4.6 Article

Equity vs. Efficiency and the Human Right to Water

Journal

WATER
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13030278

Keywords

water policy; equity; economic efficiency; human right to water

Funding

  1. Chilean National Agency for Research and Development (Agencia Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo de Chile, ANID)
  2. FONDECYT [1201527]
  3. FON-DAP [15110006]
  4. Universidad de Tarapaca [5784-20]
  5. PIA [SOC180023]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper discusses the tension between economic efficiency and social equity in water resource management, proposing a political ecology approach to better understand this tension. It traces the rise of economic efficiency as a key principle for water resource management and problematizes the equity approach and human-right-to-water frame.
One of the most crucial discussions within water resource management is the debate between those who defend the concept of economic efficiency and those who privilege notions of social equity. This tension is located at the core of binary categories that currently constitute the public debate within comparative water law and policy. These categories are commodity/human right, private property/common property, free-market/state regulation, and market value/community value. This paper explores this tension by studying how neoclassical economics understands efficiency and tracing its rise as a key hegemonic principle for water resource management. I also present equity as a conceptual opposition to efficiency and describe its institutionalization through the human-right-to-water frame. A problematization of both the equity approach and the human-right-to-water frame follows. Finally, I propose a political ecology approach to better understand the tension between efficiency and equity and offer recommendations for informing the water research agenda on efficiency/equity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available