Balen goes on to argue that access to clean water has increased significantly in those countries which have allowed some privatisation. (He is virtually always talking about government-regulated privatisation, incidentally. It would be interesting to know if there have been any complete privatisations, without heavy government controls, and how well these have improved supply.)

In Tunja, Colombia, access to water increased by 10% folllowing privatision; in Gabon the figure was almost 15%. Cartagena, Colombia posted access increases of 25%, Conakry, Guinea of 20% and La Paz - El Alto, Bolivia of 10%. In Chile, 99% of urban residents, as well as 94% of rural residents are now supplied with water all day round, which contrasts fabourably with pre-privatisation figures of 63% and 27% respectively. Finally, Corrientes, Argentina, and Cote d'Ivoire saw increases of almost 15%.

He makes the point that a private company only makes any money if a water connection is sucessfully made. Meanwhile an employee of a state industry goes on getting paid regardless of how many connections are made.

Private companies are also less wasteful. Money is spent replacing leaking pipes, for example.

Under public ownership, the amount of water leaked from Buenos Aires's system as a percentage of the total water available was 45%. Now just 0.18 metres cubed per connection per day is lost.

There are fewer unnecessary workers employed, too, which reduces the cost of supply water and thus increases its affordability.

In Chile, the private sector managed to reduce its workforce by 30% during 1998 to 2001, a period which saw public sector employment fall by just 5%. This was achieved alongside an increase in the customer base of 6%.

The website of the Globalization Institute is here.