1

Acknowledgements
We thank all of the researchers who collected and analysed (re)municipalisation
cases. We also thank Asima Shaikh, Philip Glanville, Rebecca Rennison, Ellen Lees,
Thomas Hanna, the Community Broadband Networks Initiative and the Institutefor Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), Jan Winde and Fred Peeters (FNV), Rick van derZwet (Wireless Leiden), the Platform for the Remunicipalisation of Public Services
in Madrid, Alicia Sanchez, Olga Zhankevich and Vera Weghmann. They kindly
provided information of (re)municipalisation cases and/or agreed to integrate
their set of data with the global list of (re)municipalisation.
Karin Jordan provided her editorial support to the earlier stage, while Madeleine
Bélanger Dumontier, our editor for the book, has woven these diverse contributions into a coherent and easily readable shape. Thank you.
Finally, our thanks go out to all authors who contributed chapters, all actively
engaged with research, advocacy and activism to build a democratic public future,
and who provided their expertise and insight. Their contributions are essential
to understand the ongoing and dynamic process and the challenges around (re)municipalisation around the world.

2

The Future is Public: Towards
Democratic Ownership of PublicServices
tni.org/futureispublic
Edited by Satoko Kishimoto, Lavinia Steinfort and Olivier Petitjean
Copy editor Madeleine Bélanger Dumontier
Infographics and book design Karen Paalman
Cover image design Evan Clayburg
MAY 2020
Published by Transnational Institute (TNI), Multinationals Observatory, AustrianFederal Chamber of Labour (AK), Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE),
Danish Union of Public Employees (FOA), De 99 Van Amsterdam, The Democracy Collaborative (US), European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU),
Ingeniería Sin Fronteras Cataluña (ISF), MODATIMA (Movement of defence ofwater, land and the environment, Chile), Municipal Services Project (MSP), theNetherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV), Norwegian Union for Municipal
and General Employees (Fagforbundet), Public Services International (PSI), PublicServices International Research Unit (PSIRU), University of Glasgow (Scotland)
and We Own It (UK).
Researchers for the global list of (re)municipalisations Alexander Panez Pinto (Latin
America); Bjørn Pettersen, Kristen Dalby (Norway); Blanca Bayas, Míriam
Planas, Arnau Piqué, Manuel Fontaíña (Spain); Dania Putri (health care); Eirin
Sundby(overall); Marie Therese Kane, Meryl Goeke (US, telecom) and Mary Grant(US, water); Mary Ann Manahan (Southeast Asia); Olivier Petitjean (France); Per
Brøgger, Maibrit Georg (Denmark); Renata C. Boulos (Brazil); Robert Ramsay,
Karin Jordan, Kimalee Philip (Canada).
Research coordination Satoko Kishimoto(satoko@tni.org), Lavinia Steinfort(l.steinfort@tni.org) and Laura Stegemann
Amsterdam and Paris
ISBN 9789071007002
Copyright: This publication and its separate chapters are licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license. You may copy anddistribute the document, in its entirety or separate full chapters, as long as they are
attributed to the authors and the publishing organisations, cite the original source
for the publication on your website, and use the contents for non-commercial,educational, or public policy purposes.

3

Table of contents
Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

6

Introduction by the Editorial Team

17

Part 1. Reclaiming public services around the world32

Chapter 1 Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of33

remunicipalisation- By Nina Monsen and Bjørn Pettersen
Chapter 2 Paris celebrates a decade of public water success - By

47

Célia Blauel
Chapter 3 Canada: Local insourcing in face of national

55

privatisation push - By Robert Ramsay
Chapter 4 Problems without benefits? The Danish experience

67

with outsourcing and remunicipalisation - By Thomas Enghausen
Chapter 5 Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative

79

vision - By Vera Weghmann
Chapter 6 National, regional and local moves towards public

94

ownership in the UK - By David Hall
Chapter 7 Putting the ‘public’ in public services:112(Re)municipalisation cases in Malaysia and the Philippines By Mary Ann Manahan and Laura Stegemann
Chapter 8 Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices

127of the Recoleta commune and challenges to overcoming
neoliberalism - By Alexander Panez Pinto
Chapter 9 United States: Communities providing affordable, fast
broadband Internet - By Thomas M. Hanna and Christopher Mitchell

4138

Part 2. From (re)municipalisation to democratic public ownership

152

Chapter 10 A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-

153

governance model in the making - By Míriam Planas and Juan
Martínez
Chapter 11 The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to165

remunicipalisation - By Olivier Petitjean
Chapter 12 The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public

177

service workers and trade unions in transition - By Daria Cibrario
Chapter 13 Knowledge creation and sharing through public-

191

public partnership in the water sector - By Milo Fiasconaro
Chapter 14 Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven

201

public ownership - By Hilary Wainwright
Chapter 15 Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green215

New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe - By Lavinia Steinfort
Conclusion by the Editorial Team230

Appendix 1 Research methodology

249

The organisations

253

How to get involved

255

5

Infographics(Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

CANADA OF CASES 51
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 34
Municipalisation 17

Transport

Waste

Telecommunications

2

7

3

Health care &social services

Water

Education8

2

14
Local government

15

Housing 1
Food and catering 1
Parking 3
Sports and cultural activities 2
Financing and maintenance 6
Other 2Highlights• Since 2017, there have been more than 20 new cases of (re)municipalisationin water, waste, transport, telecommunications and health care sectors.
• The 15 remunicipalisations in local government include housing, parking,security, police station construction and recreation services.
• Interesting remunicipalisation cases include solid waste (Winnipeg,
Manitoba) and waste water (Taber, Alberta and Owen Sound, Ontario).
• Reclaiming public services leads to more economically efficient and better
quality services.

6

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

FRANCE OF CASES 156
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 155
Municipalisation 1

Transport

Waste

21

3

Energy

Water

2

109

Local government

21

Highlights

Food and catering 4
Sports 1
Parking 3• Around 70% of all cases took place in the water sector, which has seen awave of remunicipalisation since 2000, including large cities such as Paris,
Rennes, Grenoble, Nice and Montpellier.
• Paris is a significant model for remunicipalisation, with the introductionof groundbreaking democratic accountability mechanisms, an emphasison access to water for all, including homeless people and migrants, andadaptation to climate change - while keeping prices lower than they were
before remunicipalisation.
• Access to organic, local food in school restaurants and childcare is anothersector where progressive cities and local authorities are reinventing public
services, with the creation of municipal farms and innovative procurement
policies.
• Several cities like Paris and Rennes have introduced innovative partnerships
with the farming sector to protect water catchments, encourage a shift toorganic production and create new markets for them through procurement
and public labels.

7

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

GERMANY OF CASES 411
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 255
Municipalisation 156

Health care &social services

Waste

Telecommunications

12

35

EnergyWater

Education

305

18

5

2

Local government

34

Housing 4
Food and catering 2
Public (green) space maintenance 3
Security and emergency services 11

Building cleaning and maintenance 6
Sports 5
Cultural activities 3

Highlights• With financial support from the federal government, new municipal andintermunicipal partnerships have provided broadband services in more than
200 municipalities over the last ten years.
• As part of the German Energiewende (energy transition), municipalities
reclaimed more than 300 energy services and networks.
• In Berlin, the district government of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg brought backapartment blocks in an attempt to prevent rising rents in 2018. In Spandau
and Reinickendorf, the local government brought back 6,000 formerly
privatised apartments in 2019.

8

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

NORWAY OF CASES 42
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 39
Municipalisation 3

Health care &social services

Waste

19

18
Local government

5

Building cleaning and maintenance 4
Security and emergency services 1

Highlights• In 2017, more than 100 municipalities took public control over their waste
collection after RenoNorden's bankruptcy.
• Merging small towns into one municipality provided an opportunity for intermunicipal remunicipalisation or creation of an integrated municipal company
with public sector solidarity and capacity building.
• Remunicipalisation of care services (nursing homes, elderly care) and local
government services (staffing agency) are significant.
• Strong and strategic role of workers' unions in the process of remunicipalisation.

9

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

SPAIN OF CASES 119
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 105
Municipalisation 14

Health care &social services

Waste

6

14
EnergyWater

Education

18

38

2

Local government

41

Housing 2
Food and catering 1

Public (green) space maintenance 12
Parking 6
Building cleaning and maintenance 10
Sports 2
Cultural activities 2
Construction 1
Funeral services 2

Highlights• The number of (re)municipalisations has more than doubled since 2017.
• A very strong social and municipalist movement has pushed for the 38
water remunicipalisations.
• Water remunicipalisation in Terrassa is leading to new forms of democratic
decision-making. With the support of civil society, the city created a Water
Observatory so users can participate in public management.
• Valladolid has saved €13.3 million since water remunicipalisation in 2017,
almost 4% of the municipal budget for 2018.
• In total, 41 local government services were remunicipalised, such as school
canteens, green spaces, parking, cleaning and funeral services.

Other 310

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

UK OF CASES 110
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 96
Municipalisation 14

Health care &social services

Waste

Transport

15

12EnergyWater

Education

13

2

4

9

Local government

55

Housing 18
Food and catering 3
Public (green) space maintenance 4
Security and emergency services 1
Parking 1

Building cleaning and maintenance 9
Sports 2
Cultural activities 1

Highlights• Two major PFI companies went bankrupt in 2018 and 2019.
(Re)municipalisation cases increased from 64 in 2017 to 108 in 2019.
• Strong trend to reverse outsourcing to insourcing since 2008 acrossall sectors and foremost in local government (IT, housing, cleaning andmaintenance), as well as waste and transport.
• Public ownership of water, energy, rail, mail and NHS enjoys public support.
For example, 83% support public water.
• Remunicipalisation, insourcing and new public service experiences fuel thegrowing national demand for democratic public ownership.

IT 7
Construction 3
Prison 1
Human resources 2
Other 311

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

CHILE OF CASES 44
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 2
Municipalisation 42

Health care &social services

40
Education

1

Local government

3

Building cleaning and maintenance 2
Housing 1

Highlights• Between 2015 and 2018, 40 new public pharmacies have been created andthe “Chilean Association of Popular Pharmacies” brings thesemunicipalities (80 in total) together.
• They follow the public pharmacy model of the local government of Recoleta,
where some residents are now spending 70% less on medication permonth.
• In 2018, the local government created the Open University of Recoleta.
• Today it provides 150 courses in the areas of arts, science, humanities,
social science and technology. In total, 3,300 students have taken one ormore courses at the Open University.

12

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

DENMARK OF CASES 35
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 29
Municipalisation 6

Health care &social services

8

Waste

Energy132Highlights

Local government

12

Building cleaning and maintenance 7
Construction 1
Human resources 3
Other 1• Privatisation in the elderly care sector, imposed by flawed "free choice"policies, has proved uneconomical, with 54 cases of bankruptcy of private
providers since 2013.
• The municipality of Frederiksberg (part of Copenhagen) saved even moremoney than it expected when it decided to collect and manage its waste
through its own, employee-led company in 2011.
• Several examples of remunicipalisation and insourcing of cleaning services
by local goverments and hospitals because of quality problems and labour
standards.

13

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

MALAYSIA OF CASES 16
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 1
Municipalisation 15

Health care &social services

Telecommunications

4

1

Transport

Water

Highlights

1

2• The state of Selangor successfully remunicipalised water services in 2018
after a 20-year-long costly conflict.
• The state of Selangor’s People’s Care Initiative (IPR) started in 2008, as anintegrated social protection program which covers education, health care,housing and food. They focus on low income families being able to access
all these services.
• Free water (20 cubic meters/a month/a family), free bus transportation and
300 free internet Wifi spots are also part of the program.

Local government2

Education

6

Housing 1
Food and catering 1

14

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

PHILIPPINES OF CASES 21
TOTAL NUMBER

Municipalisation 21

Health care &social services

4
Education

3

Energy1
Local government

6

Public (green) space maintenance 1
Food and catering 4
Security and emergency services 1

Water

7

Highlights• Philippine municipalities are creating new public services to increase welfare-based social protection.
• Binalonan started delivering effective health care services to residents, including care centres andfinancial support for health services. The municipality reduced chronic child malnutrition by 17% andincreased use of contraceptives by 51%.
• The municipality of Cainta Rizal launched its “One Cainta” program in 2016, providing free education
through the establishment of a college, enrolling 800 students per year, and additional health carefacilities, improving access to medical services for economically disadvantaged groups.
• Philippine municipalities are taking on an important role in increasing the country’s climate resilience,by establishing integrative approaches to farming and fishing, ecosystem protection, and energy
generation (Del Carmen and Lanuza).

15

Infographics - (Re)municipalisation 11 country profiles

USA OF CASES 230
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 81
Municipalisation 149

Energy11
Health care &social services

2
Local government

1

Telecommunications

145
Water

Highlights

71• A total of 11 energy (re)municipalisations occurred, aimed at tackling theclimate crisis, building community wealth and increasing democratic (user)
control.
• Since 2002, there have been 71 water remunicipalisations. The busiest year
was 2010, with 10 reclaimed water services, leading to reduced user fees.
• Flagship water remunicipalisations took place in Atlanta, Missoula, Montara
and Pittsburgh.
• At least 141 new public telecommunication services were created to
improve access and democratic control, to deliver jobs and stimulate
economic activity (Tullahoma and Chattanooga), improve quality of life andto advance health and education (EC Fiber in Vermont).
• Interesting public-public partnership models involving local authorities
in Washington State (Northwest Open Access Network), Skagit County andThomasville.

Prison 1

16

Introduction

All over the world, cities and local communities have been claiming backpublic services or reinventing them to serve the needs and realise therights of people, and to tackle social and environmental issues collectively.
This wave of (re)municipalisation is taking place at a critical moment. In
spite of mounting challenges and social revolts, neoliberal ideas still holdsway over many national governments and international organisations,pushing an agenda of privatisation and austerity and a trade regime
favourable to transnational corporations. Far-right political movements
seek to capitalise on people’s insecurity and anger, and are using racism
and xenophobia to divide us. Progressive forces can counteract by offering
a vision for alternatives rooted in solidarity and cooperation, but also by
delivering concrete solutions such as decent jobs, access to public services
for all and resilient local economies.
The Covid-19 crisis clearly demonstrates the disastrous effects of years ofausterity, social security cuts and public service privatisation. The mostglaring effect is on health systems. In developed countries, these haveundergone ‘optimisation’ and new public management reforms, as wellas public staff hiring and investment freezes often pushed through post2008 crisis fiscal consolidation measures. As consequences, both public
and privatised healthcare services are now primarily run to minimise costand generate profits. In developing countries, donor conditionalities have
imposed sharp reductions in public spending, going as far as targeting
public health workers’ wages. The net result unveiled by the Covid-19
pandemic is the inability of healthcare systems run this way to deal witha health crisis, where the severe shortages of medical equipment andstaff have visibly translated into many more dead, especially among themost vulnerable and among health personnel.

17Introduction

The same holds for the rest of public services, which have been weakened
by decades of cuts, chronic underinvestment and privatisation. The
global pandemic exposes that market dynamics should not apply to social
priorities and public services. Water and sanitation workers are essential
to sanitise, providing the first line of defence to break the contamination
chain. Energy staff ensures that hospitals can operate life-saving devices,while people can cook, heat homes, work remotely and keep in touchwith their loved ones during lockdown. Waste services safely collect anddispose of contaminated medical and household refuse, while disinfecting
public space even as employees risk their own health and safety. And thelist goes on. These vital public services should be run with the primaryobjective of delivering universal access and keeping everyone alive andsafe.
As the world prepares for a post-Covid-19 order, there is more than everan opportunity to reclaim a central role for substantial investment andrebuilding in quality public services for all worldwide, and remunicipalisation is a fully legitimate, key option governments have in their policy
toolkit to make that happen. Progressive forces and civil society actors
must confidently promote this approach as market actors and neoliberalforces will oppose significant resistance as they seek to return to businessas usual.
Privatisation of public services now stands more discredited than everbefore. Nevertheless, it remains high on the agenda of private corporations and financial markets, as well as that of many national governments and international institutions. Privatisation takes many forms
and disguise names, including public-private partnerships (PPPs),
private finance initiatives, outsourcing, corporatisation, ‘right to choice’,forced competition and market liberalisation. While privatisation has
been pushed on the basis of its alleged ‘efficiency’ for more than three
decades, study after study researchers have revealed how little evidence
there is to support this policy option over public ownership. What they18

Introduction

Fighting privatisation of public services
The neoliberal current is powerful ...
Private Finance Initiatives (PFI)

Public asset sale

Public-private-parnerships (PPP)

Corporatisation

Competitive tenders

Outsourcing

Liberalised market competition

De-privatisation/Reclaiming public services
924
Remunicipalisations• Termination/non-renewal of private contracts• Public acquisition• Insourcing/bringing services back in house

484
Municipalisations/
Creation of public services

PUBLIC-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS• new municipal companies• new public service programmesIntermunicipal, peer to peer

PUBLIC-COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
local, not-for-profit organisations

PUBLIC-COMMONS PARTNERSHIPSUK
Norway18

USco-ownership, diversified public
ownership, co-productionof services

94

Chile

France
19

141

40

109

Philippines

21

Critical mass of local changes inspires country-wide democratic public ownershiphave found, instead, are increasing costs and declining quality for service
users, worsening conditions for workers and virtually non-existentaccountability, transparency and democratic control. The chapters inthis book bring more evidence of all these failings while also offering
insight into public alternatives under development on the ground. Given
the powerful forces lined up against public management of services, it
is all the more remarkable that so many services and facilities are being
de-privatised, that is, returned to public ownership and control. This
global trend shows that people embrace the value of public services,and highlights the determination of communities, workers and elected
officials to defend the commons.
(Re)municipalisation understood as the creation of a new public service– municipalisation – or reversals from a period of private management– remunicipalisation – is a sound response to the experience of failed

19

Introduction

privatisations from a political and financial standpoint, but also from anenvironmental and human rights perspective. Worse than not delivering
on promises of economic efficiency for local authorities and citizens, thisneoliberal policy has utterly failed to deliver on its promises of universal
access to basic services and of environmental sustainability.
These failures of privatisation contrast with the achievements of (re)municipalisation – or de-privatisation. Around the world, citizens andtheir elected representatives are building better performing, more democratic and inclusive public services at the local level. The stories behind these efforts and the results are diverse, but they illustrate a common purpose. In a context of climate emergency, mounting inequalities
and growing democratic unrest, (re)municipalised services are showing
how they can help preserve the social fabric of democracy. The Covid-19
pandemic provides yet one more example of how public services and thepeople who operate them are truly at the heart of a healthy and resilient
society and that these services need public control and sufficient funding to be most effective. Universal public services have proven to be oneof the foundations of democratic societies, past and present. They remain one of our few alternatives to a dystopian future (already a reality
in many countries) in which good quality services, heavy on technology,
would be reserved for the wealthy few, and in which access would not be
considered a universal human right anymore. Fortunately, as this bookshows, another world is possible; what is more, it is actually taking shapein front of our eyes.

Collaboration on a colossal undertaking
This book is the result of the collaboration of civil society organisations,trade unions, academics, local authorities and public enterprise officials
from across the globe. It is the latest stage in a common journey. In
2014, under the title Here to Stay: Water remunicipalisation as a global
trend, we published a first landmark survey of more than 180 cases of20

Introduction

remunicipalisation in the water sector worldwide. A few months later,
with the publication Our Public Water Future: The global experience withremunicipalisation, this updated list totalled 235 cases and delved into
the concrete challenges of making water remunicipalisation work. At thesame time, more and more reports kept coming in of remunicipalisationand similar developments happening in other sectors, starting with theimpressive creation of local, renewables-based public energy operatorsin Germany. Undeterred by the immensity of the task, we decided toextend our scope to (re)municipalisation in multiple sectors with our 2017
publication Reclaiming Public Services: How cities and citizens are turning backprivatisation. We were rewarded with 835 cases from virtually all sectorsof public service and from every continent. Still it was obviously only the
tip of the iceberg.

1408 (Re)municipalisationsof public services
Sweden Finland

110 UK

51
Canada230 USA

156

Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
FrancePortugal

119

Norway 42

Spain

4

8

4

Denmark Germany
25
4 1

1

35

2

Russia411

Lithuania
Czech Republic

2
3 Ukraine
10 4
Hungary

Austria
Italy 51112Montenegro Greece
Albania

Bulgaria
4 Turkey

18

5

Japan

3 Nepal8

India

Honduras
1 Nicaragua
2

Venezuela

1

GuineaColombia 3

1

1 Uganda
1 Tanzania

BrazilPeru

Bolivia

96Australia

3

1

Uruguay

3

Indonesia

Mozambique

1 Paraguay

Argentina

16

2

4

2

44

Philippines

21

Malaysia

1

Central African Republic

Ecuador 1

Chile

South Korea

Uzbekistan

1 Lebanon

Egypt
1

1

4

Mexico33

Kazakhstan

South Africa

BETWEEN 2000 AND 2019, MORE THAN 2,400 CITIES IN 58 COUNTRIESBROUGHT PUBLIC SERVICES UNDER PUBLIC CONTROL21

New Zealand1Introduction

By the end of 2019, we identified a global list of 1,408 cases when
considering both remunicipalisation (924 cases of services returning
to public hands) and municipalisation (484 cases of newly public
services), involving more than 2,400 municipalities in 58 countries.
We are still very far from uncovering every single case of cities or local
authorities reclaiming public services, but this book continues to deepen
our understanding of (re)municipalisation efforts in all their diversity,
taking us to new countries and opening up new sectors. Research showsthat (re)municipalisation is still going strong in sectors such as energy(374 cases) and water (311 cases). Building on findings from previous
publications, we were able to gather more information about many cases,
especially in terms of concrete, favourable outcomes for communities
and the environment.
We also found vibrant (re)municipalisation trends in sectors that we
had not anticipated, such as health care and telecommunications. The
latter fell completely outside the scope of our previous publications, yet
we found regional and municipal governments stepping in to bridge
the digital divide by offering affordable high-speed Internet service,
ensuring accessibility and revitalising local economies in small towns
and rural areas where private telecom companies are reluctant to invest
because it is not profitable. This serves to show that even an economic
sector usually seen as the exclusive domain of corporate giants can bemunicipalised for the purpose of delivering a universal public service.

