Neo-liberalism and Water Management: A Review from Canadian

Perspective.

Submitted By

A M Rezwanul Hoque
Student Id 7769552

Course Requirement for the Course NRI 7182 A01

Sustainability, Economics, and Natural Resources

Natural Resources Institute

University of Manitoba

Winnipeg

Date of Submission: 04th April, 2016

Page | 1
Abstract:

Access to water is the fundamental rights of every human being. For a commodity that has
such profound importance for living organisms, commoditization or pricing it is a seriously
debatable issue. The old style of water management has badly failed in many parts of the
world, and later prompts out the idea of ‘economic valuation’ and pricing of water’. Many
scholarly articles established the fact that water needs to be valued for better management.
Their message is clear: though people are uncomfortable with viewing water as a
commodity, privatization with full market potential is mandatory to manage it suitably.
Critics argue that pricing may create misplacement and misallocation of resources, having
an adverse impact on government revenue and budget. But examining the protocols and a
thorough evaluation of the regulation policies, therefore, becomes necessary to privatize
such resources especially in the third world developing economies, where reform through
private entrepreneurship mostly depends not solely on capital intensity but the ethical
manner of the capital owners.

Page | 2
 Section 01

A. Identification of the issue and background

Neoliberal policy on water management has remained an issue of debate since mid-80’s.
Different economic systems all over the world have laid down the foundations for neo-liberal
policy by implementing many different supporting literary frameworks. But whether the outcome
is efficient or not, is not very clear so far (Furlong, 2010).
The analysis of 'Neoliberalism' is an approach to economic and social studies that looks at
situations where controls of economic factors are shifted from the public sector to the private
sector. In other words, it is called “privatization" (Jessop, 2002; Silva, 1993; Investopedia, n.d.),
though it has many other effects and motivations. At the beginning of 1970’s and 80’s,
advocates of neoliberalism planned for extensive, flexible policies such as privatization, fiscal
austerities, deregulations, free trade and reductions in government spending. One of the major
policy goals includes promoting the market provision of goods and services such as
telecommunications, electricity or control of other natural resources such as water or gas. The
neoliberal argument claims that where the government cannot provide these services effectively
or efficiently, so having many service providers promotes free market and competition,
maximizing the welfare of the society (Boas & Morse, 2009; Bos, Parker & Jones, 2005;
Duménil & Levy, 2004); Advocates of neoliberalism also believe that to improve the efficiencies
of economic resources like water in any economy requires a greater reform, introduction and
strengthening of the market mechanism, private ownership, and free business administration
(Furlong, 2010)
The current paper aims to present findings on how neoliberal economic policy can effectively
improve water efficiency, allocation, and management within a country. The primary
relationship with neoliberalism’s economic policy and the effectiveness of water resource
management based on proper administration, the market mechanism as well as effective
privatization are discussed here. The paper also illustrate neoliberalism and economic policy,
how it is related to management of water resources, gradually the focus shifts to the structure of
neo-liberalism economy in the private sector that lacks effectiveness in many countries such as
USA, Canada or in some other countries. The attention is also given to water sector which has an
inherent value for public and environment. Finally, the paper reflects on the problems these
water sectors faced recently because of the lack of development of the privatization process,
assuming it as one of the root cause of inefficiency, the paper enhance these adverse impacts and
suggest some possible remedies. Few case studies have also been added in a developed form to
broaden the context of many aspects of neo-liberalism which may remain ignored by many
earlier researchers. Some further issues related to “proper water resource management” and
“neo-liberalism economy” such as the role of market mechanism and influence of political
administration are also considered in the paper. However, the main purpose of paper remains to
find out a possible cure for this common phenomenon of treating neo-liberalism as a failure in
this regard.

Page | 3
 By adding further - the elements of the market mechanism, the probable sources of the
effectiveness of this mechanism by improving the techniques of privatization of water resource
sector under neo-liberalism (e.g. water, energy, etc.) was strongly backed in the paper with in-
depth explanation of how the market mechanism works under neo-liberalism. The paper also
focuses on how the political nature of the administrations may influence the perspectives of
water resource management. These are deeply embedded in the roots of all evils of any neo-
liberalism economic system of a country, and to cure that disease a complete governance and
neutral political system are desired whether in the public or the private sector.

