for governments in developing countries to cut costs and for a short period of time become more efficient (Kettl, 1993). In recent years, private companies have been reducing their involvement in asset participation and have been opting for service contracts and reducing their equity involvement (net private flows are decreasing). In developing countries privatisation can be seen as a risky strategy, especially with such a valuable resource like water because the delegation of power to multinational corporations (MNCs) and the resulting loss of accountability is problematic. If consumers feel they are being cheated out of their entitlement, it can create highly volatile situations, such as the water fights in Cochabamba, Bolivia during 2000, where consumers were not receiving any of the water they had paid for (Watson, 2003).

The UK adopted market environmentalism for several reasons. One of the issues with the state-run system was that pipes and sewage networks were not maintained due to lack of public investment. Water supplies were provided by local authorities until 1974, but the system was fragmented and inefficient not the least because there were 1,400 local authorities. In the 30 years prior to this as a result of amalgamations forced by the Government in order to increase efficiency, there was a reduction of suppliers from 1,186 to 150. Hence, when the Conservative Party came to power in 1979 there were many issues, and for political reasons, investment in infrastructure was further reduced in order to keep public spending as low as possible. Consequently, there was a decline in both river and tap water quality in Britain (Pearce, 1982). The reason for privatising the water industry was to raise funds, attract inward investment and subsequently aim to improve the infrastructure. But as a result of this market environmentalism there was a lack of co-operation between the utility providers (including Southern Water and Thames Water), who continued to work independently. They did not create a national network infrastructure due to disparity in water quality between the regions and this could be seen as a direct result of lack of regulation in the industry. Further, Ofwat suggested in 1996 that Yorkshire Water needed to address their policies regarding the failure to maintain a continuous supply, and control flooding, and likewise in 1995, North West Water, rather than investing in necessary infrastructure, appeared to be more interested in satisfying their shareholders. Between 1991-1996 infrastructure in the UK received a ￡31 billion investment in an attempt to improve the water quality in line with the latest EU regulations (Kinnersley, 1998). A further ￡8 billion was invested to improve the water quality of sewage treatment work discharge (DEFRA, 1999). This is a feat which the state could not achieve because raising such sums solely for water is not feasible.

Public Sector:

In 1961, a state-owned company called Servico Nacional de Aguas y Alcantarillados (SANAA) was created and made responsible for the water supp本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。