New evidence of the positive impacts of(re)municipalisation
The global survey of (re)municipalisation1 conducted for this bookcounted 1,408 cases by the end of October 2019. While capacity andlanguage limitations did not allow for analysing the impacts for 47 percent of these cases, researchers could identify 12 categories of positive
impacts for the other 53 per cent. This means that we can confidently

22

Introduction(Re)municipalisation sectors
311

Water

374

223

EnergyLocal government

CountryNºcasesGermany
Spain

305
18

UK
US

13
11

Japan
Netherlands
Australia

442Belgium
Denmark

2
2

FranceGreece
India

2
2
2

Argentinia
Bulgaria
Czech Republic

1
1
1

Honduras
Lithuania
Philippines

1
1
1

Ukraine1

CountryNºcasesFrance
US

109
71

Spain
Germany

38
17

CanadaArgentina
Philippines

8
8
7

Italy
Hungary

4
4South Africa
MéxicoKazakhstan

3
3
3

Indonesia
Colombia
Venezuela

3
3
2

UkraineUK
Turkey2
2
2

Mozambique
Malaysia

2
2

India
BrazilBolivia2
2
2

Uzbekistan
Uruguay

1
1

UgandaTanzania
Sweden1
11

RussiaPortugal1
1

Telecommunications

LebanonGuineaEcuador1
1
1CountryNºcases

Central African Republic 1
Belgium
1

US
Germany

145
35

Netherlands
Canada7
3

Malaysia

1

Albania1

Housing 31
Food and catering 28
Public (green) space maintenance 22
Security and emergency services 17
Parking 15
Building cleaning and maintenance 14
Sports 12
Cultural activities 9
IT 7
Construction 7
Prison 5
Funeral services 47563138 Health care + Social services

CountryNºcases

UK
Spain

55
40

Germany
France34
21

CanadaDenmark
Netherlands

15
12
8

Austria
Philippines
Norway765South Korea
Chile

5
3

Finland
Australia
Malaysia

3
2
2

India
Italy

1
1

New ZealandTurkeyUS111

Human resources 3

CountryNºcasesJapan
Malaysia

12
6

Germany
UK

5
4

Philippines
Canada
Spain

3
2
2

Brazil
Chile

1
1

India
Nicaragua

11Transport

192

Other 49

Education 38

Country
FranceUK

21
12Austria
Netherlands

33

CanadaPortugal
Czech Republic

2
2
1

India
Malaysia
Turkey11147Nºcases

CountryNºcases

Chile
Norway40
18

Canada
Spain

14
14

UK
Denmark
Sweden1087Philippines
Malaysia

4
4

Nepal
Australia
Germany

3
2
2

Japan
US
Belgium2
2
1

BrazilFinland
India

1
1
1

Luxembourg
Montenegro

1
1

Portugal
Russia

1
1

85

Waste
CountryNºcases

NorwayUK

19
15

Denmark
Germany

13
13

Canada
Spain
Egypt

7
6
4

FranceNetherlands
Paraguay

3
3
1

Peru

1

say that at least 744 (re)municipalisations are expected to or did result in
one or more positive impacts. Yet due to this research gap, the numbers
introduced below are rather conservative. Indicators on costs and working
conditions are mainly compared with performance under previous
private management, but not exclusively. More details on methodology
are presented in Appendix 1.
The most direct and obvious impacts of public service (re)municipalisation
are related to operating costs and infrastructure financing. In 245 cases
identified, local authorities intended or had already managed to save costsby bringing a service back in house. At times, the aim or result was lower
user fees (188 cases). In at least 264 cases, public investment by either
new public companies or local authorities was expected to increase or
had already risen after de-privatisation to improve services and protect
the environment. In other words, public management of services yields

23

Introduction

better value for money. Pioneering cities and public companies havedemonstrated the strength of the public sector in this area; they are able
to make long-term investments to protect the environment.

(Re)municipalisations strive for

297

INCREASED LOCAL CAPACITY FOR

188

9

209

27

THAT BENEFIT PEOPLE AND PLANETBANKRUPTCYA FEMINIST APPROACH
to public services

142 ENHANCED

PUBLIC HEALTH AND
HARM REDUCTIONRESPONDING TO PRIVATE SECTORPUBLIC INVESTMENTFOR QUALITY SERVICES

245

CONDITIONSLOWER FEES

ACHIEVING POLICY GOALSINCREASED

DEMOCRATIC CONTROLAND PUBLIC OWNERSHIP

WORKINGFOR RESIDENTS

COMMUNITY WEALTH BUILDING

264

158

149

IMPROVEDBETTERBETWEEN
USERS, WORKERS OR
76 PARTNERSHIPSCOMMUNITIES AND
PUBLIC AUTHORITIESBETTER VALUEFOR MONEY AND
PUBLIC SECTOR SAVINGS

138

UNIVERSAL ACCESSTO PROTECT HUMAN
AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

119
MEASURES TO TACKLE
THE CLIMATE CRISISWorkers providing public services are key as their conditions inevitablyreflect onto their ability to deliver quality services. Overall, employment
conditions were maintained after (re)municipalisation and even markedly
improved in 158 cases. Workers achieved more protection and better
conditions than in the private sector – especially the most vulnerable.
The involvement of trade unions was critical on that front. A significant
number of de-privatisations have had a positive impact on the local
economy, from creating decent employment to attracting new businessand research centres in local communities.

24

Introduction

Ecological sustainability and social empowerment were enhanced orwere expected to be enhanced in 297 cases, both of which play a keyrole in building community wealth. It is our duty to develop integrated
climate and energy policies focused on de-carbonisation – for the sakeof future generations – and municipal moves away from privatisationor new municipal services did or were foreseen to contribute to theecological transition in at least 119 cases. When it comes to protecting
the environment, integrated public policy coordination across different
departments within local government is key, and (re)municipalisation in
the areas of energy, waste, housing, water, food and transport have hador are very likely to have a clear positive impact (209 cases).
Public services should be accessible to everyone, regardless of households’
purchasing power. Because water, energy, education, medical and social
care are essential for all, universal access and affordability should be thestarting point of public services design. Public services have proven to befundamental social determinants of public health and well-being (142cases). They also advance equality, as illustrated by (re)municipalisations
that have (re-)established public commitments to protect social andhuman rights in many communities (138 cases).
To varying degrees, the global list of 1,408 cases collected for this bookdemonstrates how public actors can (re)establish public values and therole of governments to serve the interests of the people and the planet
by reclaiming or creating public services. All of the elements referred
to above are key ingredients for progressive public ownership in thetwenty-first century. The promise of (re)municipalisation lies beyond
the traditional concept of ‘public’ to embrace stronger, and in somecases novel, forms of democratic governance and control. We found clear
evidence of the introduction or improvement of democratic mechanisms
in at least 149 cases, ranging from increased accountability, transparency
and information disclosure to establishing participatory governance inpublic corporations.

25Introduction

What does (re)municipalisation mean?
From a research standpoint, one of the criticisms of remunicipalisationis that the term lacks conceptual clarity, confusing municipal with otheradministrative levels, new service delivery with reversals from private
management, and encompassing varied governance forms, from mixed
ownership systems to full public management. In this book, the authors
have deliberately and explicitly only included actions by subnational
levels of governments (municipal, inter-municipal, regional and state/province). This explains why ‘renationalisations’ are excluded, putting
local actions front stage.

Level of taking back control
Municipal
922

Intermunicipal
331

Regional
155‘Remunicipalisation’ refers to the process of bringing previously private
or privatised services under public ownership and control at the local
level. ‘Municipalisation’ refers to the creation of brand new public
services. (Re)municipalisation refers to both the creation of new public
services and reversals from private management.
While in principle the focus is on the cases of services returning tofull public ownership or those built as such, the list presented here
also includes a small number of cases of predominantly public-owned(typically more than 50 per cent) services when this mixed model is basedon clear public values, public interest objectives and when it includes aform of democratic accountability. Similarly, the development of new coownership models, in which local authorities collaborate with grassroots
not-for-profit organisations and share ownership, are also considered.

26

Introduction

Reclaiming and creating public services:(Re)municipalisation
Remunicipalisation

Municipalisation

924

484
CITIES OR REGIONSREVERSEeducation

218

energy55

health care and social services

telecommunicationstransportizen

a n d wo r ker

-le

3

waste

9

water

34 local government

d

cit

46

156 energy

PRIVATISATION

local government

4

NEW PUBLIC SERVICESS

81 health care & social services

82

CITIESOR REGIONS

waste

12 education

COOPERATIVESREVERSE

COOPERATIVES
TO CREATE NEW
PUBLIC SERVICES

187 telecommunications

PRIVATISATION

303 water

SUPPORT

26

190

CITIESIT OR REGIONSCREATE2transport

Although these cases are few, they bear a huge democratic potential
when it comes to co-managing local resources – and are thus directly
connected to the overall purpose of (re)municipalisation. More details on
the research methodology used for this book can be found in Appendix 1.

How de-privatisation happened
586

197

40

34

contracts
expiredcontracts
terminatedshares sold byprivate operators

decisions
to remunicipalise

33

19 ?
N/A

publicacquisition

private operators
withdrew

15

27

Introduction

While this book showcases numerous examples of (re)municipalisation of
public services, new cases of privatisation continue to emerge in parallel.
But this book is about more than just comparing numbers. It is abouta growing movement. In many ways, privatisation is the easy option
for government authorities: it is pushed by powerful players, comeswith plenty of international funding, and is enabled by favourable legal
conditions. This state of affairs enables politicians who are wary of theelectoral cycle to hide the real cost of privatisation by keeping it out of
the current public balance sheet and deferring expenditure to a future
government.

Overview of the bookRemunicipalisation is fuelled by the aspiration of communities and local
governments to reclaim democratic control over public services and local
resources, in order to pursue social and environmental goals and to foster
local democracy and participation. It is not solely a change of ownership ora technical matter. It is a political and collective endeavour, which comesto life in diverse socio-economic and political contexts, involving manydifferent actors. From water to health care, from energy to transport,each sector has its specificities. The 15 chapters assembled in this bookhelp understand these dynamics. They were written by researchers,
activists, trade union leaders and professionals who have long worked
on de-privatisation of public services in their respective countries andsectors.
Part 1 offers in-depth and contemporary stories from (re)municipalisation
hot spots around the planet, illustrating the breadth of the movement.
It tells of more than 20 new cases of remunicipalisation in the water,
waste, transport, telecommunication and health care sectors in Canada
since 2017; of how, in Denmark, 54 privately run elder care centres wentbankrupt since 2013 and many local governments reassessed the marketdriven, competitive tender policies on ‘free choice’; or of how, in 2017,28

Introduction

more than 100 municipalities took public control over refuse collection
after RenoNorden’s bankruptcy in Norway.2
This first section of the book also recounts the successes of the flagship
Paris water remunicipalisation, 10 years on. At the same time, it veers
into new territories, such as the waste sector in Africa, where private
management has a record of neglecting poor neighbourhoods and rural
areas and disregarding the basic rights of informal waste-pickers.
Experiences from Egypt to Zanzibar demonstrate the potential of public
service to address these issues while achieving ‘zero waste’ objectives.
Another chapter looks at (re)municipalisation in the UK, offering an
overview of recent de-privatisations in many sectors, from the local to thenational level, in a country that has long been a pioneer of privatisation and
PPPs. The author explains how this has fed into the policy commitment of
the UK Labour Party since 2016 to bring energy, water, mail and rail backinto public control. Despite the defeat of the Labour Party in the generalelection of December 2019, and in the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak, one
Conservative Party minister admitted that their government will end up
implementing most of their rival’s programme to prevent an economic
crash from happening.3
What remunicipalisation and municipalisation have in common istheir contribution to a renewal of public values and commitments, andtheir putting users, workers, communities and sustainability front andcentre. In that regard, some of the chapters offer precious insights into
the adventure of establishing new public services. For example, thecommune of Recoleta in Chile created a municipal university providing
free high education and the country’s first popular pharmacy to offer
affordable medicines, with a subsidised price representing savings of up
to 70 per cent. In a similar show of deeply held public ethos, regionaland municipal governments in Malaysia and the Philippines initiatedintegrated social protection programmes to ensure low-income families
have access to education (from day care to university) and basic health29

Introduction

care. In a high-income country context, there is the story of at least 141
new public telecommunication services that were created recently in the
US to improve access to and democratic control of broadband Internet,
delivering jobs, improving the quality of life and stimulating economic
activity.
Part 2 entitled ‘From (re)municipalisation to democratic public ownership’ looks at key remunicipalisation actors, cross-cutting issues andpartnership strategies, all with a focus on enhancing democratic control.
It tells of how corporations have responded to remunicipalisation in the
French water sector, by trying to dismiss it, undermine it, and finally
undercut it by offering steep price cuts that will impact the quality of
public services in many cities. This price dumping tactic is undermining
the public sector elsewhere and local authorities should avoid this trap;
instead, service quality for all and long-term sustainability should beprioritised. Another chapter examines the challenges of ownershiptransition for workers globally, shedding light on the growing union
experience in this field, drawing lessons learned and identifying criticalfactors for success. This section also emphasises the importance andpotential of collaboration between public enterprises for knowledge
creation and sharing as public-public partnerships. Finally, a few
chapters explore what democratic public ownership looks like. There areexperiences such as that of Terrassa, in Spain, where co-management
and co-ownership of water is being put in place; or initiatives at both thelocal and national level to achieve a transition to de-carbonised energy
systems; or efforts at integrating workers’ and citizens’ knowledge fordemocratic public management.
All of these topics were at the centre of discussions at the international
conference ‘The Future is Public: Democratic Ownership of the Economy’
held in December 2019 in Amsterdam. The conference was co-organisedby the sponsors of this book (17 organisations that have been working
together on remunicipalisation research and advocacy) in collaboration

30

Introduction

with a new think tank, 99 van Amsterdam, created and supported by thatcity government. The conference was attended by 400 people including
dozens of politicians, unionists, academics and activists from around theworld. It was also an opportunity to present the preliminary results andfindings of this research. It demonstrated how (re)municipalisation is
one of the beating pulses and rallying points of a wider movement that
includes public services unionism, efforts to democratise the state andpublic ownership, the growing municipalist movement, or cities seeking
to initiate a radical climate transition.
The conference ended with a note of caution: Endeavours to build economic
democracy must bear in mind the need to inculcate democratic forms ofownership at all levels, not only cities. At the same time, experiments
at the local level such as (re)municipalisation prefigure and contributeto broader scale changes. Transformations at the municipal level can bea starting point – not necessarily an end in itself. In contexts where thepolitical opportunities for radical change at the municipal level are more
open than at the national level, taking advantage of this political space
can translate into much-needed gains and engage local populations at
the grassroots, while simultaneously building capacity and experience inways that can be transferred in national and international politics whenchances arise.
This book seeks to expand dialogue and collaborations among communities
to achieve the critical mass that is needed to make that quantum leap.

Endnotes
1

The global list of (re)municipalisation consisted of 1,408 cases by the end of October 2019. The
database is available at: https://futureispublic.org/remunicipalisation-global-database/. An interactive database is under construction in collaboration with the University of Glasgow. It will
be accessible through the above link in the near future. Additional cases and information will
be added to this new database as they are collected.

2

19 cases of remunicipalisation were reported since several municipalities acted together as aninter-municipal arrangement and took over the bankrupt private company.

3

Peston, R. (2020) ‘Boris must borrow from Corbyn’s playbook to prevent a coronavirus crash’,
The Spectator, 17 March. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-must-borrow-from-corbyn-splaybook-to-prevent-a-coronavirus-crash

31Part 1.
Reclaiming public services
around the world32Chapter 1

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks
more than 100 cases of
remunicipalisation
By Nina Monsen and Bjørn Pettersen

When one of Norway’s largest waste collection companies went out ofbusiness, Fagforbundet used it as a stepping-stone for taking waste
collection back into public hands. The waste collection company,
RenoNorden,1 declared bankruptcy on 19 September 2017. Since thenmore than 100 municipalities, alone or in cooperation, have taken public
control of their waste collection. The strategic thinking and hard workof Fagforbundet and its local unions and shop stewards played crucial
roles in this achievement. Before RenoNorden’s bankruptcy somemunicipalities were aware that the company faced difficulties in the
Norwegian market, especially after RenoNorden announced it would
terminate nine less profitable municipal contracts signed in 2015 and2016. Workers in commercial waste companies faced some of the worst
conditions in the country, according to county-level representative Anders
Kollmar-Dæhlin who was part of the project team working on getting
waste collection back in house. “Many of the employees in RenoNorden
had 90-hours work weeks. These over-worked drivers are driving on thesame roads that our kids use to get to school,” Kollmar-Dæhlin says.
In Norway, waste collection is financed with tax revenue. But privatecompanies contracted to deliver the services usually pay their employees
lower wages and pensions than municipalities that manage those services
in house. “The commercial companies make profit at the expense of thecommon resources of the municipality’s welfare services,” KollmarDæhlin adds. Kragerø municipality in southern Norway was quick to act

33

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisationand negotiated with RenoNorden to terminate its contract. It became thefirst municipality to take back waste collection. The result was better pay
for employees and lower fees for residents (See Box II).

NORWAY OF CASES 42
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 39
Municipalisation 3

Health care &social services

Waste

19

18
Local government

5

Building cleaning and maintenance 4
Security and emergency services 1

Highlights• In 2017, more than 100 municipalities took public control over their waste
collection after RenoNorden's bankruptcy.
• Merging small towns into one municipality provided an opportunity for intermunicipal remunicipalisation or creation of an integrated municipal company
with public sector solidarity and capacity building.
• Remunicipalisation of care services (nursing homes, elderly care) and local
government services (staffing agency) are significant.
• Strong and strategic role of workers' unions in the process of remunicipalisation.

Box I

Fagforbundet
Fagforbundet, the Norwegian Union of Municipal and General
Employees, is the largest trade union in Norway. The union has
370,000 members. Our members work mainly in the public sector,
in local and county government and in hospitals, as well as in theprivate sector. Fagforbundet also represents 17,000 shopkeepers
across the country.

34

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

A chance for success
Fagforbundet saw the demise of RenoNorden as an opportunity to bringwaste collection back into public hands in all 137 municipalities affected by
the company’s collapse. The day it declared bankruptcy, Fagforbundet’s
Secretary General Mette Nord sent a clear and direct message to local
unions in the affected municipalities: “To avoid a breakdown of waste
collection, the municipalities that had contracts with RenoNorden will
most likely have to take over the waste collection in the short term. Our
aim is to make this takeover a permanent solution.” Nord underlined that
Fagforbundet’s competence centres, which are regional support centres
on labour law and collective agreements, and county-level unions thatback and support the local unions would be prepared to give support andfollow-up to the remunicipalisation efforts. The union also provided
assistance for financial analysis and cost calculations.
Although there had been some reporting on a possible bankruptcy, itcame as a surprise to most municipalities. Some had started to consider
alternatives, but the local shop stewards and union representatives
were not sufficiently involved in these discussions. According toprocurement regulations, municipalities can enter short-term contracts
with other suppliers without tenders when a provider goes bankrupt.
Some municipalities outsourced to a new private company, but most
remunicipalised or even municipalised the waste collection, as they had
never provided the service in house before. To aid the process, a project
team of professionals from Fagforbundet’s head office and a union
representative from the county level went on the road to support affectedunions. By February 2019, 110 municipalities had voted to remunicipaliseor municipalise waste services either through inter-municipal companies
or on their own.

35

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

Keeping knowledge in house
There are many advantages to keeping waste collection in municipal
hands. Municipalities have better democratic control and can predict
costs. Municipal delivery keeps the knowledge in house, and provides
decent working conditions, better pensions and training opportunities
for employees. It also means equipment is put to better use and themunicipality has control over recycling and how waste is used. When
services are in municipal hands, it also lays a foundation for employeedriven innovation, which in turn leads to better services.
Case I: Kragerø
A good-news waste collection story
Kragerø was the first municipality to take its waste collection backinto public hands in connection to RenoNorden’s bankruptcy.
Employees and their shop stewards were on the lookout and alerted
the municipal administration that RenoNorden was not fulfillingits duties as a waste collection company. In an agreement with
RenoNorden, Kragerø terminated the contract before it went outof business. After a thorough analysis, the municipality decided totake waste collection back in house.
Kragerø is ruled by a political constellation of the Labour party andits allies on the left of Norwegian politics. According to the vicemayor of Kragerø, Charlotte Therkelsen Sætersdal, the analysis
showed it was more effective and cost-efficient to remunicipalise
waste collection and bring it under the control of the elected local
government. The fee for residents was reduced by 14 per cent after
remunicipalisation, even as wages and pensions for the employees
increased. The municipality saved money by avoiding expensive
tendering processes and benefited from having its own full-time
employees in waste collection who could also carry out duties inother areas of responsibility for the municipality.

36

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

In addition to better pay, employees who went from RenoNorden
to the municipality as their employer are reporting improvementsin their work situation. Workers without formal training are being
offered support to obtain vocational education diplomas for theirskills. The number of part-time workers has gone down, andworkers are getting permanent contracts with more hours or fulltime positions.
“Removal of refuse and handling of waste are important tasks insociety. The service should be run by an organisation with a broader
mandate than making a profit,” says Vice-Mayor Sætersdal.2

Morgan Martini and Kjell Arne Isnes are two of the workers who were employed directly by the municipality when Kragerø took over waste collection. “Now we don’t have to worry whether we will have a paid job
in the future,” they said to Fagforbundet’s magazine Fagbladet. Byline/Photo: Morgan Andersen.

37Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

A brief overview of the Norwegian model
Norway is a system of relatively free-market capitalism combined witha comprehensive welfare state that aims to provide universal social
services. This model delivers positive outcomes – Norway has high scoreson a variety of social indicators. Some might think Norway’s high oil
income feeds the economy, but Norway channels less than three per centof its return on oil investments into the annual state budget.
There is a high level of trust in Norwegian society, founded in social
dialogue and tripartite cooperation at the national and municipal levels.
Collective agreements and collective bargaining at the national level, withsome local adjustments, ensure a relatively small wage gap, especially inthe public sector. Small wage differences, a low unemployment rate and ahigh employment rate ensures strong purchasing power. Most residents
pay taxes because a large part of the population works or is on a pension
scheme. The combination of high private demand, fair taxation and aminimal informal economy is good for the overall economy.3
Approximately half of all employees in Norway are union members.
Eighty per cent of public employees are union members, whereas lessthan two out of five are union members in the private sector. However,
the trend in Norway, as in many European countries, is that of a decline
in the number of people organised in trade unions.
Box ll

Tripartite dialogue
The Nordic model of tripartite dialogue and cooperation has along tradition and has proven successful. Municipal tripartite
cooperation refers to constructive cooperation between politicians,
administrative leaders and trade unions. The aim is to work
together to create a culture of cooperation that promotes finding38

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

the best local solutions to the specific challenges facing themunicipality. By creating a forum to share ideas, suggestions
from employees and other more marginal voices are brought
forward and handled systematically by the management of themunicipality. Local tripartite cooperation is not a formal part ofpolitical decision-making; it is merely a part of the development
process. The rationale is that different views and perspectives lead
to better solutions.

Empowered shop stewards
Fagforbundet’s strength is founded on the principles of the Norwegianmodel, and comes from our many members, who make us the country’s
biggest union and ensure we have a broad representation. Our strengthis what let us be proactive when RenoNord was going bankrupt, turning
the situation into an opportunity for remunicipalisation. We haveempowered employees, represented by trusted shop stewards and goodpolitical and administrative systems to solve workplace challenges.
According to our basic agreement4 and labour regulations, shop stewards
have an obligation to react when they suspect breaches of our labour
regulations. In addition, Fagforbundet has shop stewards and tradeunion representatives at all levels of the country’s administration:national, county and municipal. Fagforbundet is made up of more than
550 local branches. Each local branch is a fully functional trade union
where members elect their local representative. Fagforbundet has nearly
17,000 experienced shop stewards across the country, and 18 countylevel organisations. Fagforbundet also gains strength from being under
the umbrella of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions.

39Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

Sirkula: an inter-municipal company takes backcontrol
Four municipalities northeast of capital city Oslo have taken waste
collection back as a joint endeavour. The four municipalities co-own aninter-municipal company, Sirkula, which is responsible for handling andcollecting waste from 41,000 households in the region.5
Sirkula had contracted out waste collection to RenoNorden with operations
starting on 1 January 2017. By 18 January 2017, a local newspaper revealed
that 800 complaints had already been received about the company’s lackof services. Before RenoNorden’s collapse, Sirkula already faced many
challenges with the private company.
Complaints grew and RenoNorden’s poor service received more local
media coverage. In response to the complaints, RenoNorden simply
imposed more loads and longer working hours on their employees.
Eventually the Labour Inspection Authority launched an investigationand documented massive use of overtime and violations of several labour
regulations. RenoNorden was denounced for violations of the Working
Environment Act.
When RenoNorden went bankrupt later that year, in September 2017, thefour municipal owners of Sirkula entered into a short-term contract withanother private company. But Fagforbundet’s aim was to end tenderingand have Sirkula take over waste collection. The union worked through its
local and regional branches to get the four municipalities to bring waste
collection back in house.
Fagforbundet’s project team of professionals from head office, along witha union representative from the county level, supported the local unionand other branches of Fagforbundet. The project team held meetings withtrade unions and union representatives in the four municipalities and40

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

ensured regular communication. The main objective was to influence themunicipalities to vote against new tender processes for waste collection.

Political influence on Sirkula owners
Local politicians in the Sirkula-owner municipalities guide the management of the company. Sirkula’s structure allows the local government ineach of the owner municipalities to elect a political representative to acommittee, which elects the company’s board of directors.
Widely sharing political, economic and professional rationales behindremunicipalisation is an important part of the strategy for taking backservices in inter-municipal companies. Thus, the local trade unions,with the support of the project team, met with all the political parties.
The union’s county level coordinated this work and the project teamensured that local unions and union representatives were equippedwith those political, economic and professional arguments. Local union
representatives took advantage of the media attention on RenoNorden’s
breaches of labour regulations and bankruptcy, providing interviews andcomments.
In April 2018, the supervisory board of Sirkula voted in favour of taking
over the waste collection. Although inter-municipal companies can seemout of the control of city councils and residents, the Sirkula case shows how
to ensure better democratic oversight of an inter-municipal company. It
also highlights that an inter-municipal company can efficiently take overa service that the municipality has not previously delivered on its own.

41

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

New municipalities commit themselves toremunicipalisation
A new threat, in the form of structural reforms and municipal mergers,
may pave the way for privatisation by creating bigger and more attractive
markets for private companies in rural regions. This may have been oneof the reasons behind Norway’s government – a coalition of neoliberals
and conservatives – introducing an extensive structural reform in 2015.
Fagforbundet, in cooperation with allied political parties, managed toturn this neoliberal strategy to our advantage, using it to boost public
sector solidarity, capacity-building and efficiency.
Initially, Fagforbundet opposed the structural reform, arguing thatthe policy of merging municipalities should be based on facts andreferendums and should not be forced. But when parliament approved
the structural reform, Fagforbundet shifted gears to focus on making
municipal mergers an opportunity for remunicipalisation.
Municipalities established after the merger of smaller ones will be
operating as of January 2020. Several of these new municipalities
have already committed to remunicipalisation of public services. In
the government’s own words, one of the goals of the reform was tocreate “robust municipalities that can be assigned additional tasks andresponsibilities.”6
Opponents of the government’s policies saw the reform as preparation
for large-scale privatisation. But local union representatives turned
the argument upside down, saying that large, robust municipalities arestrong enough to provide all services on their own, without tendering
to private contractors. The new municipality of Asker is an example ofa municipal merger that will lead to several cases of remunicipalisation.
(See Case II)

42

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

Case ll: New municipality of Asker takes services back into public hands
The merger of three municipalities into the new Asker municipality
will result in six inter-municipal companies closing down andwidespread remunicipalisation.
The new municipality will have 90,000 inhabitants and 6,000
workers. Anders Fosen, shop steward for Fagforbundet in thecurrent Asker municipality, is pleased that politicians have voted to
shut down inter-municipal companies and take the services backinto the new bigger municipality. Fosen told FriFagbevegelse, theNorwegian labour movement’s online magazine, that the process
has increased the level of trust among the workers:“We have established a well-functioning tripartite cooperationand dialogue. The unions have come together across the threemerging municipalities and we will have renewed strength in the
new municipality with 6,000 workers behind us.”
Six inter-municipal companies will close down. The services thatwill be taken over by the new municipality include water anddrainage services, property management and transport. Fosen
does not fear new tenders to private contractors in the newmunicipality:“After the ribbon-cutting for the new municipality, I do not expect
any politician to bring up controversial cases such as outsourcing
and tendering of public services. If they do, it will be very damaging
for the working environment and the quality of the services.”743Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

Lessons learned
The lessons learned from this situation are not restricted to cases ofbankruptcy and waste collection. Fagforbundet has used the same
strategy successfully in many other cases, as the example of the ongoing
structural reforms in Norway shows.
Looking back, we would give ourselves and other unions the following
advice:•Make use of the skills and competence of the entire organisation at alllevels•Support the local shop steward, the local trade union and union
representatives taking part in the local political processes•

Contact the employees and shop steward in the private company,
regardless of their union membership, with the aim to get access tostrategic and financial documents in the company•

Find out if you have any potential allies among the board of directorsof the company•

Get in touch with the person responsible for the outsourced service inthe administration of the municipality•

Confront local politicians with the union’s viewpoints•

Use existing networks within the labour party and other political allies
to influence future decisions•

Try to influence representatives from parties outside the political ally
as well•

Adjust arguments to different target groups. Some key supporting
argumentsforremunicipalisation

are

more

relevanttothemunicipality’s administration, some to local politicians and some tothe local union. These arguments include:		•More flexibility when service needs change		•Better democratic control

		•Predictable costs		•Decent working conditions

44

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

		•Better pay and pension

		•The ability to train and keep skilled employees		•Better use of equipment

		•Improved environment for employee-driven innovation

		•The ability to benefit from recycling and to increase recycling

		

rates

•

Use local/regional media positively. Develop a media strategy andfollow it•

Social media must be part of any media strategy•

The union’s regional and/or national level must support the local
union and local union representatives with relevant information andknowledge•

The union’s regional and/or national level should ensure the local
level has the resources it needs

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Nina Monsen is Advisor at the Restructuring Unit,
Fagforbundet. She has a solid experience in Nordic
cooperation, development aid and private sector
investments in developing countries.

Bjørn Pettersen is Head of the Restructuring Unit,
Fagforbundet. He has a broad experience in the
management of public development programmes.

45

Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than 100 cases of remunicipalisation

Endnotes
1

After the bankruptcy in Norway, the business people behind RenoNorden established a
new company, NordRen, to compete for the tenders to collect waste in Norwegian municipalities. RenoNorden ASA is still one of the largest waste collectors in the Nordic countries, with
branches in Sweden, Finland and Denmark. See the article in Fagforbundet’s magazine forshop stewards, 6 December 2018, by Ola Tømmerås (in Norwegian), https://fagbladet.no/nyheter/nytt-storselskap-kinesere-eier-det-spanske-selskapet-som-na-skal-kjore-soppel-i-51-norskekommuner-6.91.599935.fa1f968e0b. See also RenoNorden’s company website (in Norwegian),
http://www.renonorden.no/category/uncategorised/

2Interview in Fagforbundet’s magazine for shop stewards, 20 September 2018, by Nina Monsen(in Norwegian), https://www.fagforbundet.no/for-tillitsvalgte/omstilling/a/8904/renovasjon-i-egenregi-ndash-gront-og-lonnsomt/

3

SAMAK, the Nordic Labour Movement’s Organization, brochure on the Nordic model(2016) (in English), http://samak.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/THE_NORDIC_MODEL_FOR_
DUMMIES.pdf

4

In the Norwegian context collective agreements usually consist of two parts: a basic agreement which governs the relationship between organisations and sets predominant rules (stating both parties’ rights and duties, such as the employees’ right to access to information, andthe shop steward’s “obligation to react” to suspected breaches of labour law); and a national
agreement regulating wages and working conditions for a certain industry or sector.

5

Sirkula’s company website (in Norwegian), https://www.sirkula.no/6

Press release on the local government reform, 14 May 2014, on the Norwegian Government’s
website (in English), https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/Local-government-reform-to-secure-future-welfare/id759493/

7Interview in the labour movement’s online magazine, 9 February 2018, by Bjørn A. Grimstad(in Norwegian), https://frifagbevegelse.no/nyheter/nye-asker-kommune-legger-ned-selskaper-ogtar-de-ansatte-og-tjenestene-tilbake-6.158.528533.b8b22df506

46

Chapter 2

Paris celebrates a decade of public
water success
By Célia BlauelA decade ago, the municipality of Paris decided to take water managementback into public hands. This decision in a global city like the capital ofFrance had a worldwide impact. It ended a long period of fragmented andopaque organisation by a joint venture in charge of water production andby two private corporations in charge of water distribution since the mid1980s. That structure had diluted accountability and meant continuously
rising water tariffs. Remunicipalisation of water has resulted in a diverse,
democratically elected board, tariffs dropping by eight per cent, 1,200
drinking water fountains installed across the city, and support for people
who are struggling to pay their water, energy and housing bills.

A bold political statement
Eau de Paris provides its three million users with high quality water, 24/7,
all year round. Since its inception in 2009, the public company’s vision has
extended far beyond industrial matters of water production, distribution,
treatment and infrastructure. Water is not another commodity but rather
a vital common good of humanity and should be managed as such, guided
solely by the public interest.
Freed from shareholder pressure and from the constant drive for shortterm returns on investment and dividend payments, public managementof water guarantees that all revenues are reinvested in the service andthat decisions are based on a long-term approach, with the best interestof present and future generations in mind.

47

Paris celebrates a decade of public water successIn this respect, Eau de Paris bears strong values that are not marketinglabels but inspire every single daily action. Among these values, the city
wanted Eau de Paris to be a flagship of transparency. This was achievedby providing open access to all key information on the water service,including the financial statements, as well as through genuine democratic
control.
The board of Eau de Paris is made up of elected municipal officials andstaff representatives, as well as representatives of non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs) advocating for water users and the environment.
This open governance enables political and citizen oversight of thecompany’s activities and decisions.
In 2017, Eau de Paris was awarded the prestigious United Nations
Public Service Award in recognition of its daily work in the areas ofaccountability, transparency and integrity. In the years to come, Eau deParis plans to renew its commitment to public participation and to allow
citizens to take part in the public company’s decision-making through aparticipatory budget.

A sound, practical decision
Eau de Paris was born out of the will of the municipal council to directly
control the drinking water service through a single publicly owned andcontrolled operator that would comply with the highest standards ofefficiency. By integrating every step of the water supply chain, fromwater catchment to service delivery to end users, Eau de Paris is able tomanage the system as a whole. This allows for economies of scale, a more
resilient system as well as full control and accountability.
A decade after remunicipalisation, Eau de Paris’s top-of-its-classindustrial and economic performance blatantly contradicts the naysayers
who predicted failure when the city decided not to renew its contracts

48

Paris celebrates a decade of public water successwith Veolia and Suez in 2008, and instead created a new public operator.
A few figures illustrate the public operator’s capacity to run the water
service efficiently in this major metropolis: the network yield is above 90
per cent (10 points over the national average for unaccounted-for water),and water quality is excellent, with a 100 per cent rate of compliance fortwo consecutive years in 2017 and 2018. This unprecedented performance
was made possible by the expertise of the Eau de Paris team and theconstant supervision and adaption of processes and treatments to meet
evolving public health standards.
As a public service provider dedicated to upholding our commitment
to a controlled and affordable water price, Eau de Paris bases its
investment strategy on a rigorous analysis of investment needs. This
helps maintain the lowest cost for users and supports sustainability by
reducing the service’s environmental footprint. Following the same logic,
innovation must be both a creator of value and a source of long-termsavings. Our investment strategy has three successive stages: research,experimentation and scale-up. Over €75 million is invested each year,
almost entirely self-financed. This is a high but sound level. Eau de Paris
refuses investments that are oversized in relation to real needs. Preferring
evolution rather than revolution, we build upon our exceptional hydraulicheritage. Innovation is also about inventing ways to maintain and adapt
century-old infrastructure to our current needs.

Solidarity and responsibility
Universal, affordable access to drinking water for all is part of our DNA
at Eau de Paris. As such, one of the board’s first decisions when Eaude Paris was founded was to lower water prices by 8 per cent. It waspresented as a way to give back to the people part of the profits thatprivate operators were making on the water service but also as a sign thatpublic management really means affordability for everyone. Since then,there has been strict oversight of water rates. In 2020, rates remain lower

49

Paris celebrates a decade of public water successthan before remunicipalisation and are still the lowest in the greater
Paris area at €1.07 per cubic meter.
The public company also contributes €500,000 annually to the Fonds
de solidarité pour le logement de Paris, a fund that helps households
struggling to meet their housing expenses, including recurring costs suchas energy and water.
Raising awareness within all sectors of society about responsible water
use is part of the same commitment to universal, affordable drinking
water. We place a strong focus on children and youth, as well as on social
care professionals who can do broad public outreach, especially withpeople who are economically disadvantaged. Through our trademark‘Water ambassadors’ programme we reach out to poorer households andhelp them conserve water and tackle leaks while promoting the use of tap
water as a safe and cheap choice. This strategy allows us to address the factthat people living on low incomes also have the lowest level of trust in thewater service and spend the most on bottled water. Eau de Paris also works
specifically with refugees and homeless people through partnerships
with NGOs and participation in social welfare schemes developed at the
local level. We have installed temporary drinking fountains near refugee
camps and NGOs have distributed maps of the fountains and reusable
water bottles. Eau de Paris’s contribution to providing migrants withemergency access to water during recent heatwaves has been praised bypublic authorities and NGOs caring for the needs of this population livingin extreme conditions.
For the last 10 years, Eau de Paris has maintained and even stepped up
its actions to promote access to water in public spaces. The company
manages more than 1,200 drinking fountains today. This probably makes
Paris the world’s best-equipped city in terms of free access to water inpublic spaces and helps to reduce plastic water bottle consumption. In
2016, the public company also helped implement the city’s participatory50

Paris celebrates a decade of public water successbudget1 by installing 41 new fountains, including 11 that distributesparkling water. During winter, about 80 drinking fountains remain in
operation.

The drinking water fountain in front of the Eau de Paris office. Photo by Satoko Kishimoto

Adaptation to climate change, catchment protection,
biodiversity and green transition
Being responsible means thinking globally. As such, Eau de Paris iscommitted to reducing the social and ecological footprint of its waterproduction and distribution activities. Water is a common resource of vital
importance and, as a public company committed to source-to-tap water
management and to fulfilling economic as much as social mandates, Eaude Paris gathers and fosters in-house expertise and innovation. This
allows us to adapt continuously to the new needs and challenges of thesmart sustainable city as well as to the effects of climate change. Climate

51

Paris celebrates a decade of public water successdisruption forces us to anticipate its potential impacts on water resourcesin terms of quantity and quality but also on water demand and needs indense urban areas. These impacts include possible hydric stress increase(when water levels drop in rivers and water basins), frequent periodsof drought, average temperature hikes, as well as urban heat islands indense urban areas where stone buildings tend to absorb and accumulate
heat. By acting beyond its core industrial business to help make Parisand the greater Parisian area resilient and sustainable, Eau de Paris iscommitted to contributing to public urban and environmental policies.
Notably, Eau de Paris is a pioneer in water catchment protection policies.
Protecting underground and river water resources improves the qualityof water resources and preserves the landscape and our common natural
heritage. Farming has an impact on the aquatic environment whenit comes to quality and quantity, as well as biodiversity. As part of its
resource protection policy, Eau de Paris partners with local stakeholders
and the Basin Agency (a public entity that manages water with all the
stakeholders at the watershed level), to foster more responsible water
management by helping redirect farming methods towards a moresustainable and environmentally friendly model. For example, Eau deParis buys farmland and makes it available to farmers through cheap
rural environmental leases. In exchange, the farmers agree to use organicand sustainable farming methods. This medium and long-term approachallows Eau de Paris to improve source water quality, which will reducethe cost and environmental impact of its treatment.
As part of its biodiversity policy, Eau de Paris adapts its maintenancepractices to the environmental realities of each site, with the help ofpartner naturalist associations. The areas surrounding water catchments,
aqueducts and reservoir roofs are home to a rich and varied fauna andflora. Eau de Paris also works with the City of Paris on projects that
support urban agriculture, the greening of buildings, and the developmentof biodiversity and nature in urban areas.

52

Paris celebrates a decade of public water success

Not least, as a major player in the energy transition in the Île-de-France
region, Eau de Paris has set high goals for itself with a plan that calls for
reductions in the climate and energy impact of its activities. By the end of
the year 2020, the company aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions
by 15 per cent and its energy consumption by 12 per cent and increase its
use of renewable energy to 95 per cent of overall energy consumed. The
company is also helping reduce CO2 emissions by producing renewableenergy using 11,000 m2 of photovoltaic panels that generated 17,500 MWhof power in 2018, as well as geothermal generation that produced 15,100
MWh.2

An exceptional heritage
Eau de Paris integrates enhancement of existing systems into its approach
to innovation, using it as an opportunity to define new possibilities basedon the resources and infrastructure available. The non-potable water
network, a feature specific to Paris, is a mid-nineteenth century legacy ofBaron Haussmann’s major public works. This second network means thatin Paris, the water quality level can be adapted to different uses: drinking
water for human consumption and non-potable water for municipal(e.g. watering green spaces, cleaning streets, flushing sewers) or othercollective uses (e.g. cleaning the common areas of buildings).
Eau de Paris promotes non-potable water use when appropriate to limit
the impact on water resources. This is ecologically wise: non-potablewater needs not undergo purification treatment so it does not requirechemicals at production, which also requires less energy and is cheaper.
This network is also being used to experiment with heating and cooling ofbuildings. Non-potable water is circulated through a plate heat exchanger
to capture either its heating or cooling properties and is then returned to
the non-potable water network. This technique provides air conditioning
for three Parisian buildings, including City Hall.

53

Paris celebrates a decade of public water successConclusion
As the leading public drinking water company in France, Eau de Paris
distinguishes itself with its unique supply scheme, its presence as a
Paris-based utility that owns and operates installations across a wide
geographic area, and its exceptional hydraulic and industrial heritage.
Since its creation, the company has mobilised its internal and intersectoral expertise and its strong industrial performance to provide
sustainable and shared solutions, always ensuring that technology andinnovation are at the service of the well-being of Parisians.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Célia Blauel is President of Eau deParis and Deputy Mayor of Paris incharge of the environment, sustainable
development, water and the energy–
climate plan.

Endnotes
1

https://budgetparticipatif.paris.fr/bp/jsp/site/Portal.jsp?document_id=1990&portlet_id=1582

http://www.eaudeparis.fr/uploads/tx_edpevents/EDP_RA2018.pdf

54

Chapter 3

Canada: Local insourcing in theface of a national privatisationpush
By Robert Ramsay

The vast majority of public services and infrastructure in Canada are
publicly owned and operated. This is a situation that advocates of the
public sector, including the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE),
are committed to defend. Municipal and provincial governments, driven
by an austerity ideology and the false narrative of risk transfer, continue
to propose privatisation in various forms and across a variety of sectors,
primarily by tying infrastructure funding to private investment.
For example, on 10 September 2019 the province of Ontario’s Conservative
government announced 32 infrastructure projects worth $65 billion CAD
that it will implement through public-private partnerships (PPPs).1 In
this, Ontario is following the lead of the federal Liberal government,
whose Canada Infrastructure Bank, created in 2017, proposes to deliver
infrastructure projects by leveraging public tax dollars for expensive
private financing.2
In addition, we face new forms of privatisation, such as social impact
bonds as detailed below. These models may appear attractive, because
they seem to link private sector financing to socially desirable outcomes.
However, this type of privatisation actually diminishes the effectivenessof social programmes by diverting any savings or surplus into profit forthe private investor, rather than into programme improvements.3 Thesemodels also raise the moral problem of seeking profit from the services
that help the most vulnerable people in our society.

55

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation push

Increasingly, rigorous studies of PPPs in Canada demonstrate that they
are inferior to projects run by the public sector.4 In 2014, the Ontario
Auditor General reviewed 74 PPP projects and concluded that they cost
taxpayers $8 billion CAD more than if the province had used public
procurement.5 The same report also called into question the premise ofrisk transfer, finding that estimates of its value were highly inflated.
Similarly in 2014, the British Columbia Auditor General reviewed 16 PPP
projects and determined that the province paid approximately twice asmuch for private sector financing as it would have had it borrowed themoney itself.6 An update to the Auditor General’s report conducted by
the Columbia Institute in Vancouver found that between 2003 and 2017
British Columbia paid $3.7 billion CAD more for 17 PPP projects than it
would have if they had used more traditional public procurement.7 Similar
studies in other provinces and at the federal level further support theconclusion that privatisation does not work for Canadians.

CANADA OF CASES 51
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 34
Municipalisation 17

Transport

Waste

Telecommunications

2

7

3

Health care &social services

Water

Education8

2

14
Local government

15

Housing 1
Food and catering 1
Parking 3
Sports and cultural activities 2
Financing and maintenance 6
Other 2Highlights• Since 2017, there have been more than 20 new cases of (re)municipalisationin water, waste, transport, telecommunications and health care sectors.
• The 15 remunicipalisations in local government include housing, parking,security, police station construction and recreation services.
• Interesting remunicipalisation cases include solid waste (Winnipeg,
Manitoba) and waste water (Taber, Alberta and Owen Sound, Ontario).
• Reclaiming public services leads to more economically efficient and better
quality services.

56

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation push

We are happy to report more than 20 new cases of remunicipalisation in
Canada, in addition to the 15 cases from the previous edition of this book.
These cases span sectors, including water, transit, waste, broadband andhealth care. While the examples are diverse, the reasons for bringing
these services back in house remain consistent: the public sector delivers
public services with greater economic efficiency and at a higher quality
than the private sector.

Case l: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Winnipeg solid waste: a political victory for public services
In 2006, the city of Winnipeg privatised its solid waste collection.
Prior to this, it was a municipal utility organised by CUPE. The
privatisation of the service resulted in sub-standard performanceat virtually every level, and over time the municipal labour union
was able to advance a strong political campaign for in-house waste
collection.
After privatisation, the primary solid waste contractors engaged
in a system of subcontracting, sometimes at the level of individual
trucks. This scheme is a way for employers to push employment
and social security costs and risks onto the workers and keep themin a precarious state, so that they can easily be let go by the company.
Not surprisingly, poor working conditions were the norm. The
workers were often precarious labourers hired day-to-day whowere paid in cash and not protected by any occupational health andsafety oversight. In addition, poor service performance was often
reported, including damage to bins and property, garbage pileupsand missed collections.
CUPE Local 500 (representing Winnipeg municipal workers) had

57

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation push

been politically active on this file since 2005. The union’s goal had
been to bring the full service back in house, and they had sustained
consistent outreach to ideologically friendly councillors.
In 2016, the local union invited the chair of Winnipeg City Council’s
Water and Wastewater Management Committee to Ottawa tomeet with staff and the municipal union of that city, which had
successfully contracted in solid waste a few years before with thesupport of the city’s staff and council. The city staff in Ottawa had
demonstrated that in-house service could perform competitively
or better than an outsourced service, both in terms of quality andcost, and the Winnipeg local wanted to apply this lesson to the
problem in Winnipeg.
At the same time, Local 500 took advantage of widespread negative
news coverage of the contractors, such as a 2016 documentary that
exposed how Indigenous youth working as day labourers for thecontractor Emterra were being exploited and underpaid.8 The local
union also commissioned a study from the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives, titled “Trashed,” that documented the poor
working conditions and sub-standard service provided by theprivate contractors.9
The media coverage proved an embarrassment for the city. As aresult, and the union’s diligent outreach efforts, Winnipeg City
Council decided to bring a part of the city’s municipal waste
services back in house as a pilot project beginning in 2020. While
this initial project only involves hiring a small number of city
employees, if the model proves successful there is potential tobring 200 or more waste collection jobs back in house.
This is a significant political victory for CUPE and for Local 500,
having worked tirelessly on this issue for many years, changing

58

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation push

public opinion and bringing city politicians onside.
The Winnipeg case also raises an important issue – the public sector is the right choice to deliver public services not only
because it is financially competitive, but also because it provides
better and safer jobs.