B. Argument of the paper

 To improve water efficiency, allocation, and management, it is necessary to have strong

market mechanisms, private sector ownership and operation.

Page | 4
 Section 02
Development of the idea neo-liberalism:

Ideas and definition of neo-liberalism have changed over time (Morse & Boas, 2009). It is
authentically believed that Neoliberal idea was first introduced in Germany (West Germany at
that time) to find a so-called ‘middle way’ between two main philosophies of classical liberalism
and socialist planning (Boas & Morse, 2009; Jones, 2006; Levy, 2004). In 1930 and 1940, few
economists draw theories under the guideline of the famous economist as well as the Chancellor
of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), Ludwig Erhard to reconstruct West
Germany’s economy following the Second World War (BMWi n.d.; Hartwich, 2009). Before
neoliberal, Freiburg School in Germany implemented the economic thought called "ordoliberal."
The German neoliberals though accepted the notion of the classical school of economic thought
that believes competition drives economic growth (Ralf, 2009). Although these economists also
argue that laissez-faire policy is more effective to restrain monopolies. German neoliberals also
oppose to the total Keynesian employment whereas Alfred Muller-Armack used the concept of
“Social market economy” to bend the idea of egalitarian and humanistic approach in the
economy (Boas & Morse, 2009). Finally, Taylor C, Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse (2009)
emphasized on social security and social justice as central concerns in neo-liberalizing a society.
Erhard though believed the market to be inherently social that could enable a population to
manage their social security through self-reliance, therefore, imposed no requirement for
widespread welfare tasks carried by the state (Hartwich, 2009). However, despite an effort to end
widespread poverty through the elderly pension reform under Otto Von Bismarck, Ruston coined
the label “neoliberalism” by criticizing the limited development tendencies pressed by the
economists at that time (Hartwich, 2009).

Friedrich Hayek (1976) in his book- Denationalisation of Money: An Analysis of the Theory and
Practice of Concurrent Currencies illustrated that social market economy was a failure because it
aimed to mix social justice and the market economy that produced an inconsistent outcome
(Hayek, 1976). Finally, Ludwig stated that Erhard and Muller-Armack succeeded in
implementing market liberalism in the economy in a far more effective way. In Germany,
neoliberalism is not only a familiar concept because of earlier theories on ordoliberalism and
social market economy but also it gradually disappeared and then it was restored in reactionary

Page | 5
form (Boas & Morse, 2009; Lucia & Thomas, 2015). For example, a lot of financial expertise
and economists in Germany believe that neoliberalism is functionally and intellectually superior,
and also it is morally and ethically effective. The recent German economic performance can give
the reader a little reason to doubt this conviction. These economists also believe that economy
can always be well built around prosperous buyers, or else it collapses in poverty. For example,
German economy plunged into a lower growth than before in one month following August 2014.
Critics of neoliberalism believe the laws of economic gravity and demand destructions is likely
to be caught up in German economy sooner or later, and it can’t be contained forever under neo-
liberalism. These people also believe neo-liberalism is a more reliable way for rich nations to
become poorer (Real economics: Neoliberalism finally catches up to the German economy,
2014).

Page | 6
 Section 03

Neoliberalism and water management in Canada:

