This article illustrate how a social movement against water privatisation is turning into a movement for community control of water. http://www.alternet.org/water/140393/cochabamba:_from_war_to_water_management/
Advertisements
This article illustrate how a social movement against water privatisation is turning into a movement for community control of water. http://www.alternet.org/water/140393/cochabamba:_from_war_to_water_management/
November 24, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
Why can’t we refer to this movement a form of social capital for the community in Bolivia. Members of this movement co-operate in order to achieve a goal. This co-operation is based on non-economic reasons, but yet with economic consequences. Now can we find any likkage between social capital and the practice of commoning? Please let’s brainstorm on this issue.
Cooment by Kawsu Ceesay
November 29, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
I just feel the need to point out that the success of this project hinged on market-based reources – funding from the World Bank. Without this, they would have pipes and ditches, but no water supply. Please don’t mistake me as advocating a market-based system. what I am advocating is a middle ground between “pure” commons and “pure” market. We know that “pure” market doesn’t work. I can’t see how “pure” commons can work either – not without giving up a substantial amount of the things we value in today’s society. Besides, I would argue that if “pure” commons worked so well, why did society move away from this approach in the first place? Both systems have their merits and their flaws. What we need to do is develop a symbiotic relationship between the two which maximises the merits and minimises the flaws, to facilitate exchange within society. Don’t ask me how to do that, I haven’t figured it out yet. All I’m proposing is a perspective of considering the role of the commons in future society.