Case ll: Owen Sound, Ontario
Owen Sound municipal wastewater: the municipality does it better
Veolia Water Canada operated Owen Sound’s wastewater treatment
plant through a series of short-term operating contracts startingin 2004. Prior to 2004, the system had been operated by theprovincial crown agency Ontario Clean Water Agency. In 2012,
when the Veolia contract was coming to an end, the city faced
operational and organisational changes that spurred the municipal
council to re-examine the city’s relationship with Veolia.
A report to city council outlined a plan for the city to take greater
responsibility for the operations of the wastewater treatment
plant, and remodel wastewater operations in general, with a view
towards reducing current operational costs, increasing control
over future operational costs, and improving service coverage andmonitoring.10
In light of this report, in 2012 Owen Sound City Council voted toassume direct operation of the city’s wastewater treatment plant,
hiring two treatment plant operators previously employed by
Veolia Water Canada, and hiring a third wastewater treatment
and collection operator. Under a new five-year, reduced-scope
contract, Veolia Water Canada was responsible for disposing of
biosolids, and would monitor and report on sewer system bypasses
in compliance with Ministry of Environment requirements, as well59

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation push

as inspecting and rating the condition of the city’s sanitary sewer
infrastructure.
As expected, bringing the bulk of the service back in house has
resulted in greater control. Contract costs dropped from $900,000
CAD per year to $300,000 because of Veolia’s reduced role. A reportto city council estimated net savings of $40,000 CAD in 2013, after
the city assumed control of the plant. The report also noted thatwastewater service was expected to improve, with the additional
operator helping perform needed duties in wastewater collection.
Due to the success of the initial partial remunicipalisation, council
voted on 30 March 2016 not to renew the limited five-year Veolia
contract at expiry in 2017. The city’s 2017 budget included a line
item looking at “alternatives to Veolia system” for sewage bypass
monitoring.11

Case lll: Taber, Alberta
Taber water: privatisation does not pay
In 2007, the Town of Taber signed a 20-year contract with forprofit corporation EPCOR to finance and execute upgrades to thetown’s wastewater and storm water infrastructure, as well as
operate and maintain the town’s water and wastewater systems.
At the time, CUPE was a vocal opponent of the privatisation andcampaigned against it. CUPE Local 2038 represents workers in
the municipality and it went on to represent the EPCOR workers,
negotiating a separate collective agreement for them.
In November 2015, EPCOR tabled a proposal to change the termsof its contract, increasing its fees by 68 per cent. Subsequentdiscussions between the town and EPCOR led to an ultimatum,
reported in the media as follows: “[EPCOR] presented the town

60Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation pushwith two options, using the dispute resolution process set out inthe agreement to arbitrate the fee increase issue, or negotiate an
end to the agreement.12 ”
EPCOR’s position prompted the town to initiate a study of the water
and wastewater operations, which, according to media reports,13
confirmed that the town could provide the same or better level ofservice as EPCOR, at approximately the same cost.
On 15 August 2016, the town council voted to accept a proposal
from EPCOR to negotiate a termination of the contract.14 Later thatyear, the town voted to refinance a $5.5 million CAD loan held by
EPCOR. The funds were part of the original contract and were used
to pay for upgrades to the town’s wastewater treatment plant andstorm water system. As background for a bylaw authorising theborrowing, town staff reported that refinancing the loan would
reduce the interest rate from 6.5 per cent to 2.275 per cent, saving
approximately $1.4 million CAD in interest over the 10-year loan
period and completing the upgrades at a lower cost.
Ten EPCOR staff transferred over to become Town of Taber staff,
representing a 10 per cent increase in the town’s workforce. The
workers are now back under the main CUPE 2038 certificate andcollective agreement. The town and CUPE reached a new collective
agreement in October 2018.
By taking this important public service back in house, the town
has avoided the extra costs that would have been passed on to residents through rate hikes. According to media reports, there wereno payouts or penalties associated with cancelling the contract.15
Furthermore, the town’s 2018-20 budget maintained current fee
rates.

61

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation push

New fights
Canada Infrastructure Bank
Recent estimates of Canada’s national infrastructure deficit range from$50 billion CAD at the low end to over $500 billion at the high end.16
This underfunding reflects decades of austerity from multiple levels ofgovernment, and the resulting deterioration of Canada’s infrastructure
stock has refocused the attention of governments on this increasingly
urgent problem.
In 2015, the new Liberal government put infrastructure funding at thecentre of its agenda, by making significant commitments of federal
dollars and by changing funding ratios and requirements. At the sametime, the Liberals promised to create a public infrastructure bank thatwould provide financing to provinces, territories and municipalities
at low borrowing rates. Canadians from across the political spectrum
applauded this historic commitment.
Rather than follow through on the commitment to low-cost financing,however, the Liberal government’s Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB),
once created, made privatisation and private sector financing a centralprinciple of its operations. The CIB’s stated mandate was to finance large,
revenue-generating infrastructure projects by attracting up to four dollars
of private investment for every dollar invested by the government. CIB
projects would be, therefore, PPPs facilitated by the federal governmentand backed by federal money.
Early analyses of this structure suggested that private financing would
double the cost of projects, compared to public financing.17 Still, large
financial firms and pension plans on the hunt for productive domestic
investment opportunities were quick to praise this model.

62

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation push

Critical studies of PPPs, including by the federal and numerous provincial
auditors general, suggest that they are regularly plagued by increased
project costs, high user fees and a lack of transparency. The CIB makes
this bad model worse by allowing the private sector to submit unsolicited
proposals to the Bank, thereby allowing important decisions about
infrastructure investment to be guided by the profit imperative of theprivate sector, rather than by a real assessment of need and the public
good.
The CIB’s first announced project was the Réseau express métropolitain
light rail network currently under construction in Montréal, Québec. This
PPP rail line is owned by a subsidiary of the Caisse de dépôt et placement duQuébec, the second largest pension fund in Canada. This project is a primeexample of the lack of transparency surrounding CIB investments, and it
has been rightly criticised by civil society groups for its anticipated impact
on the environment, fares, current ridership levels, and future costs for
operation and maintenance. Despite this criticism, the CIB has recently
touted other PPP transportation infrastructure, such as the for-profit toll
highway 407 north of Toronto, as good models for future investment.
As of September 2019, the CIB had announced only a handful of otherprojects, mostly in the transit, water and electricity sectors.18 However,there is significant potential for the CIB to fundamentally alter the waythat critical infrastructure is financed and operated in Canada.
Social impact bonds
Social impact bonds are a new form of privatisation gaining ground in
Canada. They primarily affect areas such as social services, education andhealth care. This model allows investors to profit from public services.
Investors provide up-front financing for public programmes like healthpromotion and disease prevention, childcare or ending homelessness. If
certain outcomes are achieved, the government pays back investors forthe initial programme cost, plus a profit.

63

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation pushSocial impact bonds use private lending to provide a social and public
good, while also generating a profit for investors. The problem with thistype of financing is that it runs the risk of prioritising investor returns
over service delivery.
Social impact bonds are gaining traction in Canada. The governments ofManitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario, as well as the federal government,
are exploring this new model. The federal government’s 2018 Falleconomic update announced $755 million CAD over 10 years in seedfunding for “social financing” to charities, non-profit groups and otherorganisations serving a social purpose.19 An additional $50 million over
two years will be used to increase access to and knowledge of social
finance by social purpose organisations.
CUPE is concerned that the federal government’s plans to encourage
private lending to social and community groups will open the door to
privatisation of vital services. It is important that workers, service users
and service providers work together to stop this new form of profiteering,and push for well-funded, strong public services.20

Conclusion
Public sector unions are on the front line of the fight against privatisation.
CUPE and our counterparts have worked hard for many years to highlightthe harm that privatisation does to the public sector, to public services
and to the people who depend on those services. At its 2017 national
convention, the Canadian Labour Congress passed a resolution calling for
an investigation and report on new forms of privatisation, an example ofthe continued importance that this issue holds for the labour movementin Canada. We will continue to work to reverse the privatisation of public
services, in all its forms.

64

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation push

At the same time, CUPE and our counterparts in the labour movement
want to articulate a pro-public vision for the future, and not merely
criticise the disproven narratives of past privatisation and austerity
agendas. Therefore, it is important for us to advance principles that will
ensure fully funded and robust public services such as fair taxation and the
expansion of public revenues, direct government funding of infrastructure,municipal financing authorities, public-public partnerships,21 and theclosure of state-sponsored PPP agencies. Democratic, public control ofthe public purse is essential to this vision. Our public services do not exist
for the enrichment of the private sector, but for the enrichment of ourlives.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robert Ramsay is Senior Research Officer at
CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
Robert holds a degree in Human Geography
from the University of Toronto, and a degree in
Communications, Culture, and Technology from
Georgetown University. Before being appointed
Senior Research Officer, Robert worked as a
Professional Officer at the Canadian Association of
University Teachers. He has held various roles in the
Photo: Denny Alexander

labour movement for over 15 years.

Endnotes
1

Ministry of Infrastructure (2019) “Market Update 2019,” Government of Ontario, 10 September. https://news.ontario.ca/moi/en/2019/09/government-launches-2019-ontario-p3-market-update.html (retrieved 10 September 2019).

2

See Canada Infrastructure Bank website (www.cib-bic.ca). Also see Infrastructure Canada
overview (30 May 2019). https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/CIB-BIC/index-eng.html#about (retrieved 11 January 2020).

3

NUPGE (2016) ‘60% of Social Impact Bond funds spent on overhead and profits’, 9 March.
https://nupge.ca/content/60-social-impact-bond-funds-spent-overhead-and-profits (retrieved 10
Septmeber 2019).

65

Canada: Local insourcing in face of national privatisation push

4

CUPE (2015) ‘What provincial auditors have said about P3s’, Fact Sheet, 15 June. https://cupe.
ca/fact-sheet-what-provincial-auditors-have-said-about-p3s (retrieved 23 September 2019)5

Morrow, A. (2014) ‘Government-managed projects could save Ontario money: Auditor General’, The Globe & Mail, 9 December. The relevant chapter of the Auditor General’s report isavailable on the website (www.auditor.on.ca), 9 December 2014. http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/
content/annualreports/arreports/en14/305en14.pdf (retrieved 23 September 2019).

6

Reynolds, K. (2014) ‘New BC Auditor General report finds public private partnerships double
the cost of borrowing’, Policy Note, 30 October. https://www.policynote.ca/new-bc-auditor-general-report-finds-public-private-partnerships-double-the-cost-of-borrowing/ (retrieved 19 July2019).

7

Reynolds, K. (2018) ‘Public-Private Partnerships in British Columbia, Update 2018’, Columbia
Institute. https://columbiainstitute.eco/research/public-private-partnerships-in-bc-update-2018/(retrieved 4 February 2020).

8

APTN (2015) ‘Hurting for Work’, APTN Investigates, news documentary, 30 October. Film canbe viewed at: https://aptnnews.ca/2015/10/30/hurting-for-work/ (retrieved 17 September 2019).

9

Smirl, E. (2018) ‘Trashed: How outsourcing solid waste collection kicks workers to the curb’,
CCPA Manitoba, 6 February.

10

See Owen Sound council documents,3 December 2012. https://owensound.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/31598?preview=32952 (retrieved 24 September 2019).

11

See Owen Sound council documents, 30 March 2017. https://owensound.civicweb.net/filepro/
documents/search?exact=recommendation%202121.2&page=1&preview=76234 (retrieved 24 September 2019).

12

Busch, T. (2016) “Town parting ways with EPCOR,” The Taber Times, 7 September.

13

For example, Smith, G. (2017) “Taber, EPCOR end operating agreement for water systems,”
Lethbridge News Now, February 1.

14

Busch, T. (2016) ‘Town parting ways with EPCOR’, The Taber Times, 7 September.

15

Komadina, S. (2017) ‘Town of Taber takes over water and sewage services from EPCOR’, Global
News, 2 February.

16

A number of organisations monitor this data. CanInfra tracks the estimates at: https://www.
caninfra.ca/insights-6 (retrieved 2 February 2020).

17

Sanger, T. (2017) ‘Creating a Canadian infrastructure bank in the public interest’, CanadianCentre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), 20 March.

18

For a list of Canada Infrastructure Bank current projects, see https://cib-bic.ca/en/projects/.

19

Government of Canada (2018) “Investing in Middle Class Jobs: Fall Economic Statement
2018,” 21 November. https://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2018/docs/statement-enonce/chap02-en.
html#s1 (retrieved 24 September 2019). The Social Finance Fund is introduced in Chapter 2 ofthat publication.

20

See, for example, the exhaustive work that the National Union of Public and General
Employees (NUPGE) has done on social impact bonds: https://nupge.ca/issues/social-impact-bonds.

21

For example, see Chapter 11 of this book, ‘Knowledge creation and sharing throughpublic-public partnership in the water sector’.

66

Chapter 4

Problems without benefits?
The Danish experience
with outsourcing andremunicipalisation
By Thomas Enghausen

In this chapter, we look closely at exposure to competitiveness in the
public sector in Denmark. We review experiences in key parts of publicwelfare service, focusing on concrete examples of remunicipalisation.
In conclusion, we present the Danish Union of Public Employees’ (FOA)
strategy for better regulation.1
Following bankruptcies in elder care, poor quality and high profits
in social services, and many unsuccessful outsourcings in the areaof cleaning services, there is increased recognition of the need to findalternatives to liberalisation policies. For example, there have beencases of remunicipalisation to redress failed experiments in outsourcing
ambulance services and refuse collection. In fact, we are seeing concrete
initiatives to curb profits on a variety of social services from thegovernment. Only time will tell whether this is a lasting trend.

Contracting out in Denmark
The public sector in Denmark is relatively large and characterisedby a high degree of contracting out in various forms, with significant
differences across sectors. Public consumption2 amounted to 25 per centof gross domestic product in 2017, equivalent to €70 billion, while in 2018
the degree of contracting out in municipalities was estimated at 27 percent of the services that can formally be handled by private companies.

67

Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

DENMARK OF CASES 35
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 29
Municipalisation 6

Health care &social services

8

Waste

Energy132Highlights

Local government

12

Building cleaning and maintenance 7
Construction 1
Human resources 3
Other 1• Privatisation in the elderly care sector, imposed by flawed "free choice"policies, has proved uneconomical, with 54 cases of bankruptcy of private
providers since 2013.
• The municipality of Frederiksberg (part of Copenhagen) saved even moremoney than it expected when it decided to collect and manage its waste
through its own, employee-led company in 2011.
• Several examples of remunicipalisation and insourcing of cleaning services
by local goverments and hospitals because of quality problems and labour
standards.

In addition, the country has a long tradition of semi-public institutions,which are organised as legally independent and not-for-profit initiatives– so-called ‘institutions with self-ownership’.
Traditionally, there has been outsourcing of cleaning, technical services
as road maintenance and bus transportation, along with ambulanceservices. Other areas of the welfare state such as elder care, social services
and health have traditionally been run by public institutions. Today,
however, the private sector has an increasing share of the services pie,
partly as a result of rules on free choice between public and private carefor the citizens.3
For example, Danish law confers on municipalities the responsibility toensure that elderly citizens have the possibility to choose between at least
two alternative service providers. The municipality can choose either to
use a private provider and a public one, or to replace the public service
with a minimum of two private providers. In the case of primary schools,
while they are in majority public, there is a long tradition of private but

68Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

non-profit institutions (it is against the law to establish a primary school
as a for-profit company).

Consequences of multiple bankruptcies in elder care
In recent years, Denmark has experienced an increasing number ofbankruptcies in elder care services, with 54 since 2013. These bankruptcies
have affected over 13,000 citizens and well over 2,000 employees.4
Since 2003, municipalities are required by law to offer alternative municipal
homecare service options for the elderly (known as ‘free choice’). The
degree of outsourcing varies from municipality to municipality because it
depends on the number of citizens opting for private suppliers.
The relatively large number of bankruptcies must be seen in the context
of a change in legal requirements in 2013, which were meant to make iteasier for municipalities to give elderly people free choice between private
and public home care through tenders. But as a side effect the legislation
has multiplied bankruptcies, presumably because of increased pricecompetition. Since the wave of bankruptcies began, many municipalities
have reverted to the ‘old’ model where the municipality is the main
provider of elder care, and where there is competition in terms of quality,
not price.

Prevent bankruptcies and secure freedom of speech
In 2017, Parliament reached a political agreement to limit the numberof bankruptcies and to mitigate its effects if they nevertheless occur.5
Municipalities are now required to place greater emphasis on the financial
robustness of the private companies, including requirements for a bankguarantee. At the same time, the municipalities must have a greater focus
on the quality of the services.

69

Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

The parties behind the agreement also gave employees in private carefirms better opportunities to exercise their freedom of speech andopenly report conditions in the private company to the municipality. FOA
particularly supports this last part of the agreement, which addresses
a major concern. FOA believes that the municipalities lose access tosignificant information on the service offered by private companies
if employees do not have this direct communication channel with themunicipality when they need to report problems.
However, FOA still has doubts on whether the agreement can preventand mitigate bankruptcies. FOA has therefore formulated its own
recommendations as a supplement to the political agreement. FOA
recommends, among other things, that the municipalities demand
guarantees from the suppliers that they can afford to follow the collective
agreements on wage and working conditions. The recommendations also
include a central certification (approval) model in which financial statusof the suppliers can be taken into account (as is the practice in other areasof the public sector).

Case l: Care for the elderly in Aarhus, Denmark
The municipality of Aarhus (Denmark’s second largest municipality) abandoned competition for home care through calls for tenders in 2018. Instead, the municipality has chosen a more limited
model with the approval of a single private supplier in addition to
the municipality’s own services to residents.
The shift from a high degree of competition to very limitedcompetition took place after two providers of home care to elderly
people went bankrupt. The bankruptcies were initially followed bya new tender, but then the last supplier pulled out of the market.
The main reason was that it was not possible to make good moneyin this sector.

70

Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

After this, Aarhus reintroduced the so-called ‘approval model’.
Under this model, private companies can be approved to provide
home care, but only at a price based on the municipality’s averagecosts rather than through tender.
In 2018, the number of customers with private home help had
dropped twofold compared to 2014.6

Better regulation of private companies in social
services
Over the past few years there has been a wide debate about private forprofit companies as providers of social services (e.g. providing housing
for children and adults with physical or mental challenges). FOA has
presented several examples of private companies delivering poor
quality services while the owners reap large cash rewards. One example
highlights a very large profit from the 2017 sale of the private institutionSøbækskolerne for the sum of €18 million in total (including a special
bonus) to multinational corporation Olivia A/S. The institution delivers
services to young people with special needs, both educational training
and housing. However, the sale did not transfer the physical assets, only
the obligations to provide the service. This allows the previous ownerto continue to earn a large income by renting out buildings to the new
supplier.7
FOA has proposed much stricter market regulation for social services.
The Danish legislation for private schools is a good example to follow: It
only allows ‘non-profit’ companies, while at the same time ensuring that
there are no personal interests (profit) at stake. Similar legislation forsocial services would ensure that money be invested in the core services.

71

Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

At the same time, there is a need for increased supervision and control
of private companies, including financial supervision. Unfortunately,
national-level negotiations for new and reinforced state supervisionbroke down in the fall of 2018.
With a new government now in place, however, we expect to see work
initiated to strengthen both regulation and control in this area. As thegovernment itself put it this work will centre on ‘how to ensure thatno profit is taken out at private day care centres and social services, forexample, according to the same model that applies today for private
schools’.8

Public alternative for ambulance services
In Southern Denmark, one of the country’s five regions, ambulance
operations were remunicipalised in 2016. This happened after new private
supplier BIOS Ambulance Services went bankrupt.
Back in 2015, the ambulance company BIOS took over a large part of theambulance services in the region. The company then won the tender incompetition with Falck A/S. Until then, in most of the country Falck A/S
had monopoly-like status as the only private supplier while the public
sector only played a role as a provider in parts of the Capital Region.
In 2016, operations were taken over by the region, which has kept
spending at a similar level while securing savings of about 15 per centcompared to the old contract with Falck A/S. At the time, the region did
not want to issue a new call for tenders with only one company remaining
on the market.
In late 2019, all regions were to discuss a new strategy for the area basedon a joint report called Strengthened competition in the ambulance market.9
The report points very specifically to the need for a public alternative to72

Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

private companies in the area as the only way to ensure fair competition
and to end de facto monopoly. FOA has closely followed developmentsin this area and, as a trade union, we have played a very active role in
the remunicipalisation given FOA has the collective agreement with theregions for the public ambulance services.