In this particular paper, Canada was the selected country profile to analyze the dimensions of
neoliberalism in the water sector. According to many, Neoliberalism has not been successfully
implemented in the Canadian context. Based on the opinion of many researchers, the unique
features Canadian capitalism includes three crucial phases where neoliberal principles and
practices were introduced, evaluated, and reshaped (Stanford, 2014).Critics in Canada blame on
the corruption and weak infrastructure as they believe the system of neoliberalism failed to
allocate efficiently water resources. Studies also suggest that neoliberalism only has adverse
effects in developing nations. The crisis started when there had been seven deaths and twenty-
three hundred people were affected by the contaminated water in Walkerton, Ontario (Prudham,
2004). The contamination diseases spread throughout the community. It was believed that the
contamination was a direct result of neoliberalism reforms and weak regulations introduced by
the Ontario government (Prudham, 2004). The trends of neoliberalism in Canada mostly have
been deregulations and privatizations, although in Walkerton case, it was not privatization but
cuts to water quality regulations, as the Ministry of Environment stepped in and ensured, was the
primary source for water contaminations. The Walkerton case established the fact that
deregulations and dependencies on cost versus profit for private entities to monitor
environmental issues are major criteria for improving resource allocation efficiencies under
neoliberalism (Prudham, 2004). But the question remains, is it an inherent risk in privatization
and deregulation process and are all private entrepreneurs going to suffer from the same moral
hazard? Market mechanism that is working properly (perfect competition among many producers
with no monopoly) and a proper business-like administration (analyzing the quality of service,
managing demand/supply of the clients properly, market reward and punishment for poor
performance, strict operations for strengthening market positioning based on quality and
customer reputation) may help to resolve the issue. Again some argue that without placing a
strong regulatory framework the failure is usual because privatization runs on competition and
requires the entrepreneurs to make the direct investment to seek profit based on supplying the
best service with limited capital resources, and clients look around for the best supplier
(Prudham, 2004). Is that true? The argument can wisely be disputed.

Page | 7
If the readers go through another case, that is the case of Flint city water management crisis in
the state of Michigan in the USA, they can see a whole of new aspects of negativities of Neo-
liberalism policy and its complacent effect on water management. The Flint water crisis is a case
of drinking water contamination in Flint, Michigan (United States); the problem started back in
April 2014 when a change occurred in the source water from Lake Huron (via Detroit) that flows
to the Flint River. The city suffered a major blow due to a series of problems as its drinking
water was contaminated with lead pollution, leading to a severe public health disaster. Because
of the lead sourced from Flint River, there was an extreme level of brown water in the aging pipe
water supply to the city. As a result, between 6,000 and 12,000 residents were affected by high
levels of lead in their blood that exposed them so serious health issues. Finally, there was a
possible outbreak of Legionnaires disease in the county that killed ten people and affected
another 77 (AlHajal, 2016). From the same research, it was also found that the city government
was reacting a bit slower than usual in storing a major data on this lead pollution, which clearly
mentions that although 45,000 index cards were stored in Flint’s public utility building but the
Department of Public Works who were trying to translate those data took too long. By the time
they have translated only 25% of the index card information into an electronic spreadsheet
program; on October 1, 2015, the city faced a major public concern (AlHajal, 2016).

Based on the report of “Lead contamination Spurs fight for clean water” by Sam Gringlas in the
Michigan Daily (Dec 3, 2016) one of the task force report mentions that the department of
environmental quality in Michigan state was to blame for this crisis who failed to comply the
minimum technical procedure. Again, as said by the report, the Municipal Assistance was
equally responsible as a part of this failure to deal with the crisis. The report also says that
although there was a rise in concerns among the individual and groups, those who carried out
independent studies and tests to bring it to the attention of the due authority were immediately
dismissed and disregarded. (AlHajal, 2016; Gringlas 2013).

Page | 8
Finally, report from Lawler (2016) and Klayman (2016) indicate that the Mayor of the Flint city
estimates a cost of almost $1.5 billion to fix the water infrastructure in Flint including the aging
pipes. Besides, the report also refers to an additional public health cost of the disaster along with
a replacement cost of $60 million affirmed by the state department. It may take around 15 years
to for Michigan State to complete whole re-infrastructure process. Evidence from the same report
of Lawler (2016) shows that 6000–12,000 children have been exposed to lead poisoning. So a
fundraising campaign was needed to raise $100 million over a 10–15 year span for their medical
treatment. The Michigan Legislature has recently been urged to provide Flint extra $28 million
in funding for filters, replacement cartridges, bottled water, more school nurses and further
intervention specialists. The extra money will also assist in the research of water-system
infrastructure, lab testing, and replacement of plumbing equipment in schools, child care centers,
nursing homes and medical facilities and assessing the linkage of this lead contamination to other
diseases (Lawler, 2016).

