Looking at readings and lectures on neo-liberalism and water, the theme of colonialism is notable. Notably, colonialism usually involves political, economic and cultural domination of one group or country over another. This theme is notable in South Africa especially in Black Townships such as Alexandra and Orange Farm where majority of residents cannot afford clean water and other basic services (Goldman, 2007). A notable case of colonialism was seen a few days before the 2002 World Summit. During this period, Suez, a French firm rushed to install water meters in Orange firm. Suez insisted on “pay as you go” systems to avoid complication such as theft and non-payments. At the same time, public taps were dismantled and private meters were installed at homes yet the owners did not have sources of income (Goldman, 2007). More so, some of the new taps were faulty and residents feared that they will never be able to recover water lost through leakages. French meters were ill-equipped in addition to poor houses and sewage connection. As many as 10 million people suffered from water-cuts (Goldman, 2007). This is a form on colonialism because a foreign company was making life harder for Africans in their country.
Secondly, neo-liberalization of water is portrayed as a form of neo-colonialism. That is, it depicts a modern-day continuation of colonial relations as seen through conditions imposed by the World Bank and IMF (Goldman, 2007). Both the IMF and World Bank have significantly influenced the privatization of public utilities across the globe. However, their participation is usually expressed in form of threats such that they can shut-off countries and governments that do not follow their conditions. Consequently, most of the countries that have acquired unjust debts from these two organizations (Goldman, 2007). The World Bank and IMF are even influencing water policies in such countries. For instance in 2011, water and sanitation loans from these bodies were given on conditions that either these services should be privatized or recovery costs would be increased dramatically. This is a good portrayal of neo-colonialism.
I agree with this characterization monthly water cut-offs in Detroit also shows how the Blacks are discriminated to access basic services such as clean and adequate water supply. In Detroit, many residents are struggling to access clean water amid the Coronavirus pandemic (CITC10-Week 5 Guest Lecture slides). Secondly, in addition to being a highly-segregated area, most of the African-American communities are not allowed to manage projects involving basic services such as water and sewerage. There is a prejudice that they are not civilized enough to initiate and support development projects. However, the reality is that these are cases of neo-colonialism because the residents of Detroit struggle with limited services such as lack of streetlights and poor police response (CITC10-Week 5 Guest Lecture slides). Similarly, the residents of Ontario in Canada are struggling with issues arising from privatization of water. For instance, companies involved in these projects set the rate at which residents will pay for water and, usually the rates are higher compared to projects run by the public (Week 8 Guest Visit). Secondly, there is loss of control and accountability because communities are usually left out the negotiation processes. Unfortunately, just like in Detroit, water issues usually affect low-income communities and, this is becoming a major issue relating to public health especially, with the current crisis caused by the Coronavirus outbreak.
References
CITC10-Week 5 Guest Lecture slides. Infrastructures of Black dispossession: The struggle for water in Detroit.
CITC10-Week 8 Guest Visit. Water Privatization in Canada with VI Bui_notes. Pdf.
Goldman, M. (2007). How “Water for All!” policy became hegemonic: The power of the World Bank and its transnational policy networks. Geoforum, 38(5), 786-800.