Refuse collection goes back to municipalities
Since 2011, the municipality of Frederiksberg (part of the Capital of
Copenhagen, but administratively independent from the city) has been
responsible for collecting household waste. It has been very cost-effective
for the municipality and thus for residents – resulting in savings of 13 percent. The municipality’s own employees work in the municipally owned
company Frederiksberg Renovation, collecting garbage from roughly
50,000 households.
An interim report prepared for the municipality after the first year of
municipal management (2011) estimated that Frederiksberg had beenable to operate this municipal service for DKK 45-46 million (€6-6.1
million). When former supplier R98 was responsible for the collection, it
cost approximately DKK 53 million a year (€7 million). The municipality
of Frederiksberg had a budget of DKK 48 million (€6.4 million) for the
first year of operations: ‘We had expected savings of just under 10 per
cent, but “Frederiksberg Renovation” has managed to do the work for 13
per cent less’.10
By way of background for this remunicipalisation, the task of refuse
collection was put out to tender in 2010 when the long-standing
monopoly of non-profit company R98 in the capital was put to an end
by The Danish Competition Authority. The competition authority felt theprivate agreement should be subject to competition.
Whereas municipal authorities in Frederiksberg then decided, after a73

Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

tender, to take over the management instead of handing over the task
to private companies, the City of Copenhagen chose to outsource refuse
collection without submitting its own bid for the work.
In the City of Copenhagen, outsourcing initially caused some problems,and a labour conflict arose following severe cuts after takeover by theprivate company. This happened in spite of specific procurement
requirements from the city aiming to protect the employees. Thus,
between 2014 to 2016 the private provider participated in a research
project on the working environment, which concluded that the wage rates
in the private collective agreement contributed to a poor and burdensome
working environment, despite the will and the initiatives to improve it.11
R98, the company that had previously held the contract, was a 111-yearold non-profit, fund-owned company with a long-term contract forsolid waste collection. The company was characterised by high social
commitment, good working conditions and a focus on work environment
improvements, as well as a relatively low absenteeism rate. The company
was not included in the call for tenders. Instead, the company was
dissolved in connection with the tender process, mainly for politicalreasons.
Following the failed outsourcing experiment, Copenhagen has recently
decided to take back large parts of the contract. The process of
remunicipalisation in the capital city has since been followed by several
cases in other municipalities. In 2019, 21 out of 98 municipalities inDenmark have chosen to take services back in house, in whole or in part.12

Debate on cleaning services
Denmark has a long tradition of outsourcing and competition, particularlyof cleaning services. At the same time, there has been debate for many
years about poor performance in terms of quality for the users as well as74

Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

low pay and working conditions for the employees.13
In 2014, a government commission formed to map productivity in
Denmark pointed specifically to outsourcing of cleaning services as a path
to higher productivity in the public sector. The commission used a 2012
review of only 10 municipalities’ experiences with outsourcing cleaningtasks as the basis for encouraging competition for social services suchas health, as well as elder and child care. According to the commission,
outsourcing resulted in ‘savings of between 13 and 54 per cent either withthe same quality as before or better’.14
In this context, the commission highlighted the ‘successful’ outsourcingof cleaning at schools in Aarhus. FOA questioned the commission’s
recommendations, and highlighted the poor results of outsourced
cleaning in general, and specifically in Aarhus.
A few years after outsourcing, private suppliers in Aarhus had only
managed to win and keep contracts to clean 25 out of 40 schools. This
happened mainly because of unacceptable quality after the outsourcing.
One private company even terminated some contracts on its own will
because the company acknowledged it could not live up to promises ofcheap, high quality cleaning.
Meanwhile FOA, in collaboration with one of the other large trade unions(3F), has accumulated experience with the remunicipalisation of cleaning
in municipalities and hospitals, including in university hospitals in
Aarhus and Copenhagen (see Case II). Remunicipalisation has happened
through cancellation of contracts as well as non-renewal at contract
expiry, with some municipalities having submitted their own in-housebid for the contract.15

75

Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

Case ll: In-house cleaning at the Copenhagen university hospital
On 1 August 2015, Rigshospitalet (the university hospital in
Copenhagen, RH) took back cleaning services from the ISS service
company. This happened after the contract was terminatedprematurely by the hospital due to complaints about quality.
ISS had one of two major cleaning contracts. There is no fullaccounting of how much RH has paid in total to ISS, but it isestimated to be at least DKK 46 million (€6.1 million) per year.
Since coming back in house, the service centre at RH has taken
charge of the cleaning for DKK 2 million (€267,000) less per year.
The hospital department has also promised to improve service
quality.
When RH took over the work, all workers including managers
became public employees, and wages increased to the level set in
the public agreement.
FOA’s assessment is that all service components are now interconnected, which leads to better quality, proper working conditions
that meet the requirements of working environment rules and thecollective agreement, while also providing savings for the hospital.
How is it possible? Presumably, ISS extracted a huge profit out of
the contract. In order to do that, they lowered quality and working
conditions beyond what even the private collective agreement hadallowed.16

FOA’s strategy: welfare without profit
Over the past 30 years, Denmark’s welfare state has been exposed tocompetition. And outsourcing has often led to deteriorating employment

76

Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

conditions. In 2016, the FOA Congress committed to: ‘Counteract the
many outsourcings and privatisations that lead to cuts. We will work tobring services that have been put into private hands back to the public’.
Since then, FOA work on outsourcing and privatisation has followed a
two-pronged approach:•By improving our position on and arguments against outsourcing,unnecessary profit and tax evasion;•

By ensuring that outsourcing and other forms of marketisation do notharm employees’ wages, working conditions, working environment
and job security.

Bankruptcies in elder care, poor quality and high profits in social services
such as ambulance services and refuse collection, and many unsuccessful
outsourcings in the area of cleaning have led to increased recognition andsupport for FOA’s criticism. At the end of 2019, FOA is seeing concrete
initiatives towards limiting profits in social services. Time will showwhether this trend towards more welfare and less profit will continue.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Thomas Enghausen is Deputy Chairman for
the Danish Union of Public Employees FOA,
Denmark’s third largest labour union. He is
responsible for the union’s economic and politicalsector, focusing on tax politics, economic policy,
insourcing and outsourcing. He holds a degree
in pedagogy and has previously held various
positions related to this field, including Chairman
for the Association for Social Pedagogy for almost
10 years.

77Problems without benefits? The Danish experience with outsourcing and remunicipalisation

Endnotes
1

FOA is Denmark’s third largest trade union with nearly 200,000 members and 38 local
branches. FOA’s members are primarily employed in the welfare service, which is largely
financed by the public sector, but increasingly includes private providers.

2

The amount of resources allocated by the government for the functioning of public services,such as the purchases in consumer goods, salaries, social transfers and so forth.

3

See Table 3 in the following report: https://www.sum.dk/Aktuelt/Nyheder/Aeldre/2018/September/~/media/Filer%20-%20dokumenter/2018/Servietjek%20frit%20valg/Servicetjek-af-det-frievalg-paa-aeldre.pdf

4

www.foa.dk and www.Konkursindex.dk

5

Bankruptcy Policy Agreement, available at: https://www.fm.dk/nyheder/pressemeddelelser/2017/10/skaerpede-leverandoerkrav-skal-forebygge-konkurser-i-hjemmeplejen

6

About home care in Aarhus Municipality for example:
https://hsfo.dk/oestjylland/Mislykket-udbud-koster-Aarhus-den-sidste-leverandoer-af-privat-hjemmehjaelp/artikel/152810

7

About ‘Profit on welfare’ (FOA): https://www.fagbladetfoa.dk/Articles/2018/05/28/Profit-paavelfaerd

8

Refer to policy on social welfare in: Government of Denmark (2019) ‘Retfærdig retning forDanmark’, Policy Paper https://ufm.dk/ministeriet/regeringsgrundlag-vision-og-strategier/regeringen-mette-rasmussens-forstaelsespapir/retfaerdig-retning-for-danmark_2019-06-25_endelig.pdf

9Danish Regions (2019) ‘Strengthening competition in the ambulances market. Recommendations from the regional working group on increased competition in the ambulance area’.
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/minister-vil-stramme-loven-i-koelvandet-paa-falck-skandale

10

About refuse collection in the metropolitan area, see for example:
https://www.kfst.dk/pressemeddelelser/kfst/2006/20061025-affaldsmonopol-skrottes/

11

About the research project on the working environment: https://amid.dk/media/4560/sundeskraldemaend-slutrapport.pdf

12

https://tilmeld.kl.dk/temadag-renovationsafdeling-201913

Evaluation of the effects of the transfer of cleaning services: RUC (2017)https://rucforsk.ruc.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/60148155/Medarbejderkonsekvenser_Endelig_rapport_.
pdf; Other reports from same project: https://typo3.ruc.dk/effektdoku/

14

http://produktivitetskommissionen.dk/media/165599/slutrapport02042014.pdf

15

About the Productivity Commission and Aarhus Municipality for example:
http://produktivitetskommissionen.dk/media/165599/slutrapport02042014.pdf

16

Remunicipalisation at Rigshospitalet:
https://www.denoffentlige.dk/rigshospitalet-dropper-rengoeringsfirmaet-iss

78

Chapter 5

Africa: Private waste service failure
and alternative vision
By Vera Weghmann

Effective waste management is essential for public health and formaintaining a sustainable environment. If not properly managed, waste
can pose serious health problems and pollute our waters, soils and air.
Figures from 2012 reveal that the waste collected in Africa was only 55
per cent of the total waste generated.1 Consequently, residents are forced
to deal with the waste themselves, often through illegal dumping andopen burning. Open burning is a major contributor to high levels of air
pollution in Africa. In 2013 an estimated 712,000 people in Africa died asa consequence of dirty air, which was a 36 per cent increase from 1990.2
Illegally dumped waste clogs rivers and drains, which causes floods.
Stagnant water is also a breeding ground for mosquitos and other insects
that can spread malaria, the Zika virus or the dengue fever. A lot of wasteends up in the sea via rivers, which carry trash over long distances.
According to Greenpeace, 12 million tonnes of plastic are entering theworld’s oceans every year. Ten of the most polluting rivers in the world
are responsible for 90 per cent of plastic in the oceans, and two of theserivers are located in Africa, namely the Nile and the Niger.3
Even if the waste is collected, many African countries struggle toeffectively deal with it. Many cities have only one official landfill site forthe whole city, which often overflows and poses serious health and safetyconcerns. For instance, Nairobi, Kenya has only one legal dumpsite,
Dandora, which was declared full in 1996. More than 30 years later it
is still operating. Dandora is an open landfill, surrounded by residential
areas. The dumpsite puts the health of nearby residents at risk. The
Nairobi River, running right across the dumpsite, carries polluted water79

Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

Open dump

47

Sanitary landfill

29Open burning

9

Recycling

Incineration

Other

4

2

9

Waste disposal (percentage)

Source: Hoornweg, D.; Bhada-Tata, P. ( 2012) What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.
World Bank. In: UNEP (2018) Africa Waster Management Outlook.P.37

downstream where it is used for irrigation of food products and as
drinking water. But most of the waste in Nairobi does not even end up in
the official landfill.4 Instead, private waste collectors dump the collected
waste at one of the over 70 illegal dumpsites scattered throughout thecity.5
Overwhelmed by the size of the waste problem, many African countries
have turned to the private sector. However, as this essay will outline indetail, privatisation is not the solution for effective waste management.
The essay will thus illustrate how workers and communities successfully
resisted the privatisation of waste management in Egypt, leading toremunicipalisation of waste management in its three biggest cities,
namely Cairo, Alexandra and Giza. Subsequently, we point to Africa’s zerowaste potential. The next section reflects on the valuable contributionof the informal sector to waste management, and on the potential andchallenges of formalising the informal sector. Finally, the advantage of
publicly run waste management services is outlined. We conclude bydrawing out the main lessons learned from Africa’s experiences with
waste management privatisation and its alternatives.

80Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

The failure of privatisation
Right from the beginning, the experiences with privatised waste
management in Africa demonstrated its failure. Cameroon was among thefirst countries in Africa to privatise part of its waste management services.
Already in 1969, Douala outsourced the management of its municipal
waste and Yaoundé followed 10 years later. In its evaluation of the waste
management privatisation, the United Nations Environment Programme
classified it as a ‘failed PPP’.6 The performance of waste company Hygiène
et Salubrité du Cameroun (HYSACAM) had been poor and eventually thecompany withdrew entirely in 1991 when economic crises and structuraladjustment destabilised the country.7 The waste catastrophe perpetuatedand in 1994 the World Bank intervened with an emergency programme
to clean up the two cities and especially the open dumps. However,despite these problems, HYSACAM was contracted again in 1998 andpublic-private partnership (PPP) was expanded to 17 more cities acrossthe country. Yet again, HYSACAM’s performance remained wanting.
Five years into the contract the company still could not access 60 per
cent of the neighbourhoods, as the pathways were too narrow for theirequipment and informal workers continued to serve these areas.8 Afternearly 50 years of privatised waste services, an efficient and effective
waste management system has yet to be introduced in Cameroon.9
A major problem with privatised waste services is that the privatisation is
only taking place in areas deemed profitable. Poorer urban areas as wellas rural areas see waste piling up. For example, Tunisia has a long historyof privatised waste services, strongly promoted by the World Bank andother development institution. In 2010, UN-Habitat praised Tunisia forits ‘successful experience with [waste management] privatization’.10
However, if the service functioned well in the city of Sousse only 10 per
cent of rural areas’ waste was being collected. This is very significant
given that in 2018 over 30 per cent of Tunisia’s population lived in rural
areas.11 Similarly, in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania the privatisation of waste81Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

services has improved coverage in the capital, but poorer neighbourhoods
are left out. Consequently, 70 per cent of the waste in Dar es Salaam iseither disposed informally, illegally dumped into waterways and fields,
or burned.12
Another common side effect of privatised waste management is the
side-lining of informal waste workers. Informal waste workers arecontributing significantly to waste management in Africa by doing mostof the recycling. For example, in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’s informal waste
workers are estimated to recycle 80 per cent of plastic bottles, which arethen sold to national factories for processing and sale to national andinternational markets.13 In South Africa, approximately 80 to 90 per centof the paper and packaging waste are recovered by the informal sector,
thereby saving municipalities millions of dollars every year in freed
landfill space. Despite the fact that the informal waste workers deliver
such a vital environmental service, when the private company Averda
took over the Genesis landfill near Johannesburg in September 2016
it attempted to exclude them. Many of the informal workers had beenworking at the landfill for 17 years. The company used intimidation toprevent the informal workers from accessing the grounds. In June 2018
Averda hired a private security company, called the Red Ants, whichraided the homes of the informal workers outside of the landfill andviolently attacked them, resulting in 19 people hospitalised, four withserious injuries.14

The struggle against privatised waste management inCairo
In Egypt, in the 1940s the Zabaleen Christian community on the outskirtsof Cairo set up a very sophisticated waste management system. Consistingof approximately 70,000 people, this community is believed to sort
15,000 tons of waste daily, which represents two-thirds of Cairo’s overall
waste. Over time, this waste management system has achieved recycling82

Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

rates of 85 per cent.15 By means of comparison, the average recycling rateof municipal waste in the EU-27 and Norway in 2014 was 43 per cent,with Germany achieving the highest rate with 64 per cent.16 Pigs are an
essential component of the Zabaleen recycling and sorting system, as
they feed on the food waste. The Zabaleen community consumes someof the pigs themselves, and others are sold to hotels and other touristic
locations in Egypt. This serves as a source of extra income and a form ofsavings.17 The Zabaleen waste management system demonstrates that it
is possible to create a circular economy even in megacities such as Cairo.
Despite the effectiveness of the Zabaleen waste management system,
the government decided to privatise waste management in Cairo in theearly 2000s following privatisations in Alexandria and Giza (see Table 1).
The privatisation efforts came as part of a wider gentrification process
as the government pursued a hidden agenda in terms of securing accessto land for urban development projects and land speculation activities.
The Zabaleen settlement, which became known as ‘Garbage City’, wasseen as a lucrative urban investment opportunity due to its geographicalproximity with Cairo’s historical – and hence touristic – quarters. As
such, the privatisation reflects the government’s ambition to relocate theZabaleen out of the city centre and into new suburban settlements.18
The private companies were only able to recycle some 20 per cent of
the waste,19 compared to the Zabaleen’s earlier 85 per cent.20 Unlike
the Zabaleen, the private companies did not collect the waste from thenarrow streets or tall buildings. Instead, they set up central collection
points and expected residents to deposit their waste into large bins atthese points. Residents were charged for the waste collection service
through their electricity bills, effectively giving the private companies‘ownership’ over the collected waste. Most of the companies promised
to give the Zabaleen some 50 per cent of the garbage in return for their
help in sorting. However, this represented only a fraction of the income
the Zabaleen had earned before. In other words, through the privatisation

83

Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

the Zabaleen lost their livelihood. Some Zabaleen saw as much as a 75 percent drop in earnings as a result.21
Residents and the Zabaleen resisted the privatisation. In Giza, hundredsof Zabaleen demonstrated in February 2003 to campaign against the
influx of foreign companies. In Cairo, just six months after starting
operations, the private companies Urbaser and FCC incurred municipal
fines of US$2 million due to citizen complaints of irregular collection andinadequate street sweeping. Moreover, hundreds of citizens in Cairo andGiza filed lawsuits against the government for adding the collection fees
onto their electricity bills. Consumers won the case and the ruling ended
the billing system in Giza, Cairo and Alexandria. Eventually, the Egyptian
government was forced to accept that their privatisation experiment had
failed.22 When the 15-year contracts with the private companies cameto an end in 2017 and 2018 the government chose not to renew them.
Instead, a ‘new’ system drawing on Zabaleen door-to-door collection was
gradually implemented.23 In all three cities, the waste collection services
were remunicipalised. Alexandria was the first city to remunicipalise thewaste service as the private company Veolia terminated the contract in2011, four years earlier than planned (see Table 1). Public company Nahdet
Misr, a subsidiary of the state enterprise Arab Constructors, started tooperate the waste management services in Alexandria in December 2011.
Nahdet Misr partnered with the informal sector, officially subcontracting
them for the waste collection services.2484Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

City

Year ofprivatisation

Value ofcontract

Length ofcontract

Company

Remunicipalisation

Alexandria

2000

$446
million15 years

CGEA Onyx, a divisionof Vivendi, which
later became Veolia
Environment

In 2011 Veolia terminated thecontract (4 years early).
The public sector company Nahdet
Misr which is a subsidiary of
the state owned enterprise ArabContractors is now in charge of
the waste management

Giza (Dokki,
Agouza and
Imbaba districts

2002

$7.6
million15 years

FCC and Urbaser

Cairo (eastern andwestern zones)

2003$25 million
a year15 years

FCC and Urbaser

Contract terminated and was notrenewedCairo (North)2002$11.5 million
a year15 years

AMA Arab Environment Company(AAEC)

Contract terminated and was notrenewedTable 1. Waste remunicipalisation in Egypt
Source: Van Niekerk, S. and Weghmann, V. (2019) Municipal Solid Waste Management in Africa and ArabCountries. Ferney-Voltaire, France: PSI.

Africa’s zero-waste potential
The Zabaleen demonstrate that there is a huge potential for zero-waste
programmes in Africa, as the waste composition is characterised by ahigh percentage of organic waste due to the preparation of fresh food,and the limited use of packaging in sold goods. The World Bank estimatesthat in Africa 57 per cent of waste is organic, 13 per cent is plastic, 9 percent is paper or cardboard, 4 per cent is glass, 4 per cent is metal, and theremaining 13 per cent is other materials.25 This is very different from thewaste composition in high-income countries, where only 28 per cent of
the waste is organic (see Graphs 1 and 2). Organic waste has been reusedfor centuries. Like the Zabaleen in Egypt, the method of feeding organic
waste to animals has been applied in other cities, for example in Sousse
in Tunisia, Moshi in Tanzania and, to a lesser extent, in Nairobi, Kenya.
Also, in the Ugandan capital Kampala, the Kasubi-Kawala neighbourhood
set up a waste management system for 75 per cent of organic waste,
which involves feeding animals, composting and making biofuel out of85

Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

Waste compositions in High-Income countries

Waste Composition in Africa

Others
17%

Metal
4%

Organic
28%

Metal
6%

Other
13%

Glass
4%

Glass
7%

Organic
57%

Plastic
13%

Plastic
11%

Paper
9%

Paper
31%

Source: Hoornweg, D.; Bhada-Tata, P. ( 2012) What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.
World Bank. Page 20 and 21

municipal organic waste. Most strikingly, Bamako, Mali has managed toachieve an estimated 85 per cent municipal waste valorisation rate byfeeding waste to animals and by reusing it through a traditional method
called ‘terreautage’, whereby unprocessed waste is sold to crop farmers
and partially composted waste is sold to vegetable farmers.26
The island of Zanzibar in Tanzania is also currently piloting an integrated
municipal waste management system with the aim of becoming a zerowaste island. In Zanzibar more than 80 per cent of the waste is of thewet organic type, so composting is key. The pilot programme started in
September 2017 in a low-income area of Zanzibar called Shauri Moyo,where 200 households are participating. Selected households received
bins and plastic bags to sort the waste into wet, dry and hazardous waste.
Eight workers – mostly women – from the local Shauri Moyo Waste
Management Society were given the responsibility of educating thehouseholds on waste segregation, collection and processing. This local
partner is an informal worker-led organisation, but salaries are paid by
the Zanzibar Urban Municipal Council.27 The workers receive a monthly
salary and they can make extra income from selling the compost as well86Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

as dry waste such as metal, plastics, glass and carton paper. The project
was launched by the Zanzibar Environmental Management Authority andthe public interest research and advocacy organisation Centre for Scienceand Environment in India, together with the local municipal councils ofZanzibar.28

Formalisation of waste services
The work that informal waste workers do is unhygienic, it bears severe
health and safety risks and is severely precarious; yet they make asignificant – but rarely recognised – contribution to waste management
systems in Africa. There is no reliable data on the number of informal
waste workers on the continent and there are great variations between
countries. In South Africa, there would be at least 90,000 informal waste
workers.29 In Nigeria, roughly 10,000 informal waste workers would beworking in Lagos alone.30 In comparison, Morocco’s figure would be much
lower with only 7,000 informal waste workers in the whole country.31
The example of Egypt shows that the failure of privatised waste
management services led to the inclusion of informal waste workers
into the formal economy. This formalisation of an already establishedand highly sophisticated waste management system represents anopportunity to enhance working conditions and pay for the informal
workers while also increasing the satisfaction of residents with the service.
Likewise, Zanzibar’s attempt to become a zero-waste island through an
integrated waste management system builds on the integration – andthus formalisation – of the informal economy.
However, formalisation becomes a problem when informal workers areincorporated into the formal system at lower wages and with poorer
working conditions than municipal waste workers. This happened, forinstance, in Dakar, Senegal. By the late 1990s waste services had begun tocollapse and rubbish began to accumulate in the streets and public spaces87Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative visionof Dakar. In reaction to this, a youth movement called Set/Setal (‘Be Clean/
Make Clean’) emerged. This movement involved youth cleaning andbeautifying their own neighbourhoods in Dakar. By 1990, the Set/Setal
youth had been recruited into a city-wide participatory system. Theseyouth were incorporated into the city waste management system but ata lower rate of pay and without benefits. The youth became responsible
for collecting and loading garbage onto the dump trucks bound for thecity’s outskirts. Although paid a daily rate, they were not given otherprotections and benefits, despite becoming the backbone of the waste
management system for the city at that time.32
Another problem with the formalisation of informal workers arises when
only a fraction of the informal waste workers gains formal employment.
This poses the question of what happens to the other informal waste
workers, whose livelihoods are at risk if they lose access to the waste. As
such, formalisation can deepen inequalities between a formally employed
workforce and informal waste workers.

Public alternatives
Algeria is demonstrating what can be achieved through a publicly run
waste management system. There is very little private sector involvementin the waste management system in Algeria, with only parts of a few cities
having chosen to privatise their waste collection. Since 2002, Algeria has
adopted an integrated waste management programme that is part ofits wider commitment to sustainable development. Algeria is a country
where climate change has been high on the agenda for decades because
of increasing desertification due to climate change. Algeria’s waste
infrastructure is financed by the central government and the managementof waste collection and disposal is funded by the ‘junk removal tax’,
whereby each household pays a fee to the municipality.33 The waste
collection rate is among the highest in Africa. In urban areas, roughly
90 per cent of the waste is collected while this rate is at 65-70 per cent88Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative visionin rural areas, which is extraordinarily high for Africa (e.g. as comparedwith 10 per cent rural waste collection in neighbouring Tunisia). Despite
the success of its publicly run waste management programme, Algeria
is planning to open to the way for more private sector involvement, asstrongly suggested by the international donor community.34
Rwanda is routinely praised for its cleanness. At the 2018 World Economic
Forum, UN Environment Programme Head Eric Solheim called the capital
Kigali the ‘cleanest city on the planet’ in terms of lack of rubbish on
the streets and green initiatives.35 Umuganda – the one–day-a-monthtradition of compulsorily community work – is the secret behind Kigali’s
cleanness. The communal labour of Umuganda has a long tradition in
the region that is nowadays Rwanda. Umuganda has been practiced
since pre-colonial kingdoms and it was an integral part of the patron–
client relationship.36 Literally translated, it means ‘coming together incommon purpose to achieve an outcome’. Residents pick up rubbish,
clear land for community gardens or help to build new roads, classrooms
or residential toilets for families that lack them. It is a day of cleaning up
but also an opportunity to catch up with the community. Umuganda iscompulsory: At least one person over 18 years of age per household must
attend. Residents are divided into neighbourhood work teams, with 20
to 150 families in each group. Non-attendance at Umuganda, without anapproved excuse from the local council, can lead to fines of RWF 5,000(US$6), which is a significant amount of money for most people in Rwanda
but an insignificant sum for the rich.37 Following Kigali’s example, Dar
es Salaam has also held a once a month cleaning day campaign in 2016.38
The initiative requires all Tanzanian citizens to participate in regularcleaning activities of public spaces. While some observers see Umuganda
as a creative contribution to a functioning public waste management
system based on traditional methods, others see it as a form of forced
labour.