This above case of Flint Water management crisis again adds strengths to the writer’s position on
behalf of the need for effective neo-liberalism policy and privatization in the water sector to
manage water resource properly. First of all, an effective neo-liberalism policy requires the
promotion of participation of the citizens as the water resource is not only a natural resource,
rather it’s a public resource that adds an inherent public value, where citizens of Flints who
conducted studies and research, their voices should have been prominent for the state authorities.
But that was not the case in this situation; on the contrary, their opinion was discredited. On
neoliberal water sector reform, Karen Bakker (2007: 442) finds participation of citizens as a
common phenomenon among both the proponents and opponents of neo-liberalism. The World
Bank, for example, calls for improved mechanisms to promote the ‘voice’ and participation of
citizens; including “direct involvement by users, nongovernmental organizations and other
groups of citizens” as a necessary element of public sector reform (World Bank 2000: 23).
Citizen participation is intended to improve the transparency and responsiveness of organizations
whether it’s public or private, resulting in more effective and locally appropriate services that, in
some cases, lead to community ownership and operation (Subramanian et, al. 1997). In the
paper, further suggestions were made on how participation from the public can help in removing
market failure and add strength to water resource management.

Page | 9
 Section 04:

Strong evidences to support private management of water

Any markets have the potential to allocate resources efficiently; although it doesn’t happen all
the time. It’s not the evil face of privatization rather what one should take a look at is when the
market fails or how a market succeeds. The theory of a perfectly ‘efficient market' explains why
different types of market failures may occur (Arrow, 1969; Investopedia, 2004). If a researcher
goes into deep beyond the facts, he or she may also reveal the reason for an inefficient pattern of
resource allocations regarding environmental and social welfare. The absence of relative prices
(which occurs more frequently in the socialist economy, government controls everything and
monopoly are in place) the changing demands or supplies don’t reflect the accurate commodity
price, precisely the absence of true market price. Market decentralization is an ultimate
requirement to provoke a market driven price with no external intervention (by the government
or anyone else). That is why Adam Smith expressed the idea of “invisible hand of the market”.
The second feature is markets must be competitive to work properly, for example, the increase in
demand for water, leading to an increase in its supply. The extra demand for water must be
efficiently managed while suppliers are making a profit. In the absence of perfect competition
(which definitely occurs in absence of privatization) as entry for many private firms to water
industry with higher technology or capital resources are constrained such as firms who possess
the advantages like foreign donor investments, foreign chemical expertise, sophisticated water
supply line/distribution systems etc.

The few additional profit driven producers may either out compete the clients by charging a
higher price or supplying a low quality to benefit themselves and to deprive the society. Real life
rarely corresponds to it due to what conventional economics calls “market failure” (The New
Economic Foundations, 2013). These failures occur due to imperfect competition in the absence
of privatization, poorly informed market participants, and the poor mechanism of market
operations when firms are blocked from entering or exiting a market. Externalities such as
pollution, a firm producing goods may pollute the atmosphere, but would not pay for the cost of
this pollution to the planet and society are also very high here, which was exactly the case of
Walkerton, Ontario (The New Economic Foundations, 2013).

Page | 10
Added further, a Citigroup economist gushed, "Water as an asset class will become the single
most important physical-commodity based asset class along with oil, copper, agricultural
commodities and precious metals eventually”( Buiter 2011: 24). An analysis of water and sewer
utilities by Food and Water Watch (2009) found that private companies charge up to 80 percent
extra for water and 100 percent more for sewer services (Buchheit, 2015) . A more recent study
confirms it is not the privatization but the shortsighted, irresponsible and costly way of few
private entrepreneurs to implement privatization in the absence of a proper market mechanism,
poor administrative operations, and lack of real competitors. This latent market structure
increases the long-term costs imposed on the society reducing well fare and leading to Pareto
efficiency or Pareto optimality. Which is a state of allocation of economic/natural resources in
which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one
individual worse off (Nicholas, 2012; Furlong, 2010).

