Value of H2O: Results of The Economist's Online Debate

Here are the results of The Economist's debate on pricing water value according to its market value.

Even though the voting is over, you can post comments until 17 October.

Dear Reader,

After a torrent of incisive statements and comments over the past two weeks, our debate has now reached a close—and we have a winner. You have voted against the proposition by 59% to 41%. Vandana Shiva prevails.

This house does not believe that "water, as a scarce resource, should be priced according to its market value".

The no vote had been ascendant from the beginning, although the final margin was narrower than in some previous debates. Judging by the number of comments along the lines of "What next, pricing the air we breathe?", the weight of participants who were simply appalled by the notion of free-market water was just too great for Steve Hoffmann, of the proposition, to overturn.

We owe a great debt of thanks both to him and to Ms Shiva for the vigorous but courteous cut-and-thrust of the past ten days. I am also very grateful to all our guest participants and commentators.

The Economist is sympathetic to water pricing, although it also believes that governments round the world need to do much more to advance rural development and to help people out of poverty. If nothing else, the outcome of the debate illustrates how important it is to make the case that these two goals are not incompatible.

The outpouring of views during the debate suggests that there is plenty of appetite for further analysis of the subject, and we will aim to provide it in our coverage. In the meantime, you can continue to post comments both about the debate and about its outcome until Friday, October 17th. I look forward to seeing what else you have to say on the subject.

Let the wasting continue!

"Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage." -- Robert A. Heinlein