89

Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

Conclusion: lessons learned
The privatisation of waste management only perpetuates the difficulties
in delivering effective waste services: i) it leaves most residents excluded
from the service (as the private companies usually only cover thewealthier areas in cities where people can afford to pay for the service);ii) it puts profit before the environment; and iii) it is a very expensive way
to run the service.
Africa has a great zero-waste potential by way of establishing a circular
economy, because a large proportion of the waste is organic. In fact,
traditional methods such as feeding waste to animals or using it to fertilise
the soil have been used for centuries. This type of local knowledge should
be encouraged. Unfortunately, as the experience of waste privatisation in
Egypt demonstrates, privatisation discourages local and integrated waste
management mechanisms.
Informal waste workers make a significant but rarely recognised
contribution to waste management systems in Africa. Privatisation ofwaste management often leads to informal waste workers losing accessto the waste – in other words, they lose access to their livelihoods. A
publicly owned and managed waste management system bears theopportunity to enhance circular-economy waste management byformalising the informal waste workers and by building upon theirknowledge and expertise. The Zabaleen’s circular economy system that
achieved a recycling rate of 85 per cent in Egypt or Zanzibar’s efforts tobecome a zero-waste island are cases in point.
An integrated and publicly owned and managed waste management
system can achieve great results. Algeria has achieved one of thehighest collection rates in Africa in the virtual absence of private sector
involvement. It established an integrated waste management system thatserves the entire population, and in particular the rural population. This90

Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

stands in stark contrast to private waste management systems known tocream off profitable city areas while neglecting the rest of the population.
Note: This chapter is based on a recent 2019 report published by Public Services
International entitled ‘Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in Africa
and Arab Countries’ written by Sandra Van Niekerk and Vera Weghmann.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Vera Weghmann is a Research Fellow for the
Public Services International Research Unit
(PSIRU) at the University of Greenwich, UK. She
is also a member of the Centre for Research on
Employment and Work (CREW). Before joining
the University of Greenwich in September 2017,
she completed her PhD at the Centre for Studyof Social and Global Justice at the University of
Nottingham, UK. Her research focuses on public
services, in particular waste management,
energy policy, energy democratisation,
remunicipalisation and public ownership as wellas independent trade unionism.

Endnotes
1

United Nations Environment Programme (2018) Africa Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi:
UNEP.

2

OECD (2016) The cost of air pollution in Africa. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
development/the-cost-of-air-pollution-in-africa_5jlqzq77x6f8-en

3

Greenpeace (2017) ‘How does plastic end up in the ocean?’ 22 August. Available at:https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/plastic-end-ocean/

4

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and UNDP (2016) A Circular Economy Solid
Waste Management Approach for Urban Areas in Kenya, p. 28. Available at: http://www.undp.
org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-energy/mdg-carbon/NAMAs/nama-on-circular-economy-solid-waste-management-approach-for-urb.html

5

UNEP (2018) Africa Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.

6

UNEP (2018) Africa Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP, p. 169.

91

Africa: Private waste service failure and alternative vision

7

Achankeng, E. (2003) Globalization, Urbanization and Municipal Solid Waste Management in
Africa. Available at: http://www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/Achankeng_Globalization_Urbanization_MSWMgmt_Africa.pdf

8Achankeng, E. (2003) Globalization, Urbanization and Municipal Solid Waste Management in
Africa. Available at: http://www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/Achankeng_Globalization_Urbanization_MSWMgmt_Africa.pdf

9

UNEP (2018) Africa Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP, p. 169.

10

UN-Habitat (2010) Solid Waste Management in the Worlds Cities. Available at:https://unhabitat.org/solid-waste-management-in-the-worlds-cities-water-and-sanitation-in-theworlds-cities-2010-2

11

Statistics available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=TN

12

UNEP (2018) Africa Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP, p. 81.

13

Oyake-Ombis, L. (2017) Awareness on environmentally sound solid waste management bycommunities and municipalities in Kenya, p. 34.

14

See: https://globalrec.org/2018/07/07/violent-assault-of-waste-pickers-near-genesis-landfill-johannesburg/

15

UNEP (2018) Africa Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.

16

Egyptian Streets (2016) ‘Cairo Leads European Cities in Recycling’, 27 July. Available at:https://egyptianstreets.com/2016/07/24/cairo-leads-european-cities-in-recycling/ (accessed
17/04/18).

17

RT Documentary (2016) ‘Zabbaleen: Trash Town. A whole community in Egypt that lives on
rubbish’, 15 May. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0s7WsoC528 (accessed
17/04/18)

18

Fahmi, W. and Sutton, K. (2019) ‘Cairo’s Contested Garbage: Sustainable Solid Waste Management and the Zabaleen’s Right to the City’. Sustainability, 2: 1765-1783.

19

Brinkley, H. (2019) Hardin’s imagined tragedy is pig shit: A call for planning to recenter thecommons. Planning Theory. Vol. 19, iss. 1, pp. 127-144.

20

Egyptian Streets (2016) Cairo Leads European Cities in Recycling, 27 July. Available at:https://egyptianstreets.com/2016/07/24/cairo-leads-european-cities-in-recycling/

21

NewsWeek Middle East (2017) ‘Cairo’s Treasures of Trash’, 24 May. Available at:
http://newsweekme.com/cairos-treasures-trash/ (retrieved 17 April 2018).

22

Wael Fahmi, W. and Sutton, K. (2010) ‘Cairo’s Contested Garbage: Sustainable Solid Waste
Management and the Zabaleen’s Right to the City’. Sustainability, 2 (6).

23

Egypt Today (2017) ‘Cabinet allocates LE 300 million for Cairo waste collection’, 5 October.
Available at: https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/26112/ Cabinet-allocates-LE-300-million-for-Cairo-waste-collection (retrieved 17 April 2018).

24

Elgazzar, R., El-Gazzar, R. and El-Gohary, M. (2017) Understanding the Dilemma of theMunicipal Solid Waste Management System in Alexandria, Egypt: Could ICT Improve the
System? International Federation for Information Processing, pp. 816–822.

25

Hoornweg, D.; Bhada-Tata, P. (2012) What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Urban development series. Knowledge papers no. 15. World Bank. Washington,DC

26

Wilson, D., Rodic, L. et al. (2012) ‘Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20
cities’. Waste Management & Research, 30(3): 237 –254.

92

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

27

Magazeti ya Tanzania (2018) ‘Zanzibar has become the first island in East Africa to have adecentralised waste management model’. Magazeti ya Tanzania, 3 July.

28

Centre for Science and Environment (2019) Pilot Project Decentralized Solid Waste Management. Available at: https://www.cseindia.org/pilot-project-decentralized-solid-waste-management-9604

29

WIEGO (2018) ‘WIEGO strongly condemns violent assault of reclaimers near Genesis landfill’.
Available at: https://www.wiego.org/resources/wiego-strongly-condemns-violent-assault-reclaimers-near-genesis-landfill30

Sesan, T. (2018) Inside the Cleaner Lagos Initiative. Lagos, Nigeria: Heinrich Boll Stiftung.
Available at: https://ng.boell.org/2018/01/15/inside-cleaner-lagos-initiative

31

See: https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/analysis/waste-not-international-financing-supportsmodernisation-waste-management-infrastructure-and32

See: https://lematin.ma/journal/2018/chiffonniers- inconnus-luttent-discretementcontre-changements-climatiques/286324.html

33

See: https://www.retech-germany.net/fileadmin/retech/05_mediathek/laenderinformationen/
Algerien_RA_ANG_WEB_0_Laenderprofile_sweep_net.pdf

34

See: https://www.retech-germany.net/fileadmin/retech/05_mediathek/laenderinformationen/
Algerien_RA_ANG_WEB_0_Laenderprofile_sweep_net.pdf

35

IPPmedia (2018) ‘Kigali rated the cleanest city in Africa’, 27 April. Available at:https://www.ippmedia.com/en/features/kigali-rated-cleanest-city-africa

36

Bates, S. (2012) From the Ground Up: The Historical Roots of Umuganda in Rwandan Economic
and Political Development. Master of Arts in Liberal Studies. Skidmore College. Paper 83.

37

See: http://perilofafrica.com/umuganda-rwandas-day- community-cleaning/

38

UCL (2017) Transforming Solid Waste Management in Dar es Salaam. Available at:https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ bartlett/development/sites/bartlett/files/2017_swm_ report.pdf

93Chapter 6

National, regional and local moves
towards public ownership in theUK
By David Hall

The movement for public ownership in the United Kingdom has generated
a new political debate about constructing a new public sector that is
effective, transparent and driven by local initiatives and accountability.
It has also spurred debate about sector-specific plans. The Labour Party
and the public campaign organisation We Own It are playing leadingroles in this debate, culminating in the former’s 2019 election manifesto1
and the latter’s proposals for democratic governance of the public
sector.2 The December 2019 general election in the UK was decisively
won by the Conservatives because they prioritised Brexit,3 which was theoverwhelming issue, but public support for public ownership of utilities
and public services is now very strong population-wide. Even the reelected Conservative government re-nationalised a major rail franchisein January 2020 and threatened to do the same with others.4
Central government controls the structure of most public services in
the UK. From 1980 onwards extensive privatisations were introduced
both through the sale of utilities and through the outsourcing of service
provision. Some privatised utilities, such as energy distribution and waterand sewerage, are organised regionally, but there are no elected regional
bodies in England. Responsibility for some services, however, is devolved
to the governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which has
led to significant variations across the UK.

94

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

UK OF CASES 110
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 96
Municipalisation 14

Health care &social services

Waste

Transport

15

12EnergyWater

Education

13

2

4

9

Local government

55

Housing 18
Food and catering 3
Public (green) space maintenance 4
Security and emergency services 1
Parking 1

Building cleaning and maintenance 9
Sports 2
Cultural activities 1

Highlights• Two major PFI companies went bankrupt in 2018 and 2019.
(Re)municipalisation cases increased from 64 in 2017 to 108 in 2019.
• Strong trend to reverse outsourcing to insourcing since 2008 acrossall sectors and foremost in local government (IT, housing, cleaning andmaintenance), as well as waste and transport.
• Public ownership of water, energy, rail, mail and NHS enjoys public support.
For example, 83% support public water.
• Remunicipalisation, insourcing and new public service experiences fuel thegrowing national demand for democratic public ownership.

IT 7
Construction 3
Prison 1
Human resources 2
Other 3Since the privatisation of the 1980s, outsourcing and austerity policies
have undermined the professional and financial capacity of central andlocal governments. Local democratic control of education and healthhas also been eroded by reducing the power of local councils to manage
schools, replacing public healthcare authorities with corporate trusts
and contractual relationships, and encouraging further privatisation andoutsourcing in both sectors. While they remain responsible for services
such as public transport and housing, the financial and legal regime
has made it very difficult for municipalities to provide such services
themselves.

95

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

Local services
Although outsourcing of services is becoming less and less popular at
all levels of government, it is perhaps most visible locally. A series ofstudies and reports have confirmed major problems with outsourcing inpractice.5 An illustrative case is the collapse of Carillion, a major British
construction and facilities management services company. With 420
contracts with municipalities across the UK, the company’s liquidation
sent shockwaves through government.6
Outsourcing has conventionally been promoted as a way of reducing
local government spending. In practice, however, many local councils
have started to insource service contracts in recent years partly because
insourcing is less expensive. Between 2016 and 2018, over 220 contracts
were brought back in house, involving 33 per cent of Conservativecontrolled councils, and 42 per cent of Labour-controlled councils. By
2019, 77 per cent of all local councils in the UK expected to bring some
services in house, stating that they believe insourcing saves money,
provides greater flexibility and simplifies management – and also
improves workers’ pay and conditions. As shown in Box I, these services
include building maintenance, waste collection, parks and leisureservices, and cleaning, as well as a number of large office operations.7

Photo: We Own It

96

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

Box I

Recent insourcing examples•Stoke City Council insourced its housing maintenance work in
2018, increasing workers’ pay by £1,000 per year, and improving
productivity and quality of service. The council has created anarms-length trading company to bid for other work, which lastyear produced a surplus of over £4 million for the council. Their
proactive procurement policy means that over 80 per cent ofmaterials are purchased locally.
•Islington Council has brought back roughly £380 million incleaning, building and grounds maintenance, and waste management services since 2011, helping improve the pay and conditionsof 1,200 frontline staff and generating net savings of approximately £14 million.
•Birmingham City Council, the largest in the UK, has terminateda 12-year-old contract with Capita costing £45 million per year,
and is creating a new in-house team to redesign and simplify IT
systems, including better ways of using data to provide services
and enable citizens to access information and services online. It is
expecting to save a total of £45 million as a result.8•In 2019, a new nation-wide mutual insurance scheme, Local
Government Mutual,9 was created by a group of municipalities
expecting to make significant savings for local councils, who are
currently paying over £600 million in insurance premia.10

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the UK were set up under thePrivate Finance Initiative. Despite the fact that this policy has now beenabandoned by all parties, over 700 such schemes still remain. These bring97

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

costly financial commitments up to 2051 and ongoing problems. Some
Private Finance Initiative projects have been terminated and brought backin house. Notable examples here include a series of major projects set up by
Transport for London and a waste management one in Manchester. Many
more PPPs collapsed and were replaced with direct services as a resultof the 2018 bankruptcy of Carillion, which was involved in 420 Private
Finance Initiative projects and other outsourced contracts. Of Carillion’s
18,000 employees, 14,000 were transferred to new employers – most ofthem as public sector employees to continue providing services.11
In addition to Labour’s proposals for national action, which will be
detailed below, many local initiatives are also directly linked to dealing
with climate change as a central challenge. Municipal companies
supply and generate renewable electricity in Nottingham, Bristol andelsewhere, and Norwich is constructing new municipal homes with highenergy efficiency. In public transport, Transport for London has alreadyintroduced over 200 electric buses and has now ordered 20 hydrogenfuelled buses.12 The improvement and extension of bus services in Greater
Manchester and elsewhere have similar effects of reducing carbon
emissions.
Continuing pressure for restoring public sector delivery of local services
can also be seen in three major sectors: buses, housing and health.
BusesEver since Margaret Thatcher’s government deregulated bus services in
Britain in the mid-1980s, very few municipalities have run their own
services – only Reading and Nottingham in England, and Lothian in
Scotland. While London regulates all bus services, government rules have
prevented other cities, such as Newcastle, from attempts to do this. Now
a vigorous campaign has persuaded the Mayor of Greater Manchester,
Andy Burnham, to propose re-regulating buses, using new powers undera 2017 Act of Parliament. The campaign mobilised to win cross-party

98

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

political support from Liberal Democrat councillors, a Green Member ofthe European Parliament, and a Conservative Member of Parliament, as
well as Labour MPs and councillors in the city. It also succeeded in getting
supportive motions from five of the 10 district councils in Manchester –and even, improbably, support from Prime Minister Boris Johnson for the
principle of a council-regulated bus network.13
Housing
Housing is a major issue in the UK. Central governments have made it
as difficult as possible for local councils to build and manage homes,
and Thatcher’s ‘right to buy’ policy means that existing council homes
continue to be sold into private ownership. Norwich City Council has
nevertheless found a way to build new public housing. Using some ofits own reserve funds as well as borrowing, the Council has created its
own 100 per cent municipal housing development company, the Norwich
Regeneration Company. The first result is a 100-home estate of low-risehousing that has been built to meet ‘Passivhouse’ principles of energy
efficiency. This has reduced annual energy costs by 70 per cent. Gail
Harris, the Labour council’s deputy leader responsible for housing said:‘It’s about people having good quality homes and low fuel bills. And
we plan to build a lot more’. The homes have been nominated for an
architecture award.14
HealthThe National Health Service (NHS) has been subjected to systematic
privatisation by outsourcing since 2012. This has led to a numberof disasters and created unnecessary complexity. Even the current
Conservative government is now recognising the problems and is expected
to modify legal rules to allow insourcing again. This is a major victory, but
the NHS still needs to be restored to an adequately funded public service
entirely provided by the public sector and protected against post-Brexit
trade deals that analysts say could force further privatisation. A major
campaign is underway to deal with this looming threat.15 The Thatcher

99

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

government introduced outsourcing of hospital cleaning, at great cost
to workers’ pay and conditions as well as to standards of service. This isbecause medical services and hospital maintenance are interrelated: as acase in point a 2017 study found that hospitals that outsourced cleaning
had significantly higher levels of MRSA infections, which do not respondto antibiotics, confirming fears that outsourcing leads to lower hygiene
standards.16 This is why devolved governments in Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland ended outsourcing many years ago, and there is growingpressure on the remaining English authorities to do so.

Regional level
Despite the lack of regional authorities in England, the countries of
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have devolved powers, andhave been more supportive of public ownership than the UK national
government. Notably, water services in both Scotland and Northern Ireland
have remained in public hands, as a result of strong public campaigns
and public opposition, though some Private Finance Initiative schemes
have been used to build water and wastewater treatment plants. In Wales
the water company remains privatised. Although it was restructured byits senior management into a ‘non-profit’ private company, it is still
financed by corporate bonds paying a good rate of interest, still pays its
top executives about half a million pounds each per year, and still lacks
formal public accountability.
Other examples of regional pro-public policies include:•

In Northern Ireland, the privatised electricity network, Viridian,
has been taken over by EIB, the state-owned electricity company of
the neighbouring Republic of Ireland, creating a single public sector
network throughout the island.

•

Scotland has rejected the marketisation of the NHS that has been
introduced in England, and continues to run the NHS under directcontrol of the Scottish Executive – and, as noted earlier, Scotland,100National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

Wales, and Northern Ireland took the decision to end outsourcing ofcleaning in NHS hospitals in favour of 100 per cent directly employedstaff.17•

The Welsh government remunicipalised Cardiff Airport in 2013,
ending much outsourcing, cutting carbon emissions and boosting
the number of flights using the airport. The Scottish government
had also remunicipalised Prestwick Airport to prevent its closure
through bankruptcy but decided to re-privatise in 2019 as a result of
cumulative losses.

•

Scotland also rejected the use of PFI/PPPs before the UK government
did so; and rejected the introduction of student fees. Scottish
universities therefore remain free to students.

National level
The trend away from outsourcing services has affected central government
too. By way of illustration, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,
which maintains and registers drivers and vehicles in the UK, ended 20
years of IT outsourcing with IBM and Fujitsu. The agency created a new
in-house team that built a new system for online tax payments in lessthan two months.18
Successful campaigns led by We Own It have also managed to reverse aseries of government privatisation plans at the national level, including:•

Forcing the government to bring the probation services back into
public ownership, after a disastrous period of outsourcing (2019).19•

Compelling the government to take the East Coast railway service into
public ownership (2018).20•

Forcing the government to abandon plans for privatising NHS
Professionals, the agency providing temporary staff across the NHS(2017).21•

Stopping plans to privatise public service broadcaster Channel 4(2017).22

101

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK•

Derailing plans to privatise the Land Registry, the national system forrecording and validating land ownership in the UK (2016).23

We Own It also runs continuing campaigns for public ownership of water,
rail, energy and postal services. These mobilise strong public support andare reflected in Labour party commitments to bring these services into
public ownership.

Labour Party public ownership policies: 2017 and 2019manifestos
The Labour Party has been at the forefront of the alternatives toprivatisation debate in the UK. Its manifestos decisively brought such
issues to the mainstream. The Labour Party’s 2017 election manifesto
included bringing water, energy grids, and rail services into public
ownership and operation and was a key factor in Labour winning 40 per
cent of the vote – its best result for decades. An opinion poll (see Figure2) shortly afterwards showed extremely high levels of public support
for public ownership. Since then, there has been a much greater levelof debate about the merits of public ownership in various sectors. The
Labour Party 2019 manifesto developed wider and deeper policies for
public ownership in a range of sectors, influenced by the various local
trends and initiatives described above, by the climate emergency, and by
the economic benefits for people and for local economies. These policies
have also been shown to be immensely popular with all sections of the
public.24
The 2019 election manifesto laid out plans that placed climate change
and renewable energy at the heart of economic policy, including the
public sector’s role in the matter. It included the commitment to ‘delivernearly 90% of electricity and 50% of heat from renewable and lowcarbon sources by 2030’. The extension of public ownership across many
services and sectors featured repeatedly as part of this programme, with102

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

new transparent and participatory democratic structures.25 The manifesto
included commitments to new public sector banks:•

The creation of new public national and regional investment banks,
including a National Transformation fund of £400 billion, of which£250 billion would be dedicated to ‘renewable and low-carbon energy
and transport, biodiversity and environmental restoration’.

•The creation of a new post office bank, following the renationalisationof Royal Mail, to provide reliable banking services for people aswell as local co-ops, community enterprises and small businesses.
Box ll

Details of Labour’s manifesto, by sector
Energy•Take 100 per cent public ownership of the national transmission grid and regional distribution grids, by nationalising
electricity and gas companies and creating new national andregional energy agencies.

•

Take public ownership, through regional authorities, of the
Big Six energy supply companies (British Gas, EDF Energy,
E.ON, Npower, Scottish Power, and SSE), which dominate theretail supply of electricity and gas in the UK.

•

Enable municipalities and communities to take responsibility
for generation, distribution, storage and/or supply of theirown energy systems.

•

Ensure public regional energy authorities take 51 per centpublic ownership of all new offshore wind farms, the main
future source of renewable energy for the UK and invest in
onshore wind and solar energy as well.26•

Invest 20 per cent of the profits from offshore wind in parks,
libraries and leisure centres for towns and communities.27•

Invest £1.8 billion into three large joint ventures to produce
storage batteries, more investment into battery reprocessing

103

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

plants, and public equity stakes of £300 million in new electric car manufacturing plants.
•

Invest £3.6 billion through publicly owned regional distribution companies into a nation-wide grid of 72,000 charging
points for electric cars.28•

Invest £300 million to create ‘community car clubs’ owned by
the community to enable electric car sharing.

•

Ensure all government cars are electric by 2025.

•

Invest in upgrading all 27 million homes in the UK to higher
energy efficiency, saving £417 per year on the average energy
bill.

•

Create over 300,000 ‘climate’ apprenticeships and create
overall an extra 1 million new jobs in the green economy.

Buses
Implement free bus travel for everyone under 25 years of age,through £1.3 billion per year in subsidies for bus routes, andlegislate to enable all local councils to run their own bus services
if they so choose.29
Rail
Bring the operation of routes under publicly owned railway
companies (the network itself is already public), as existing
private contracts expire, and invest to replace diesel engines withelectrification.
Water
Bring all the private water companies in England into public
ownership and create new regional public authorities to run themusing open democratic processes.