Page | 11
 Chapter 5

Recommendations and Conclusion:

Ferguson (1990) states, the most significant aspect of reform is “not so much what it fails to do
but what it does do; although the conclusion might be drawn with the ‘side effects.'. So it is
important to realize although privatization has been done in the water sector, but it occurred
without realizing it’s under full potential, ignoring the fundamental foundations of neo-
liberalism. Every economic system needs to execute the full practice on existing neoliberalism
policies to make the reformation sustainable. Given the challenges, as opposed to direct
implementation, a constant revision of programs and of their focus and goals is necessary. In
these reformulations, we see the attempt of supports of neoliberalism to narrow the scope of their
ambition, acknowledging, for instance, their inability to extend service to low-income areas or to
secure reinvestment in infrastructure (Furlong, 2010). An essential component of neo-liberalism
policy to privatize water resource and to reflect the public value is market environmentalism.
The idea of market environmentalism believes water is underpriced and thus poorly allocated
and it is believed that the benefit of economic development will trickle down and play a vital role
in managing resources (Soule 2014). The theory also believes privatization will reduce costs and
enhance efficiency; later that will lower the price of water through staffing reductions and
competition for contract renewals (Furlong, 2010; Shirley 2002; Lee and Jouravlev 1997: 52;).
This claim has not been born out in practice. In the case of England and Wales, Hassan (1998:
194) describes- during 1989-1994, just after privatization of water sector, by an average of 70
percent increase in water price create debates about the efficiency of privatized water
management. Later is has been found that most of the extra money go to meet the controversially
high salaries within the privatized companies (Furlong, 2010). The price increases led to
problems of affordability and user disconnections, which would later be prohibited by law (K.
Bakker 2003b; Graham 1997). In Bolivia, similar increases in tariffs the following privatization
meant that many users were withheld their normal water service (Assies 2003; Marvin and
Laurie 1999). Price increases were often among the preparatory reforms enacted within public
utilities to encourage the sector. The UK, Greece, and South Africa are the good examples
(Furlong, 2010, Bond 2002; Hassan 1998; Kaïka 2005). Again, reduced access due to high prices
raises questions on the predicted improvements in water allocation under full cost pricing and the

Page | 12
introduction of water markets. Thus, an effective market-based valuation is necessary under neo-
liberalism policy to manage the water resources to enhance the agricultural activity and to reflect
improved allocation (Rosegrant & Binswanger 1994). Practitioners of neo-liberal policy find
market-based valuation techniques useful in selecting policy options that may or may not
promote the further commercialization of the resource, but it will solve the immediate problem
of under pricing or over pricing (Furlong, 2010; Dalhuisen et al. 2003). In this case, the probable
suggestion is a price flooring and price ceiling. Proponents of price flooring or price ceiling
argues that it is one possible way to control the preservation of natural resources like water as
people are valuing it enough. He thinks the view is very effective for those industrial users who
pollute the water resource. If a weight is assigned for the development made out of natural
resources in monetary terms, the production or industrial method to use water will be enforced to
add safety and precautions. Government laws that regulate price are called Price controls. Laws
that government enacts to regulate prices are called Price controls. It has two characteristics- "A
price ceiling keeps a price from rising above a certain level (the 'ceiling') while a price floor
keeps a price from falling below a certain threshold (the 'floor') (Price Ceilings and Price Floors,
n.d.). If this policy is allowed to remove any market failure in the presence of neo-liberalism
structure in privatizing the natural or public resources; it may definitely help in classifying water
as ecological asset for industrial user/consumers to deliver an effective eco-system market (like
water, air, soil, pollination and the rest of it).

