Neoliberalizing Nature? Market Environmentalism in Water Supply in England and Wales

Abstract

The 1989 privatization of the water supply sector in England and Wales is a much-cited model of market environmentalism-the introduction of market institutions to natural resource management as a means of reconciling goals of efficiency and environmental conservation. Yet, more than a decade after privatization, the application of market mechanisms to water supply management is much more limited than had been expected. Drawing on recent geographical research on commodities, this article analyzes the reasons for this retrenchment of the market environmentalist project. I make three related claims: resource commodification is a contested, partial, and transient process; commodification is distinct from privatization; and fresh water is a particularly uncooperative commodity. To illustrate these claims, I explore how water's geography underpinned the failure of commodification initiatives in England and Wales. I focus specifically on contradictions faced by industry regulators, water companies, and the government when attempting to implement direct competition, universal metering, and full-cost pricing of water supply. The failure to resolve these contradictions was a critical driver in the reregulation of the water supply industry and in the overall trend toward improvement in environmental and drinking water quality, a finding that underpins my closing argument-that neoliberalization is implicated in processes of reregulation that rescript the entitlements of both humans and nonhumans, with outcomes that are not necessarily negative for what we conventionally delimit as the environment.

Pimping Climate Change: Richard Branson, Global Warming, and the Performance of Green Capitalism

“…collaborative models of environmental governance'' (Watts, 2002(Watts, , page 1315. Markets, privatization, commercialization, and outright commodification have become central elements (as opposed to the objects) of environmental regulation, evident not only in the prescriptions of neoliberal think tanks but also in those of a whole generation of environmental NGOs and government policy makers (Bakker, 2005;Heynen et al, 2007;McCarthy and Prudham, 2004;Mansfield, 2007).…”

Theorizing command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in the United States

“…Critical approaches in environmental sociology and political ecology suggest an alternative account, arguing that market-oriented institutions like species conservation banking are part of a neoliberal project to reregulate human relationships with nature in ways that enrich capitalists and that serve as "environmental fixes" to crises of accumulation in other economic sectors (Bakker 2005;Swyngedouw 2005;Smith 2007;Castree 2008;Brockington and Duffy 2010). Indeed, a focus on capital accumulation in many ways defines critical accounts.…”

“…These Marxian-inspired approaches provide an important counterweight to the reformist optimism of ecological modernization theories, and are no doubt partly correct: new markets in "neoliberal nature" (Bakker 2005) do create new opportunities for accumulating wealth. The global trade in habitat offsets, mostly in the United States, is valued at roughly $3 billion dollars (Ecosystem Marketplace 2011), while the global carbon market topped $30 billion in 2014 (World Bank 2014).…”

Wild property and its boundaries – on wildlife policy and rural consequences in South Africa

“…Over the last decade a surge of literature has investigated the advancement of 'market environmentalism' (Bakker 2005, Castree 2010, Heynen et al 2007, Peluso and Lund 2011. This body of literature explores how human-nature relationships, facilitated by new property frameworks, are transformed to meet the dynamics of capitalism.…”