104

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

Housing
Launch a new programme for local councils to build one million
new public sector homes by 2030, with new powers to acquire land
at low prices.
Health care
Set up a publicly owned company to produce affordable medical
treatments for people who need them; and tie all public fundingfor drug research to socially prioritised health objectives, including
universal access, affordability and complete transparency of data
and results.30
Social care
Create a new National Care Service, free to all, based on rebuilding
municipal capacity to provide care, including new municipal carehomes, and funding to enable local authorities to take over existing
private care homes.31
Education
Integrate all existing private schools into the state education
system.
Broadband and telecoms
Nationalise the telecoms network and consumer services part of
BT Group, and use it to deliver full-fibre broadband to every homein the country, free of charge to households – the costs would be
financed through taxing the companies that benefit most fromuniversal fast broadband, such as Amazon, Google, Facebook andthe like.

105

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

Plans for insourcing and PPPs:
Insourcing
new legislation to make in-house provision the default for all
local government services, with tightly defined exceptions,so that as existing contracts expire, they will automaticallybe brought in house. It would also strengthen the standards
expected of outsourced contracts in relation to service standards
and employment and make contractors subject to freedom of
information laws. Labour is also advising local councils on how toinsource work now.32
PPPs
Labour would not create any new PPPs, prison PPPs would beterminated, and the remaining PPPs in the NHS would be broughtback into the public sector.

Figure 1: Energy democracy in Labour’s manifesto
Source: Labour Party (2019) Bringing energy home: Labour’s proposal for publicly owned energy networks.
https://www.labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bringing-Energy-Home-2019.pdf

106National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

Democratisation of public services
Many of Labour’s plans, if elected, would have devolved more powers andcapacity to the regional, local and community levels. The party’s energy
proposals are a good example of this. They would have created regional
authorities with overall responsibility for all parts of the energy system,with municipalities and communities taking control of systems in theirown areas, subject to meeting performance and professional standards.
In parallel to these policy developments, We Own It produced a detailed
plan, ‘When We Own It’, for democratic governance of a new public sector,33
integrating local, regional and national levels. The plan outlines that:
The core institutions will be the new national and regional authorities inwater and energy (National Water Authority, Regional Water Authorities;
National Energy Agency, Regional Energy Agencies), which will own andprovide strategic control of operating companies.
These new public authorities will be governed by boards in which the
majority of seats are held by elected local councillors and which also
include representatives of workers/unions.
Citizen representatives will be selected by a new organisation, named
Participate, to which all citizens and service users will belong by default.
The regional authorities will form associations to carry out a public,transparent mutual exchange of information on best practice, known
as ‘sunshine regulation’, with active support from a National Office for
Public Ownership.
All data will be publicly available, and decisions will be made throughpublic meetings with participatory budgeting and popular planning.

107

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

We Own It has also produced a ‘People’s Plan’ for water, a crowd-sourced
manifesto for what the industry should be doing when it returns to public
ownership.34

Big support for public ownership despite 2019 election
defeatDespite the large majority won by the Conservatives in the December 2019
election, direct surveys of voters carried out at the same time show thata substantial majority of UK voters support nationalisation and public
sector operation of post, water, energy, rail and buses – as proposedin the Labour Party manifesto (see Figure 2). Support for these policies
had grown measurably stronger since the 2017 election. Moreover, thismajority support is very consistent across all age groups, regions, class,income, gender and ethnicity. It also extends across political parties;
Conservative voters support public ownership in rail and water, andLiberal Democrat voters favour public ownership in energy, buses andpost too.35

Public69

64

63

Private

55

53

48
34

31
23

18

st

Po

23

er

s

ay

lw

i
Ra

at

W

s

se

Bu

s

gy

er

En

m

m

o
ec

l

Te

Figure 2: Public support for public ownership in Great Britain, December 2019 (YouGov)
Source: YouGov/Neon survey UK, 11-12 December 2019.

108

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

This has been described as a new ‘political consensus’ by commentatorsin the Financial Times, The Times and Independent.36 The new Conservative
government duly demonstrated this by nationalising a second rail
franchise only six weeks after the election, and it is likely to do the samewith other franchises. The political economy of public ownership willcontinue to be a major issue in the UK in the coming years.
ABOUT THE AUTHORDavid Hall is Visiting Professor at the Universityof Greenwich, London. His research focuses on
the politics and economics of public services,public finance, privatisation and PPPs. From2000 to 2013 he was Director of the PublicServices International Research Unit (PSIRU).
David has published numerous PSIRU reports
and other journal articles and worked with social
movements, civil society organisations and tradeunions on all continents. He has also been aguest lecturer at the World Bank Infrastructure
Division and invited to speak at meetings of United
Nations agencies, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development and otherorganisations.

109

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

Endnotes1

Labour Party (2019) Manifesto. Rebuild our Public Services. London: Labour Party. https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/rebuild-our-public-services/2

We Own It (2019) When We Own It. https://weownit.org.uk/when-we-own-it

3

Brexit refers to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

4

Hall, D. (2020) ‘The UK 2019 election: defeat for Labour, but strong support for public ownership’. PSIRU. http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/26848/

5

IoG (2019) ‘Government outsourcing: What has worked and what needs reform?’. September.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/government-outsourcing-reform; APSE
(2019) Rebuilding Capacity: The case for insourcing public contracts. https://www.apse.org.
uk/apse/assets/File/Insourcing%20(web).pdf; Walker, D. and Tizard, J. (2018) Out of Contract:
Time to move on from the ‘love in’ with outsourcing and PFI. Smith Institute http://www.
smith-institute.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Out-of-contract-Time-to-move-on-from-the%E2%80%98love-in%E2%80%99-with-outsourcing-and-PFI.pdf; APSE (2017) Survey data. https://www.apse.org.uk/apse/assets/File/Secondary%20Data%20Analysis%20Downloadable%20stats%20
and%20analysis(1).pdf

6

House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees (2018) Carillion. Report, 16 May.https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/
cmworpen/769/769.pdf

7

APSE (2019) Rebuilding Capacity: The case for insourcing public contracts. https://www.apse.
org.uk/apse/assets/File/Insourcing%20(web).pdf; Bawden, A. (2019) ‘Why councils are bringing
millions of pounds worth of services back in-house’, The Guardian, 29 May. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/29/bringing-services-back-in-house-is-good-councils ; Plimmer,
G. (2018) ‘How outsourcing fell out of fashion in the UK’, Financial Times, 9 February.
https://www.ft.com/content/983c4598-0d88-11e8-839d-41ca06376bf2

8

CIO (2018) ‘The council is winding up a controversial contract with Capita’, 28 March.
https://www.cio.co.uk/cio-interviews/gsk-cdo-mark-ramsey-explains-how-data-is-transformingdrug-discovery-3673555/

9https://lgmutual.co.uk/

10

https://www.local.gov.uk/local-government-mutual ; https://www.room151.co.uk/resources/councils-combine-to-estblish-mutual-insurance-company/ ; https://www.apse.org.uk/apse/assets/File/Roger%20Houston%20and%20Ben%20Ticehurst.pdf

11

UK Govt Insolvency Service (2018) ‘Carillion contracts complete transfer’, 6 August.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/carillion-contracts-complete-transfer; Unite (2018) Ending
Bandit Capitalism. December. https://unitetheunion.org/media/2132/ending-bandit-capitalism.pdf

12

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2019/may/world-first-hydrogen-double-deckerbuses-to-help-tackle-london-s-toxic-air

13

The Guardian (2019) ‘Greater Manchester considers taking back control of bus network’, 24
June. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/24/greater-manchester-considers-taking-back-control-bus-network

14

The Guardian (2019) ‘I’ve seen the future and it’s Norwich: the energy-saving, social housing
revolution’, 16 July https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jul/16/norwich-goldsmithstreet-social-housing-green-design

15

See the We Own It website: https://weownit.org.uk/public-ownership/nhs, https://weownit.org.uk/
blog/heres-how-really-get-our-nhs-table

16

Toffolutti, V., Reeves, A., McKee, M. and Stuckler, D. (2017) ‘Outsourcing cleaning services
increases MRSA incidence: Evidence from 126 English acute trusts’, Social Science & Medicine
174 (February): 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.12.015 https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0277953616306864; EPSU (2011) UK: hospital cleaning brought in housein Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland. https://www.epsu.org/article/uk-hospital-cleaning-brought-housescotland-wales-n-ireland

110

National, regional and local moves towards public ownership in the UK

17

Toffolutti, V. et al. (2017) ‘Outsourcing Cleaning Services Increases MRSA Incidence:
Evidence from 126 English Acute Trusts’, Social Science & Medicine 174 (February): 64–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.12.015

18

Plimmer, G. (2018) ‘How outsourcing fell out of fashion in the UK’, Financial Times,
9 February. https://www.ft.com/content/983c4598-0d88-11e8-839d-41ca06376bf2

19

https://weownit.org.uk/blog/victory-probation-be-brought-public-ownership20

https://weownit.org.uk/blog/east-coast-victory

21

https://www.ft.com/content/e5e9b832-93a0-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0

22

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/28/channel-4-will-not-be-sold-off-but-couldbe-moved-out-of-london

23

https://weownit.org.uk/public-ownership/land-registry

24

Hall, D. (2020) The UK 2019 election: defeat for Labour, but strong support for public
ownership. PSIRU http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/26848/ :25

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/26

https://labour.org.uk/press/peoples-power-labour-announces-plan-offshore-windfarmspublic-stake/27

https://labour.org.uk/press/rebecca-long-bailey-speaking-labour-party-conference/28

https://labour.org.uk/press/electric-car-revolution-labours-plan-strengthen-uk-automobileindustry-creating-safeguarding-220000-jobs/

29

The Guardian (2019) ‘Labour is right to reverse bus cuts. But it needs to go much further’, 26
April. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/26/labour-reverse-bus-cuts

30

Labour Party (2019) Medicines for the Many. http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/
Medicines-For-The-Many.pdf; IIPP (2018) ‘The people’s prescription: Re-imagining healthinnovation to deliver public value’, IIPP Policy Report. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/wp2018-10; also see https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/news/2019/sep/labour-party-draw-iipp-health-innovation-research-new-pharma-policy

31

http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/12703_19-Towards-the-National-Care-Service.pdf

32Labour Party (2017) Democratising Local Public Services: A Plan For Twenty-First Century
Insourcing. July . http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Democratising-Local-Public-Services.pdf; also see Labour Party (2019) ‘”String of high-profile failures” in outsourcing’,
September https://labour.org.uk/press/string-high-profile-failures-outsourcing-mcdonnell-responds-institute-government-report/

33

We Own It (2019) When We Own It. https://weownit.org.uk/when-we-own-it

34

https://weownit.org.uk/peoples-plan-water-map

35Hall, D. (2020) ‘The UK 2019 election: defeat for Labour, but strong support for public
ownership’. PSIRU http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/26848/ :36

Financial Times (2019) ‘Labour’s broadband plan shows nationalisation’s consumer appeal’,
15 November. https://www.ft.com/content/a7aafbf0-0796-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e7dd; Ruddick, G.
(2019) ‘Business must accept that some of Corbyn’s policies may yet be on the agenda’, The
Times, 16 December. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/business-must-accept-that-some-of-corbyn-s-policies-might-yet-form-the-agenda-f9htwm9wg ; Independent 16/12/2019 Public support fornationalisation increased111

Chapter 7

Putting the ‘public’ in public
services: (Re)municipalisation
cases in Malaysia andthe Philippines
By Mary Ann Manahan and Laura Stegemann

Strong public institutions are critical for providing effective, quality,
affordable and democratic public services to people living in Southeast
Asia. This has been underscored by numerous social disputes during thelast decade, contesting ‘new’ public management and reclaiming public
services that are anchored in an ethos of transparency, accountability,community responsibility and participation as well as integrity.
(Re)municipalisation of public services has taken root in a number ofcountries like Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, among others.
The cases are diverse but show common features. There are publicauthorities on the regional or municipal level reassuming control overprivatised services. We can also see a number of municipal governmentsthat use public money to create new public service structures that increase social welfare and climate resilience in response to their specificcontexts in public-public and public-community partnerships. These
cases emphasise that cities and municipalities can provide the means
and spaces for democratisation and progressive policies.1 This chapter
highlights novel pathways to deliver quality and democratic essential
services led by states, cities and municipalities. The cases include sociallyinnovative systems of public service provision beyond privatisation andcommercialisation. We have put a spotlight on examples from Malaysia
and the Philippines, with a focus on water, social protection and local
resilience to climate change.

112

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

Selangor’s remunicipalised water system
A 2012 survey to map the degree of public versus private water service
delivery in Asia provided a large and broadly characteristic sample of 646
listed water utilities, most of which are public in nature – either as statesponsored agencies or municipal corporations.2 Privatised water supply
systems are found in key megacities, however, such as Metro Manila,
Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur where there have been decades long campaigns
to de-privatise water services. Among them, Kuala Lumpur, one of
Malaysia’s three federal territories enclaved within the state of Selangor,3
successfully returned water operations to public ownership (as part of theservice area of a new state-wide public water utility, Air Selangor). The
state of Selangor’s remunicipalisation process represents a complicatedand expensive two decades-long saga of regaining state autonomy andpublic control over the water system. Exposed to conflicts of interest
between private companies and the Selangor state government, citizens
had to cope with the consequences of poor service provision on a daily
basis, including poor water quality and high tariffs, exacerbated by water
shortages. As the richest and most populated state, remunicipalisation
was made possible through a combination of political and economic
will from the centre-left government, Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Pact),
which came into power in 2008. Its leaders put the re-consolidation of afragmented and unbundled privatised water sector (see Figure 1) at thecore of its strategy.
Until 1994, Selangor’s water system had been publicly managed andowned, generating annual profits of between €11.5 and €18.5 million.4
When the demand for water grew and the public utility could not keep up,
privatisation was seen as the only viable solution, which was in line withthe dominant mantra of neoliberal development at the time. The Selangor
state government signed a 25-year Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)
contract in 1994 with Puncak Niaga Holdings, a company owned by the
Malay Nationalist party (UMNO)5-linked Rozali Ismail. In the years that113

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

followed, Selangor’s water system was split and its parts successively
awarded to three more concessionaires: PNSB, owned by Puncak Niaga;
Syarikat Pengeluar, owned by SPLASH; and the consortium ABASS. In
2004, without any competitive bidding process, the state government
awarded Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (SYABAS), anothersubsidiary of Puncak Niaga Holdings, a 30-year contract that guaranteed
fixed government payments and triennial tariff increments from 2009
onwards. The concessionaire committed €2.26 billion as investments to
reduce non-revenue water (i.e. water losses due to theft and leakages) by
fixing pipes. The deal was pushed by Barisan National (National Front),
coalition of parties on the right and centre of the political spectrum),which governed Selangor until 2008.

RAW WATER

Selangor 100%

WATER TREATMENT

Splash
(44% of capaity)

WATER DISTRIBUTION

Abbas(14% of capaity)

Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd(42% of capaity)
100%
40% Gamuda
30% Wan Azmi
Wan Hamzah
30% Selangor

91%

Selangor
Kuala Lumpur
Putrajaya
30%

Selangor

Syabas70%

Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd
41,25% Rozali Ismail
6.19% EPF
5.74% Lembaga
Tabung Haji

Figure 1: Selangor’s privatised water system
Source: Razak, A. (2013) ‘Selangor water: Privatisation gone awry’, KINIBIZ Online, 26 February. http://
www.kinibiz.com/story/corporate/5104/selangor-water-privatisation-gone-awry.html

114

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

In 2008, a new government led by Pakatan Rakyat granted Selangor state
the right to restructure and reconsolidate the water system. The politicalparty promised to freeze tariff hikes as part of its electoral campaign
focusing on social justice, human development, an equitable and sustainable economy, transparency and genuine democracy. However, thenational government failed to respond to requests to cancel the concessionaires’ contracts in 2008 and 2010.6 SYABAS, on the other hand, filed
claims to the state government for US$282 million as compensation for
impeding the raise of consumption tariffs, further claiming that the priceof US$0.45/m3 did not cover its operating costs of US$0.55/m3.7 The Selangor government denied the private company’s claims, arguing in turnthat SYABAS was in breach of its contract because of missed performancetargets, inefficiencies, non-disclosure of crucial information, overcharging for unrequested services such as a €12 million office renovation,
misallocation of state funds and non-compliance with government procurement processes. Operational irregularities continued to occur such as
overpayments to Puncak Niaga’s top management amounting to €2 million in 2009, as well as overcharging consumers on water bills that weredouble that of neighbouring states. Moreover, the quality and stabilityof service provision steadily declined as regular water interruptions, especially during summer months, and water rationing became the newnorm for 10 million affected residents. Following these supply problems,a Special Cabinet Committee on the Selangor water crisis was formed.
The committee found that SYABAS operations were indeed inadequate,
but conclusions fell short of recommending a full public takeover.
Meanwhile, state authorities and private operators exchanged accusations. From 2009 to 2014, the Selangor government made various
attempts to reconsolidate the fragmented water sector based on Article
114 of the 2006 Water Service Industry Act, a regulation which allows for thefull or partial remunicipalisation of a private business or licensee by thestate based on national interest. The government initially offered €2.2
billion to buy back utilities, but the concessionaires rejected the proposal.

115

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

On 26 February 2014, the state government flexed its political muscle byestablishing a special purpose vehicle called Pengurusan Air Selangor Sdn
Bhd, or Air Selangor. This new entity operates and maintains the entire
water supply and distribution systems – from reservoirs to distributing
treated water to 10 million consumers in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur andPutrajaya (federal administrative centre of the Malaysian capital).8
The single, new public operator acquired the three concessionaires inline with the amount agreed upon in a memorandum of understanding
between the federal and state governments in 2014: SYABAS and PNSB
Water was purchased for a total of €1.9 million in 2015 and ABASS for€194.7 million in 2016. The negotiations with SPLASH took longer, with
the Selangor government finally accepting SPLASH’s €549.5 million
asking price in 2019, which according to critics is 10 times the original
takeover offer from 2013.9 Air Selangor has made a first payment of€409.5 million and the remaining amount will be paid over a period ofnine years. This completes the final step in remunicipalising the water
system, offering an opportunity to re-establish a reliable water systemthat will serve people in the long term. Air Selangor has already invested€237.1 million10 between 2016 and 2018 to upgrade and maintain thesystem. Throughout the process civil society and the current ruling party,
Pakatan Rakyat, played an important role in reclaiming water services,increasing the transparency of the negotiations and envisioning a better
public water management.

Advancing social protection and universal access toessential services in the Philippines
Public services such as libraries, health, fire protection, water andsanitation, and education are usually decentralised in Southeast Asia. For
many citizens, local government (municipal, village, provincial/state) isthe layer they have daily contact with. The relationships between local
administrations and citizens are mediated by the quality, effectivenessand capability of the former to meet the needs and demands of the latter.
Therefore, local governments tend to have the ‘comparative advantages

116

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippinescompared to central governments because of their proximity to people,
knowledge about local priorities and the pressure of local constituencies
for greater accountability, participation, and transparency’.11 Notwithstanding the potential weaknesses and susceptibility of local governments
to corruption and bad governance, some Philippine local governments
deliver inspiring counter-examples to advance universal access to public
services and social protection.

PHILIPPINES OF CASES 21
TOTAL NUMBER

Municipalisation 21

Health care &social services

4
Education

3

Energy1
Local government

6

Public (green) space maintenance 1
Food and catering 4
Security and emergency services 1

Water

7

Highlights• Philippine municipalities are creating new public services to increase welfare-based social protection.
• Binalonan started delivering effective health care services to residents, including care centres andfinancial support for health services. The municipality reduced chronic child malnutrition by 17% andincreased use of contraceptives by 51%.
• The municipality of Cainta Rizal launched its “One Cainta” program in 2016, providing free education
through the establishment of a college, enrolling 800 students per year, and additional health carefacilities, improving access to medical services for economically disadvantaged groups.
• Philippine municipalities are taking on an important role in increasing the country’s climate resilience,by establishing integrative approaches to farming and fishing, ecosystem protection, and energy
generation (Del Carmen and Lanuza).

The municipality of Binalonan in the province of Pangasinan, home to54,555 people12 and located 190 kilometres from the capital, has recently
used public funds to set up day care centres, provide financial assistanceto women, children and single parents as well as social privileges forsenior citizens. Further, it has introduced free primary healthcare services
and aid to people in need. This initiative is anchored on the municipal
government’s vision and core value to ensure ‘that [people who have]the least in life have the most in law’.13 Prioritising primary healthcare

117

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

provision in line with national laws promoting maternal and children’s
health, the municipality has improved health indicators above thenational average. The chronic malnutrition rate among children ages 0-2
was at 9 per cent while the national average was at 26 per cent in 2016.
The rate of severe underweight has been reduced to 1 per cent and thecontraceptive use rate increased to 51 per cent in the same year. In 2015,
the Department of Interior and Local Government, the national agency
responsible for strengthening local government capacity to effectively
deliver basic services to the population, awarded the municipality a sealof good governance and hailed it as a children- and women-friendly local
government.
The municipality of Cainta, in the province of Rizal, has undertaken
similar initiatives. It is the second most populated municipality (322,128
people) and the richest in the country, with €70.7 billion in total assets
in 2017.14 Under the leadership of Mayor Johnielle Keith Pasion Nieto,who first won local elections in 2012 and was re-elected in a landslide
victory in 2016, the ‘One Cainta’ programme was launched to revive
and reinvigorate public services, foster municipal income growth andimplement proactive governance. In 2018, at the mayor’s initiative andwith support from the municipal council, a local ordinance was passed
to establish the One Cainta College introducing free tertiary educationand lifelong learning to low-income households. The mayor enlisted thehelp of a known educator and resident, Dr. Victoria Naval, who conducted
a six-month feasibility study and participatory consultations with local
communities in partnership with a national NGO as well as facilitated thecollege’s accreditation with the Commission on Higher Education.15 The
accreditation means that diplomas earned from the college can be used by
students for graduate study and work abroad. As its current president, Dr.
Naval oversees the college’s lateralised programme16 that provides fullbachelor’s degrees for full-time students and lifelong learning courses
for individuals regardless of age and gender. Funded by the municipality
directly, the college has admitted a cohort of 800 students in its first year.

118

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

Photo: The author interviewed Dr. Victoria Naval of One Cainta College in 2019

Furthermore, as part of Mayor Nieto’s ‘development’ platform to uplift
impoverished people and ensure safer communities for everyone, thedelivery of health services is on top of his agenda. In that framework,
the municipality has undertaken the construction of new health centres
and birthing clinics, upgraded the municipal hospital andset up freeconsultations with the roll out of the Libreng Gamot (free medicine)program, targeting low-income and marginalised households. It has
further embarked on improvements to its municipal hospital by increasing
the number of hospital beds to accommodate more patients, augmenting
the staffing system, upgrading hospital facilities in the charity wards andaccrediting the hospital under the National Health Insurance Program.
The accreditation gives health insurance members access to free medicine
at the hospital’s pharmacy, which is paid for by the national government.
Municipal health care workers and senior citizens who are HealthGreen Card holders are also entitled to free hospitalisation that covers
medicines, medical examinations, laboratory and doctor’s fees and minor
surgical procedures performed at the municipal hospital.

119

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

The Binalonan and Cainta cases stress the leadership roles that mayors
and local councils hold in delivering welfare-based social protection
and basic public services. In both cases local public authorities forward
visions and action plans that focus on upholding social and human rights,
benefitting especially the most vulnerable and marginalised members ofPhilippine society.