Page | 13
 References

1. AlHajal, K. (2016, January 13). 87 cases, 10 fatal, of Legionella bacteria found in Flint
area; connection to water crisis unclear. Retrieved February 07, 2016, from
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2016/01/legionaires_disease_spike_disc.ht
ml
2. Altenburg, Tillman, and Christian von Drachenfels; (2006); “The ‘New Minimalist
Approach’ to Private-Sector Development: A Critical Assessment.” Development Policy
Review24 (4): 387–411.
3. Anderson, Terry L., and Donald R. Leal;(1988); “Going with the Flow: Expanding the
Water Markets.” CatoPolicy Analysis 104. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa104.html.
4. Anderson, Terry L; (1982);. “The New Resource Economics: Old Ideas and New
Applications.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics64 (5): 928–934.
5. Andrés, Luis A., J. Luis Guasch, Thomas Haven, and Vivien Foster; (2008); Impact of
Private Sector Participation in Infrastructure: Lights, Shadows, and the Road Ahead
Washington, DC: World Bank.
6. Arrow, K. J. (1969). The organization of economic activity: issues pertinent to the choice
of market versus nonmarket allocation. The analysis and evaluation of public
expenditure: the PPB system, 1, 59-73.
7. Assies, Willem; (2003); “David versus Goliath in Cochabamba: Water Rights,
Neoliberalism, and the Revival of Social Protest in Bolivia.” Latin American
Perspectives30 (3): 14–36.
8. Augier, Luis L. M. (2006); “Janitors and Sweatshop Citizenship in Canada.”; Antipode
38 (3): 440–461.
9. Azpiazu, Daniel, and Martín Schorr; (2004); Cross-Comparative Report on the
Economic-Financial Dimension Oxford: PRINWASS Project, University of Oxford.
10. Bakker, Isabella; (2003); “Neo-Liberal Governance and the Reprivatization of Social
Reproduction: Social Provisioning and Shifting Gender Orders.” Pp. 66–82 in Power,
Production and Social Reproduction, ed. I. Bakker and S. Gill. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.

Page | 14
11. Bakker, Karen; (2000); “Privatizing Water, Producing Scarcity: The Yorkshire Drought
of 1995:Economic Geography”76 (1): 4–27.
12. BMWi - Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy - The Social Market
Economy. (n.d.). Retrieved February 07, 2016, from
http://www.bmwi.de/EN/Topics/Economy/social-market-economy.html
13. Buchheit, P. (2015, December 1). Our Ayn Randian dystopia: Here’s the secret five-step
plan to privatize everything. Retrieved February 07, 2016, from
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/our-ayn-randian-dystopia-heres-the-secret-five-step-
plan-to-privatize-everything/
14. Buiter, W. 2011. Essay: Water as seen by an economist. Global themes strategy thirsty
cities — Urbanization to drive water demand, Citigroup Global Markets
http://www.capitalsynthesis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Water-Thirsty-Cities.pdf.
15. Cairncross, Sandy; (1987); “The Private Sector and Water Supply in Developing
Countries: Partnerships or Profiteering?” Health Policy and Planning2 (2): 180–182.
16. Campbell Jones, Martin Parker, Rene Ten Bos (2005). For Business
Ethics. Routledge. ISBN 0415311357.
17. Carbonel, Alain;(2000); “Supply of Water and Sanitation to Low-Income Households in
La Paz under the Aguas Del Illimani Concession.” Paper presented at “Infrastructure for
Development: Private Solutions and the Poor,” Private Provision of Infrastructure
Advisory Facility, Department for International Development, and World Bank, London.
18. Castro, José Esteban;(2006); Water, Power and Citizenship: Social Struggle in the Basin
of Mexico St Antony’s Series, ed. J. Zielonka. Houndmills, UK, and New York: Palgrave
Macmillan in association with St Antony’s College, Oxford University.
19. DG Environment;(2008) “Water Note 5: Economics in Water Policy: The Value of
Europe’s Waters.” European Commission Water Information System for Europe (WISE),
Brussels.
20. Dinar, Ariel, and R. Maria Saleth (2004); Institutional Economics of Water: A Cross-
Country Analysis of Institutions and PerformanceWashington, DC: World Bank.
21. Duménil, G., & Lévy, D. (2004). Capital resurgent: Roots of the neoliberal revolution.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Page | 15
22. Efficient Market Hypothesis: Is The Stock Market Efficient? Investopedia. (2004).
Retrieved February 07, 2016, from
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/022004.asp
23. Figueres, Caroline, Johan Rockstrom, and Cecilia Tortajada; (2003); Rethinking Water
Management: Innovative Approaches to Contemporary Issues; London: Earthscan.
24. Finnegan, William; (2002); “Leasing the Rain.” New Yorker, 8 April, 45–53.
25. Franceys, Richard; (2008); “GATS, ‘Privatization’ and Institutional Development for
Urban Water Provision: Future Postponed?” Progress in Development Studies; 8 (1):
45–58.
26. Furlong, K. (2010). Neoliberal water management: Trends, limitations,
reformulations. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 1(1), 46-75.
27. Furlong, Kathryn, and Karen Bakker (2010); “The Contradictions of ‘Alternative’ Service
Delivery: Governance, Business Models, and Sustainability in Municipal Water Supply.”
Environment and Planning: Government and Policy; 28 (2): 349–368.
28. Gamble, Andrew; (1988); The Free Economy and the Strong State: The Politics of
Thatcherism Basingstoke; Macmillan Education.
29. Gandy, Matthew; (1997); “The Making of a Regulatory Crisis: Restructuring New York
City’s Water Supply.”; Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers; 22 (3): 338–
358.
30. Gilbert, Alan; (2007); “Water for All: How to Combine Public Management with
Commercial Practice for the Benefit of the Poor?” Urban Studies; 44 (8): 1559–1579.
31. Gleick, Peter H., Gary Wolff, Elizabeth L. Chalecki, and Rachel Reyes; (2002); “The
New Economy of Water: Risks and Benefits of Globalization and Privatization of Fresh
Water” ; Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute
32. Gringlas, S. (2013, December 3). In Flint, lead contamination spurs fight for clean water.
Retrieved February 07, 2016, from https://www.michigandaily.com/section/news/water-
and-all-flints-ghosts
33. Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state–theoretical
perspective. Antipode, 34(3), 452-472.

