Water Privatization vs. Public Stewardship: The Global Crisis
This essay compares two competing perspectives on the global water crisis: Frederik Segerfeldt's argument that private-sector management would distribute water more equitably than failing public systems, and Maude Barlow's counter-argument that privatization deepens the crisis by enabling pollution, capitalist exploitation, and unequal access. The paper identifies key areas of agreement — including the severity of the crisis in the developing world and the fact that the Earth's freshwater supply is finite — before arguing that Barlow's position is stronger. The essay ultimately proposes a community-based stewardship model, supported by independent watchdog oversight of both governments and private corporations, as the most equitable long-term solution.
- Introduction: Two Views on the Water Crisis: Contrasting Segerfeldt and Barlow on water privatization
- Segerfeldt's Case for Water Privatization: Privatization as fix for failed public water management
- Barlow's Critique: Pollution, Overpopulation, and Globalization: Pollution and capitalism deepen the water crisis
- Common Ground: A Crisis Affecting the Developing World: Both authors agree on severity and finite freshwater
- Key Disagreements: Causes and Solutions: Diverging diagnoses and proposed remedies compared
- Evaluating the Arguments: Why Barlow's Position Is Stronger: Community stewardship beats privatization or government control
- Conclusion: Toward Community-Based Water Stewardship: Blending both views through watchdog-monitored water collectives
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay uses a structured point-counterpoint framework, clearly articulating each author's position before moving to comparison and evaluation — a sound strategy for a comparative argument paper.
- It identifies genuine common ground between opposing authors (both acknowledge a global crisis and finite freshwater) before pivoting to their differences, demonstrating careful, balanced reading.
- The conclusion moves beyond the binary debate to propose a third position — community-based water collectives — showing independent analytical thinking rather than simply endorsing one side wholesale.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of textual evidence to support comparative analysis. The writer consistently attributes claims to specific authors with parenthetical citations and then evaluates those claims against each other, modeling how to synthesize multiple sources rather than merely summarizing them in sequence.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a framing introduction that previews both positions and the writer's own thesis. Two body sections each summarize one author's argument. A middle section maps shared ground, followed by a section on core disagreements. A separate evaluative section argues for Barlow's superiority while acknowledging Segerfeldt's valid points. The conclusion synthesizes both authors into a third proposal. Works Cited closes the paper in MLA format.
Introduction: Two Views on the Water Crisis
In "Private Water Saves Lives," Frederik Segerfeldt claims that governments are ineffective managers of water and that the private sector would do a better job of distributing water equitably to reduce the global water crisis. Segerfeldt states, "ninety-seven percent of all water distribution in poor countries is managed by the public sector, which is largely responsible for more than a billion people being without water" (294). Because "bad policies are the main problem with water," the key is how to make privatized water "work better, instead of rejecting the idea altogether" (294–295).
Maude Barlow strongly disagrees. In "Where Has All the Water Gone?" Barlow argues that privatization "deepens the crisis" (297). The main culprits in the water crisis include "pollution, climate change, and population growth" (Barlow 298). Barlow agrees with Segerfeldt that governments are failing the people, but argues in favor of "cooperation, sustainability, and public stewardship" instead of privatization.
Both Segerfeldt and Barlow raise pertinent points about the water crisis, but Barlow's position makes more sense. Privatization promotes globalization, materialism, pollution, and unbridled capitalism — all of which are culprits of the water crisis.
Segerfeldt's Case for Water Privatization
In "Private Water Saves Lives," Segerfeldt mainly picks apart the anti-privatization argument. One of the concerns of the anti-privatization movement is that the price of water would rise if corporations were in control of the resources. Segerfeldt admits that "in some cases, it is true that prices have gone up after privatization" (295). However, he claims that privatized water does not necessarily increase the price of water or reduce access to water in poor places.
Segerfeldt argues that the price of water for those connected to the mains "should not be the immediate concern" for policy makers (295). The focus should instead be on the most effective way to bring water to the poorest people living in rural communities without access to running water. Segerfeldt implies that privatization is the key because governments have failed to bring drinking water to rural areas in poor countries. Moreover, he claims that governments usually do not distribute water resources democratically, using the food analogy to illustrate that governments cannot be trusted to distribute any life essentials. Privatization bypasses governments, but the problem with privatization is that it has not worked well yet, largely because of a lack of supervision or regulatory bodies.
Barlow's Critique: Pollution, Overpopulation, and Globalization
In "Where Has All the Water Gone?" Maude Barlow emphasizes the hydrologic cycle to show that pollution is one of the main causes of the water crisis. As more and more groundwater is polluted, less and less clean water is available for human consumption. Unbridled development leads to water shortages and water pollution, and the privatization of water only plays into the hands of profiteers.
In addition to pollution, overpopulation is part of the problem, as too many people are placing undue demands on the Earth's resources. The planet cannot sustain its current population indefinitely, especially as India and China become wealthier and strive for a consumption-intensive way of life. Related to pollution is the diversion and depletion of water for industrial uses and profiteering. Thus, privatization is part of the problem, not the solution, to the water crisis.
Barlow stresses that even industrialized nations like the United States are facing water crises. The parts of the world most affected are called "hot stains" (298). As problematic as all these hot stains are, people are actually dying from dirty water in the world's poorest nations. The solution to the water crisis, Barlow argues, is to reject the principles of globalization in favor of a new commitment to cooperation.
Common Ground: A Crisis Affecting the Developing World
Although they disagree on most points, Segerfeldt and Barlow do agree that water is in a state of crisis and that something must be done soon. Both also emphasize that the crisis especially affects the developing world. Barlow cites the World Health Organization, claiming that "every eight seconds, a child dies from drinking dirty water" (299). Segerfeldt agrees that "the shortage of water helps to perpetuate poverty, disease, and early death" (294).
Finally, both Barlow and Segerfeldt acknowledge that the Earth does not technically "run out" of water (Barlow 299). Segerfeldt similarly claims that there is "no shortage" of water, "at least not globally" (294). This shared acknowledgment of finite but renewable freshwater forms the factual foundation beneath their otherwise divergent arguments.
Conclusion: Toward Community-Based Water Stewardship
Both Barlow and Segerfeldt describe the water crisis as a humanitarian issue and offer possible solutions to the problem. Segerfeldt argues in favor of privatization because governments are ineffective in getting water to their poorest citizens. Barlow argues against privatization because capitalism has helped create the crisis in the first place. The key is to blend the approaches of both authors so that governments and the private sector work together to create more ethical standards in water management. This can only be accomplished by establishing watchdog groups that oversee both the private and the public sector.
Works Cited
Barlow, Maude. "Where Has All the Water Gone?" Chapter 6: Protecting the Environment.
Segerfeldt, Frederik. "Private Water Saves Lives." Chapter 6: Protecting the Environment.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.