Full‐cost recovery = debt recovery: How infrastructure financing models lead to overcapacity, debt, and disconnection

Kathryn M. Furlong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1503
2020-12-15
WIREs Water
Abstract:<p>Since the 1970s, the international community has pushed a commercial model for water supply based on utility autonomy and full‐cost recovery. This was supposed to deftly solve the persistent problems of poor service coverage and quality, insufficient revenue, and indebtedness. These problems were attributed to poor governance, considered inherent to government management and almost universal to utilities in low‐income cities, especially in the global South. A good dose of business‐like discipline would get these utilities on track. Things are never so simple. Instead, the international debt‐financing system was at the root of many problems that commercialization was supposed to solve, driving both the acquisition of new debt and a focus on large infrastructure projects that further increased debt burdens while failing to meet the needs of the urban poor. The real goal of commercialization was debt collection: to ensure that international lenders and international investors under financialization–are paid. This has led to unaffordable tariffs and consumer debt for utility services. Escaping this "debt trap" requires a new philosophy of infrastructure financing, one that democratizes decision‐making, focuses on smaller projects of social and environmental value, and considers "use value" rather than simple exchange‐value in assessments of what it means for an investment to be productive.</p><p>This article is categorized under: </p><ul class="plain-list"><li>Human Water &gt; Human Water</li></ul>
What problem does this paper attempt to address?