Page | 16
34. Klayman, B., (2016, January 07). Orlofsky, S (Ed.). Cost to fix Flint water infrastructure
could reach $1.5 billion: Reports. Retrieved February 07, 2016, from
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-water-idUSKBN0UL2HW20160107
35. Lawler, E. (2016, January 7). Flint infrastructure fix could cost up to $1.5B, mayor Karen
Weaver says. Retrieved February 07, 2016, from http://www.mlive.com/lansing-
news/index.ssf/2016/01/flint_infrastructure_fix_could.html
36. Monbiot, George; “Put a price on nature? We must stop this neoliberal road to ruin The
failure of the markets hasn't stopped the rise of the gobbledygook-filled Nature Capital
Agenda (2014); The Guardian; Accessed at:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/jul/24/price-nature-
neoliberal-capital-road-ruin.
37. Neoliberalism Definition. Investopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
38. Oliver Marc Hartwich, Neoliberalism: The Genesis of a Political Swearword, Centre for
Independent Studies, 2009, ISBN 1-86432-185-7, p. 22
39. Pradella, Lucia; Marois, Thomas (2015). Polarising Development: Alternatives to
Neoliberalism and the Crisis. United Kingdom: Pluto Press. pp. 1–11. ISBN 978 0 7453
3469 1.
40. Price Ceilings and Price Floors. (n.d.). Retrieved February 07, 2016, from
https://courses.candelalearning.com/microecon/chapter/price-ceilings-and-price-floors/
41. Ptak, Ralf (2009). "Neoliberalism in Germany: Revisiting the Ordoliberal Foundations of
the Social Market Economy". In Mirowski, Philip; Plehwe, Dieter. The Road From Mont
Pèlerin: The Making of The Neoliberal Thought Collective. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard
University Press. pp. 124–125. ISBN 978-0-674-03318-4.
42. Real economics: Neoliberalism finally catches up to the German economy. (2014,
October 7). Retrieved February 07, 2016, from http://real-
economics.blogspot.com/2014/10/neoliberalism-finally-catches-up-to.html
43. Silva, E. (1993). Capitalist coalitions, the state, and neoliberal economic restructuring:
Chile, 1973–88. World Politics, 45(04), 526-559.
44. Soule, M. (2014). The “new conservation”. In Keeping the Wild (pp. 66-80). Island
Press/Center for Resource Economics.

Page | 17
45. Taylor C. Boas, Jordan Gans-Morse (June 2009). "Neoliberalism: From New Liberal
Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan". Studies in Comparative International
Development 44 (2): 137–161. doi:10.1007/s12116-009-9040-5.
46. The New Economic Foundation (April 2013). Markets, market failure, and
regulation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.neweconomics.org/page/-
/Economics_Briefing_8.pdf. Retrieved on April 04, 2016.
47. Abstract: Agriculture Impacts and Impacts on International ...(n.d.). Retrieved from
https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2014/webprogram/Paper11442.html. Retrieved on April 04,
2016.

Page | 18