On the Natural and Economic Difficulties to Fulfilling the Human Right to Water Within a Neoclassical Economics Framework

Abstract

We present a neoclassical economic model of the human right to water using a nonrenewable resource model inclusive of a backstop technology. The right is interpreted as a minimum consumption requirement the government is obligated to fulfill in the event that any one household cannot do so independently. Differing by income levels, households maximize utility by purchasing a composite consumption good and water from two distinct, government-owned sources. Facing physical and financial constraints, the government uses fiscal policy to address potential human rights violations. Reducing the analysis to two periods, we develop a novel approach to compare total welfare levels from a joint human rights and neoclassical economics perspective. We define a human rights welfare standard and discuss cases in which traditional social welfare measures would exceed, violate, or meet this standard. We thus offer a unique way to merge economic analysis with human rights research.

The Right(s) to Water

“…Can a human right to water and the market principles conceptually go together? 64 and Jeffords and Shah (2012) come to similar caveats, albeit in a more quantitative manner. At the market equilibrium, not all potential water consumers have access to water: only those who are willing or able to pay the market price are consumers in the market.…”

“…67 In turn, poor or vulnerable households that are not able to pay the market price of water are left out. 68 Branco and Henriques (2010), p. 150;Jeffords and Shah (2012), p. 26. 68 Thus, if a service fulfils a vital need, as water supply does, the aim in a given market is regularly not to reach the market equilibrium.…”

“…First of all, the general idea in traditional economic analysis-that the market equilibrium is the desirable outcome in a given market-does not hold for the case of rights to ensure the fulfilment of basic needs (of which the right to water is certainly one). For an economic in-depth analysis of how to merge economic analysis with the framework of the human right to water, see Jeffords and Shah (2012). 67 In turn, poor or vulnerable households that are not able to pay the market price of water are left out.…”

“…Such a result is incompatible with the ideal of universal coverage, which is the only logical aim of a human rights approach. 69 Jeffords and Shah (2012), p. 27. economy: human rights must either be guaranteed for all rights-holders (at least for as many as currently possible, and that number must be steadily increased) or the guarantee goes against the very idea of a human right. The aim must rather be to serve the highest quantity of consumers possible (as long as the used water amount replenishes itself and is not damaged in the long run).…”

Marketising the commons in Africa: the case of Ghana

“…The existing studies are not formulated to address these key questions or when they do, they are mostly theoretical in nature. For instance, Jeffords and Shah's (2013) important work in Review of Social Economy uses a rights-based approach to analyse the commodification of water, but the interest is mainly theoretical and the emphasis is on expanding the neoclassical models on water; not on addressing the historical questions between non-neoclassical new institutional economics and institutional economics research. empirically, far more effort has gone into research on 'land grabs' (see, e.g.…”