14
Regarding water radically as a common good makes it diffi cult to assign monetary
value to it: following Islam, water should neither be bought nor sold (Al-Awar et al.
2010 , p. 33). But how could then a water supply infrastructure be implemented at all?
The solution to this problem is that “in spite of its original nature as common good,
individuals have the right to use, sell, and recover value-added costs of infrastructure
for water supply services” (Al-Awar et al. 2010 , p. 33). This means that water belongs
to the community and no one is allowed to own it unless labour was provided or an
effort was taken to make it usable, or to distribute it. This does not create a right of
ownership over water, but rather creates a property on the value added to water by
labour, thus enabling pricing and trade (Gilli 2004 ).
2.2.2 Western Modernity
The capitalist economic system, which has developed over the past two centuries,
has resulted in a materialistic culture. Value has been understood as monetary value
to an increasing extent. Determining the monetary value of products and services is
usually left to the rules of the marketplace: in the interplay between offer and
demand, the adequate price will emerge. The “invisible hand” (Adam Smith) in the
back of the participants at the marketplace will then take care that, if all participants
will go for maximum profi t for themselves, the collective will arrive at the optimal
outcome. The reference of value determination is no longer an external authority
such as nature, God or a holy book but economy. In the assignment of value to water
this means: “Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be
recognised as an economic good” (Young et al. 1994 , p. 4).
Key to the economic view of water is demarcating it as a “resource”. Classical
economy understands nature as an ensemble of resources for human use: land, raw
materials, minerals, biodiversity – and water. It was the U.S. American geographer
and secretary of the U.S. Inland Waterways Commission, William McGee, who
made this point in a famous paper ( 1909 ) expressing very clearly (and early) Western
thinking about water as an economic resource which could and should be managed.
In modern word this reads: “Managing water as an economic good is an important
way of achieving effi cient and equitable use, and of encouraging conservation and
protection of water resources” (Young et al. 1994 , p. 4).
But this is not the whole story. Already McGee and the community he worked
with were also open to communitarian ideas and participation in the fi eld of water
(Schmidt and Shrubsole 2013 ), based on the conviction “that all the water belongs
to the people” (McGee 1911 , p. 822). Thus it becomes clear that Western Modernity
is two-fold with an inherent tension: on the one hand, it reduces the value of water
to that of an economic resource, but on the other it also acknowledged that water has
a political and democratic side (which may be taken as a predecessor of the “human
right on water” declared by the United Nations (UN) in 2010, see below).
This leads to the discussion on the common good-property of water in the Western
World (Ostrom et al. 2003 ; Trawick 2010 ). For a long time, the supply of water was
A. Grunwald
Regarding water radically as a common good makes it diffi cult to assign monetary
value to it: following Islam, water should neither be bought nor sold (Al-Awar et al.
2010 , p. 33). But how could then a water supply infrastructure be implemented at all?
The solution to this problem is that “in spite of its original nature as common good,
individuals have the right to use, sell, and recover value-added costs of infrastructure
for water supply services” (Al-Awar et al. 2010 , p. 33). This means that water belongs
to the community and no one is allowed to own it unless labour was provided or an
effort was taken to make it usable, or to distribute it. This does not create a right of
ownership over water, but rather creates a property on the value added to water by
labour, thus enabling pricing and trade (Gilli 2004 ).
2.2.2 Western Modernity
The capitalist economic system, which has developed over the past two centuries,
has resulted in a materialistic culture. Value has been understood as monetary value
to an increasing extent. Determining the monetary value of products and services is
usually left to the rules of the marketplace: in the interplay between offer and
demand, the adequate price will emerge. The “invisible hand” (Adam Smith) in the
back of the participants at the marketplace will then take care that, if all participants
will go for maximum profi t for themselves, the collective will arrive at the optimal
outcome. The reference of value determination is no longer an external authority
such as nature, God or a holy book but economy. In the assignment of value to water
this means: “Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be
recognised as an economic good” (Young et al. 1994 , p. 4).
Key to the economic view of water is demarcating it as a “resource”. Classical
economy understands nature as an ensemble of resources for human use: land, raw
materials, minerals, biodiversity – and water. It was the U.S. American geographer
and secretary of the U.S. Inland Waterways Commission, William McGee, who
made this point in a famous paper ( 1909 ) expressing very clearly (and early) Western
thinking about water as an economic resource which could and should be managed.
In modern word this reads: “Managing water as an economic good is an important
way of achieving effi cient and equitable use, and of encouraging conservation and
protection of water resources” (Young et al. 1994 , p. 4).
But this is not the whole story. Already McGee and the community he worked
with were also open to communitarian ideas and participation in the fi eld of water
(Schmidt and Shrubsole 2013 ), based on the conviction “that all the water belongs
to the people” (McGee 1911 , p. 822). Thus it becomes clear that Western Modernity
is two-fold with an inherent tension: on the one hand, it reduces the value of water
to that of an economic resource, but on the other it also acknowledged that water has
a political and democratic side (which may be taken as a predecessor of the “human
right on water” declared by the United Nations (UN) in 2010, see below).
This leads to the discussion on the common good-property of water in the Western
World (Ostrom et al. 2003 ; Trawick 2010 ). For a long time, the supply of water was
A. Grunwald