Nobel laureate Amartya Sen famously suggested that famines do not occur in democracies, because accountable governments would do everything they can to avoid mass starvation. The same reasoning should apply to clean drinking water; like food, it is a resource that is indispensable for survival and well-being.
And yet, recent events in the US offer depressing insights about the limits of Sen’s dictum and about how democracies can fail the people they are ostensibly supposed to serve. In 2014, the municipal government of Flint, Michigan, stopped purchasing water from Detroit and began sourcing it from a nearby river. The decision was motivated by cost concerns. Worries about the quality of the water were disregarded.
The river water, it turned out, corroded the city’s aging pipes. By the time it left the taps, it could contain high levels of toxic lead. And yet, nobody seemed to care. The city and state governments looked the other way, even after companies and hospitals declared the water unfit for use and switched to other sources.
Flint’s residents complained of the water’s color and taste. However, no matter how loud they raised their voices — either alone or collectively — they were disparaged as ignorant or dismissed as serial complainers. Even after doctors presented evidence that lead levels in the blood of the city’s children had doubled in the space of a year, the objections of the people of Flint fell on deaf ears.
The US might be one of the world’s most successful democracies, with regular elections and a representative government that is supposed to be — in former US president Abraham Lincoln’s famous words — “of the people, by the people, for the people.” And yet, not one level of government took the necessary measures to ensure that the residents of Flint had access to safe drinking water.
And Flint is not a solitary case; it is emblematic of a global problem. Millions of people worldwide lack access to clean drinking water. All too often, the world’s poor are forced to drink contaminated water, drill holes in pipelines or buy bottled water that is far more expensive than what flows from the taps of their richer neighbors. And the issue is only growing in importance as competition for drinking water heats up.
When a government proves unresponsive or incompetent, a common prescription is to limit its influence, so that the power of the market can be unleashed. However, when it comes to essential resources — such as water — this approach becomes morally repugnant. For example, allocating clean water to those able to pay the most for it results in situations where industrial applications win out over individual needs, leaving many with none.
The real problem is not water scarcity; it is that existing supplies are unequally distributed and thus unaffordable to the poor. This might be tolerable when it comes to ordinary goods — not everyone can have a yacht — but when it comes to an essential resource, we must ensure access on an equitable basis.
That means we have to find a better way to govern resources like water. For a message to be effective, it must reach and influence those in control — whether they are elected officials, regulators or private actors. Elections provide people with the opportunity to vote, but that is not the same thing as giving them a voice, much less ensuring that raised voices are listened to.
Flint is not only a wake-up call for democracy in the US, it is a stark lesson in the need for better governance worldwide. When cost-cutting efforts produce drinking water that fails to meet basic health standards, “government for the people” has been seriously eroded.
As the late Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom demonstrated, ordinary people are capable of sharing resources and avoiding the “tragedy of the commons.” And yet, the imperative for action lies with those in control of essential resources, not with those in need of them. If the problem of equitable access is to be solved, authorities must fulfill their responsibility to the governed, which means listening, learning and ultimately leading the effort to address it.
Katharina Pistor is professor of law at Columbia Law School
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
Navy Commander Admiral Tang Hua (唐華) said in an interview with The Economist that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been implementing an “anaconda strategy” to subdue Taiwan since President William Lai (賴清德) assumed office. The Chinese military is “slowly, but surely” increasing its presence around Taiwan proper, it quoted Tang as saying. “They are ready to blockade Taiwan at any time they want,” he said. “They give you extreme pressure, pressure, pressure. They’re trying to exhaust you.” Beijing’s goal is to “force Taiwan to make mistakes,” Tang said, adding that they could be “excuses” for a blockade. The interview reminds me