Case I: Selangor’s People’s Care Initiative
The Selangor government introduced the Inisiatif Peduli Rakyat17(IPR, People’s Care Initiative) as an integrated social protection
programme in 2008. Funded by state revenues, the programme
was set up to improve social welfare of different vulnerable
groups through better education, health care, water provision,transportation, housing and food.
In the realm of education, six initiatives were introduced. The Skim
Bantuan Tadika Selangor (Skim TUNAS) was set up in 2008 to enable
children ages 5–6 to attend kindergarten or pre-primary school.
Tuition fees are covered by public funds and are directly transferredto the institutions registered with the Selangor Kindergarten
Consultative Council. Another programme is the Hadia Pengajan
IPT scholarship, launched the same year with the objective ofimproving equal access to university education. The scholarshipfully covers tuition fees and provides a one-time payment of RM
1,000 (€215) for students qualified to study at a public college oruniversity. It focuses on low-income families or those earning lessthan RM 5,000 (€108) per month. A similar programme directly
targets children of farmworkers in Selangor.
Two programmes were introduced in 2008 and 2010 to improveaccess to health care. The Skim Mesra Usia Emas Scheme offers adeath benefit of RM 2,500 (€538) for registered senior citizens to120

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

help surviving relatives cover burial expenses. In the frameworkof the Women’s Health Scheme, mammograms are free for women
aged 35 and over. Another initiative launched in 2017 provides a
subsidy for primary healthcare provision, targeting low-income
households. The state provides RM 500 (€109) per year for medical
expenses. Part of this scheme entitles residents holding a Peduli
Sihat health card,18 including their spouses and two children aged
21 or below, to free treatments at registered clinics.
Other programmes focus on access to affordable housing, water,
food, transportation and telecommunication services. The Rumah
Selangorku was introduced in 2012 to provide access to affordable
housing. Selangor residents earning below RM 3,000 (€646) per
month can apply for house financing not exceeding a value of RM
250,000 (€53,793). Since 2018, the Smart Motherhood Charity
programme has helped mothers from low-income households
reduce living costs by subsidising purchases of basic food andnon-food necessities up to RM 200 per month (€43) using stateissued cards in registered shops across Selangor. This welfare
programme recognises the special role of women in managing
family affairs and has benefited an estimated 5,000 households
belonging to the bottom 40 per cent income bracket. The Smart
Selangor Wi-Fi initiative provides free internet access at 300 spots
throughout the state. The state is currently improving access inlower income neighbourhoods, as well as in rural and high student
density areas. In the sector of public transport, the Smart Selangor
programme provides free bus service covering 11municipalities
and cities. Finally, with the Skim Air Darul Ehsan project, thePeople’s Care Initiative also provides free water to households that
consume 20 cubic meters or less per month.

121

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

Locally anchored climate resilience strategies
The impacts of climate change are experienced in ways as diverse as
the environments where it unfolds. Market-based instruments are
increasingly recognised as insufficient to respond to the climate changerelated challenges that communities face in a variety of local contexts.
In contrast, locally anchored climate resilience strategies focus onadapting to a community’s specific experience of the threats, impacts
and consequences of the climate and ecological crises. They also include
mitigation strategies that increase resource and energy efficiency, led
by local communities. A crucial pre-condition here is the involvement,
ownership and even self-provisioning (self-help/community-organised
initiatives, often without government support) of affected communities
and people that nurture local capacities and knowledge.
With the world’s third largest exposure to climate risks,19 Philippine
municipalities and communities are building and expanding holistic
public service structures that respond to present and future risks andreduce people’s vulnerability to climate change-related and natural
disasters.
The first example comes from the town of Lanuza, located in Surigao del
Sur in the Southeastern Philippines. In 2016, local leaders implemented
a holistic project on disaster risk reduction and management that fosters adaptation policies anchored on a ridge-to-reef approach. As the
local economy depends on its forests, watersheds and mangroves, decision-makers take the entire ecosystem and its interconnectedness into
account in formulating programmes that tackle multi-faceted issues inthis town of 12,000 residents. The issues include sustainable livelihoods,
environmental protection and safeguarding the rights of vulnerable
groups such as women, children, elderly people and people with disabilities, all of whom are the most impacted by climate change and natural
disasters. In order to finance the initiative, the national and local levels

122Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

work together. The municipality has secured €692,322 from the People’s
Survival Fund, a special fund in the National Treasury that supports climate change adaption and disaster risk reduction programmes in impoverished and vulnerable local communities, while the municipality itself
has allocated €148,987 in matching funds.
Similarly, in the same province the Siargao Climate Field School for
Farmers and Fisherfolks obtained public funds worth €1.43 million fromthe People’s Survival Fund and earmarked a further €226,758 from themunicipal budget. The climate field school is a joint undertaking between
the coastal municipality of Del Carmen and the Surigao State College ofTechnology. Established in 2016, it aims to improve food security andagriculture as the town’s principal source of livelihood. The school
provides technical assistance to farmers and fisherfolks and delivers tools
to reduce diseases caused by pathogens, bacteria and viruses transmitted
by insects and snails that affect agriculture-dependent households.
It promotes community education on weather forecasting and climate
variability to empower local farmers and fisherfolks by increasing theirdecision-making capacity. The project also finances a regional research
centre that surveys options for climate and disaster-resilient foodproduction.

Challenges ahead
The above cases stress the viability of (re)municipalisation in a region
where neoliberal reforms have long undermined public sector performanceand permeated the everyday lives of people. Remunicipalisation andmunicipalisation have articulated politics that move education, welfare
and socio-ecological relations to the centre. They stress the importantrole of targeted public spending strategies accompanied by visionary
political narratives and pragmatic policy programmes. While national
funds are an important source of money, local authorities can build on
local institutions and knowledge to set up programmes that adapt to123

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

their specific needs. Malaysian and Philippine municipalities thus move
forward with recipes for public ownership with local ingredients.
One cannot overemphasise that (re)municipalisation means mobilisingpublic money. The main lesson here is that besides political will, fiscal
space and actual funds are available to take over a private entity and run
a service effectively. Selangor, as the richest state, can easily buy out
private concessionaires, but what if there is jurisdiction and political will to
remunicipalise but the authority in charge does not have the financial means?
Here, central government support and foreign development assistanceto capacitate and strengthen the local public sector’s ability to establish
and maintain a public service have to be considered as potential modesof cooperation. Then, there are issues surrounding user tariffs. It is
important, for example, to see how Air Selangor as a non-profit utility
will ensure that its water tariffs continue to be linked to social justiceand human rights goals. Citizens and civil society must also continue
to hold public utilities accountable to avoid pitfalls of the past and to
make sure that ‘new’ public utilities remain subject to the same and evenhigher standards than privatised services to live up to their very natureand mandate.
In short, the new generation of ‘the public’ must continue to expand its
capacities and listen to the needs of people and the environment to create
futures that sustainably challenge economic and political norms andadvance people’s rights, equity and resilience.

124

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Mary Ann Manahan is a Filipina feminist activist
researcher. She works with various social movements
and civil society groups on different initiatives thatdemand equity, environmental, gender and social
justice, and redistributive reforms. She holds anundergraduate degree in sociology and a Master’s inglobalisation and development.
Laura Stegemann has worked as a freelance research
assistant for the Public Alternatives Project at theTransnational Institute. Currently, she is doing a
PhD that falls within the framework of a research
project at the University of Glasgow on ‘Global
Remunicipalisation and the Post-Neoliberal Turn’.

Endnotes
1

Manahan, M. and Alvarez, K. (2019) ‘An Atlas of Praxes and Political Possibilities: Radical
Collective Action and Urban Transformations’, in Cities of Dignity: Urban Transformations
Around the World, forthcoming.

2

Dargantes, B., Batistel, C. and Manahan, M. (2012) ‘Springs of Hope: Alternatives to Commercialization of Water Resources and Services in Asia’, in D. A. McDonald and G. Ruiters (eds.)
Alternatives to Privatization Public Options for Essential Services in the Global South. New
York: Routledge.

3

Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy comprised of 13 states and three federal territories (Kuala Lumpur, Putraja and Labuan). Each state has its own constitution, legislative
assembly and executive council, responsible to the legislative assembly and headed by a chief
minister. For more information, see https://www.britannica.com/place/Malaysia/Local-government

4

Remunicipalisation Tracker (2015) ‘Water Remunicipalisation Selangor State’.
See http://www.remunicipalisation.org/print/Selangor+State (retrieved 31 October 2019).

5

The United Malays National Organization (UMNO) used to dominate Malaysia’s politics until
2018, when Pakatan Harapan, a coalition of centre-left and centre-right political parties won
the elections headed by Mahatir Mohamad. UMNO advances Malay nationalism, the protectionof Malay culture as the national culture and expansion of Islam across the country.

6

World Bank (2010) Private Participation in Infrastructure Database: Datasets for Malaysia andwater.

125

Putting the ‘public’ in public services: (Re)municipalisation cases in
Malaysia and the Philippines

7

Remunicipalisation Tracker (2015) ‘Water Remunicipalisation Selangor State’, op cit.

8

Air Selangor (n.d.) About Us. https://www.airselangor.com/about-us/our-transformation (retrieved
31 October 2019).

9

See Free Malaysia Today (2018) ‘Selangor bought SPLASH at 10 times its price, claims Khalid
Ibrahim’, 3 August. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/08/03/selangorbought-splash-at-10-times-its-price-claims-khalid-ibrahim/; and Aisyah, F. (2019) ‘Air Selangor’s offer for Splash turns unconditional’, Malaysian Reserve, 25 April. https://themalaysianreserve.com/2019/04/25/air-selangors-offer-for-splash-turns-unconditional/ (accessed 31 October2019). (retrieved 31 October 2019).

10

Fadli, M. (2019) ‘Air Selangor to become Klang Valley’s sole water supplier from Friday’, MSN
News, 9 October https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/national/air-selangor-to-become-klang-valleys-sole-water-supplier-from-friday/ar-AAH4ir9 (retrieved 31 October 2019).

11

United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) and Local Development Unit (2005) The
Role of Local Governments in Local Development Pro-poor provision of infrastructure services. Kigali, Rwanda: UNDESA, UNCDF, MDP Government of Rwanda, pp. 4-5.

12

Based on the 2015 Philippine Census. See https://psa.gov.ph/population-and-housing/statistical-tables/title/Philippine%20Population%20Surpassed%20the%20100%20Million%20Mark%20%28Results%20from%20the%202015%20Census%20of%20Population%29 (accessed 2 November2019).

13

Municipality of Binalonan website (n.d.) Social Services. http://www.binalonan.gov.ph/services/
social-services/ (retrieved 4 November 2019).

14

Republic of the Philippines, Commission on Audit (2018). 2017 Annual Financial Report, Local
Government Volume 1, Quezon City, p. 4. https://coa.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/Annual-Financial-Report/lgu/2017/2017_AFR_Local_Govt_Volume_I.pdf (retrieved 12 November 2019).

15

Interview with Dr. Victoria Naval, president of One Cainta College, Cainta, Rizal, 19 February
2019.

16

A lateralised programme takes into account the previous qualifications or competencies ofstudents who wish to start a bachelor’s degree or certificate course. For example, a student
who has done courses in college may then stop to work and support their family. The school
administration will take those previous courses into consideration and include that in determining the student’s programme or course work.

17

Inisiatif Peduli Rakyat http://ssipr.selangor.gov.my/ (24 April 2020).

18

Those eligible to hold this card are residents who were born in Selangor or who have been
living in the state for more than 10 years. There are 1,000 participating clinics in Selangor andKlang Valley.

19

Institute of Regional Development Planning, University of Stuttgart (2017) World Risk Index.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=ee5978152b5c4cd2aaaaaf3a14d379c8&extent=-180,-86.3126,180,88.0275 (retrieved 31 October 2019).

126

Chapter 8

Rebuilding public ownershipin Chile: Social practices of the
Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism
By Alexander Panez Pinto

Chile has gone through more than four decades of neoliberalism,
inaugurated by the civil-military dictatorship (1973-90). Different areasof social life (such as education, health and social welfare) went throughradical processes of privatisation and commercialisation. In addition, oneof the central aspects of the current model is the neoliberal exploitationof natural common goods such as the land, water and minerals. Controlof these natural resources is currently concentrated in a few companies,
mainly transnationals.
During this neoliberal period, some of the main privatisations were ofstate-owned companies for electricity distribution, gas, water supply andsanitation, hydropower and transport, leading to an increase in the priceof these services for the population. Economic changes were accompaniedby strong political repression of opponents to the dictatorship’s policies.
In addition, the centralisation of power in the national government wasstrengthened, which reduced the democratisation of decision-making
spaces for citizens in general.
Since the 1990s, institutions like the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund usually present Chile as a ‘model’ of development for other
Latin American countries, because of its economic growth. However, after
decades of neoliberal doctrine, there are massive inequalities between
people who can afford privatised services and those who cannot.

127

Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

CHILE OF CASES 44
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 2
Municipalisation 42

Health care &social services

40
Education

1

Local government

3

Building cleaning and maintenance 2
Housing 1

Highlights• Between 2015 and 2018, 40 new public pharmacies have been created andthe “Chilean Association of Popular Pharmacies” brings thesemunicipalities (80 in total) together.
• They follow the public pharmacy model of the local government of Recoleta,
where some residents are now spending 70% less on medication permonth.
• In 2018, the local government created the Open University of Recoleta.
• Today it provides 150 courses in the areas of arts, science, humanities,
social science and technology. In total, 3,300 students have taken one ormore courses at the Open University.

In 2011, Chile saw significant student and socio-environmental mobilisation. Ever since, resentment of neoliberalism has grown. The numberof movements protesting the negative consequences of this model has
multiplied and gradually political forces have emerged that promise
pathways out of neoliberalism. The nation-wide demonstrations of October 2019, still taking place as this chapter goes to press, are the mostrepresentative sample of discontent caused by social inequalities and theprecariousness of living conditions for a majority of Chileans.
This chapter seeks to highlight local initiatives in Chile that are working
for a social re-appropriation of the commons1 in order to strengthen
public ownership of public services across the country. We will focus on
the experience of the local government of Recoleta, a commune in themetropolitan region of Santiago, Chile. Recoleta stands out as an example
of proposing and practising social alternatives to market-led policies thatfavour the private sector.

128

Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

Background
According to the most recent census, Recoleta has 157,851 inhabitants.
It is a commune2 characterised by historical cycles of migration, withthe arrival of migrants from other countries in South America and the
Caribbean. Since 1991, the commune is administered by a municipal
government. According to the latest official records, 14 per cent of
Recoleta’s population lives in poverty,3 which is more than double theaverage poverty rate for the Santiago Metropolitan Region.
Daniel Jadue, a member of the Communist Party of Chile, has been the
mayor of Recoleta since 2012. Mayor Jadue was elected on the promise ofmoving away from the market model to recover public ownership. Fromthen on the municipality aimed to achieve local development based onparticipation and continuous improvement of municipal services as thecore of the relationship with residents.
One of the challenges as defined by Recoleta’s team was trying to create
new public services in areas that were priorities for the population.
Privatised services had become very expensive due to inefficient contracts
that the municipality maintained with private companies.

Key local government initiatives in Recoleta
To illustrate broader discussions about public ownership in Chile, we haveselected four representative initiatives in the areas of health, housing,cleaning and education that are part of the political project in RecOLETA.
Box I

Popular pharmacy
In Chile, private pharmacies supply the vast majority of the
population with medication, and the government does not regulate

129

Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

prices. Currently, three pharmaceutical companies dominate 90
per cent of the market. These companies have been investigatedand convicted multiple times for crimes of collusion in pricing
medicines. The public health system only offers medications fora limited number of serious illnesses with high mortality rates.
Faced with the high price of medications, the local government of
Recoleta created the country’s first ‘Popular pharmacy’ in 2015.
The pharmacy offers cheap medicines for the residents of thecommune who are treated in the public health system.
The popular pharmacy reclaims the role of the state as a direct
supplier of goods. Bulk purchases of medicines are based on priorevaluation of what citizens need from the national medicine supply
centre (demand-driven vs. supply-driven purchases that are
standard practice with private pharmacies). The public pharmacy
also provides social security based on the principle of solidarity.
It facilitates equal access through subsidies for those with lower
incomes.
Four years after implementation, results of this initiative for the
population are already showing. The municipality’s calculations
demonstrate that in some cases there have been savings of up to
70 per cent compared to what the residents of Recoleta used tospend each month on medications.
Box II

People’s real estate agency of Recoleta
Housing in Chile is dominated by the real estate market. The state
only participates through a policy of limited subsidies for thepoorest families, so they can access low-cost housing according
to market prices. This implies that the poorest residents of cities

130Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

must opt for small, poorly constructed houses that in most cases
are located on the periphery. This has deepened urban inequality.
In 2018, the local government of Recoleta created the first Chilean‘People’s real-estate agency’. It offers affordable housing to
the commune’s poorest families. The municipality formed apartnership with the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism to ensure
construction of housing, establishing a project with sharedfinancing (although most of the funds come from the ministry).
The first project, launched in 2018, is a building with 38
apartments. Each 55 m2-apartment has three bedrooms, as well
as a living room, kitchen and bathroom. The construction of thebuilding is scheduled to be completed in 2020. From then on, theRecoleta government will rent the apartments to poor families
for a maximum of five years,4 and will charge rent that is lessthan 25 per cent the household’s income. The administrationis also planning to add another 90 apartments to an existing
condominium project in the commune. This is the first time inChile since the military dictatorship that a local government istackling the housing problem and represents a landmark shift inhousing policies in the country.
Box III

Workers’ co-operative for city cleaning services
Until recently, the government of Recoleta was criticised for the
precarious working conditions and poor service of Servitrans, aprivate cleaning company responsible for street cleaning, parks,
public buildings, and so on. Due to these problems, in 2016 thelocal government decided to support the creation of the ‘Jatu
Newen’ co-operative for the cleaning service concession. The cooperative was created by former workers from Servitrans and is131

Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

now made up of 105 workers belonging to various ethnic groups(Mapuche and Aymara), as well as Chileans and migrants from
Colombia and Peru.
Since then, the co-operative has taken over the cleaning of
the commune. Workers’ salaries have increased two-fold andconditions have improved, based on a model in which all members
perform the same work for the same salary.
Box IV

Open University of Recoleta
Education is another area where the private sector plays a majorrole in Chile. Nearly 85 per cent of the students in the country attend
a private higher education institution. In addition, graduate-levelcourses are very expensive in relation to wages and living costs inChile. For example, studying psychology in a private university can
cost US$8,400 annually, while medicine can cost $11,000 per year.
Even in public universities, students face expensive fees for theireducation.5 This creates barriers to fostering a knowledgeable
and educated population, and impedes the democratisation ofknowledge in the country.
In this context, the local government created Universidad Abierta
de Recoleta (Open University of Recoleta) with the goal of making
general knowledge available to all citizens. To create this project,the municipality used the successful experiences of free universities
in Europe and Latin America as inspiration. The Open University
is not only designed to improve access to education, it also seeks
to encourage the exercise of a more critical, liberated, active andtransformed citizenry in day-to-day life.

132

Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

Given the highly privatised education system, one interesting
aspect of the Open University is that it not only accessible to
Recoleta residents, it is open to all who wish to participate in thecourses, free of charge.
To bring this initiative to life, the municipality built partnerships
with several universities and educational institutions both
locally and internationally, including the University of Chile,
the University of Santiago and the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). Today, the Open
University of Recoleta offers 150 courses in the areas of arts,
science, humanities, social science and technology. To date, 3,300
students have taken one or more courses.

Photo: Universidad Abiertade Recoleta

133

Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

Maincharacteristics

Type of public
ownership

Type of public
ownership

Results

Creation of amunicipal pharmacy
to provide affordable
medicines toresidents.

Municipality

Municipality

Significant
reduction in thecost of medications(average savingof 70 per centcompared to what
residents used tospend monthly on
medicines).

End of concession
for the privatecompany Servitrans.
New city cleaning
service, run bya workers’ cooperative.

Municipality granted
a concession toa workers’ cooperative.

Municipality granted
a concession toa workers’ cooperative.

Better working
conditions forworkers. A 50%
increase in workers’salaries.

People’s realestate agency

Construction of
housing projects
that offer affordable
housing to lowincome families in
the commune.

Municipality inpartnership with
Ministry of Housing
and Urbanism.

Municipality inpartnership with
Ministry of Housing
and Urbanism.

The housing
projects are underconstruction.

Open University ofRecoleta

University with
nostudent fees.

Municipality inpartnership withother educational
institutions.

Municipality inpartnership withother educational
institutions.

150 courses persemester with morethan 3,300 students
participating so far.

Popular pharmacy

Workers cooperative ‘Jatu
Newen’

Lower cost andimproved cleaning
services for themunicipality.

Figure 1: Main initiatives of the local government in Recoleta

Spreading the Recoleta model nation-wide:
possibilities and challenges
Finally, it is important to reflect on some developments and challenges
arising in Recoleta’s local politics if we are to overcome neoliberalism inthe country.
After Recoleta’s success, many locales have replicated some of the local
government’s initiatives, the most popular being the popular pharmacy.

134

Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

Today, a Chilean Association of Popular Pharmacies brings together 80
municipalities. Other models like the People’s real estate agency are also
being used by other local governments.
The spread of these initiatives is due not only to their results at the local
level, but also to the traction that Recoleta’s experience has gained in
the media. Importantly, they are not top-down models imposed by thenational government; they represent a process of exchange and horizontal
learning among di fferent local governments.

Diverse forms of public ownership
One of the most interesting aspects of the experience in Recoleta is
the diversity of ways of building public ownership. These forms ofownership range from the creation of a new public service managed by
the local government (popular pharmacy), to partnerships between local
authorities and other public institutions (such as with public universities
in the Open University), to a workers’ co-operative taking over theconcession from a profit-driven company (cleaning service). This shows
the importance of thinking about public ownership that goes beyond
state-led institutions in Latin America, incorporating organisations
from civil society in public management. However, one point that does
not appear so strongly in Recoleta’s experience is the implementationof public ownership initiatives where the community plays a key role.
This is a significant shortfall given the long tradition of community
organisation in Latin America around services and common goods(mainly by indigenous groups, peasants and residents of impoverishedurban areas).

Does Recoleta’s experience go beyond neoliberalism?
A key issue with Recoleta’s new initiatives regards their scope andwhether they have the capacity to transcend the neoliberal model in Chile.

135

Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

I believe that Recoleta’s initiatives should be taken as a starting point forsocial transformation rather than an end point. In one way, the initiatives
described here are actions to improve the well-being of the population of
Recoleta in sensitive areas such as health, housing and education, making
services free or affordable. In another sense, the experience shows that it
is possible to create new initiatives at the local level as an alternative tothe market-led services that dominate the country.
Nevertheless, if these initiatives are not accompanied by politicisationof the debate around the transformation of Chile’s current political
economy, the experiences of local governments risk becoming mere
corrections to the neoliberal model through which the public creates orrecovers essential services that are not profitable for private companies.
The fact that right-wing local governments are also creating popular
pharmacies is a case in point. These governments seek to take advantageof the popularity of this initiative in order to legitimise their governance.
However, these right-wing municipalities are not seeking to eliminate
the privately controlled medicine market and the private health system.
Their action simply builds on them. For this reason, the popular pharmacy
initiative is insufficient unless accompanied by political proposals totransform the health system as a whole.
Recoleta’s experience has placed the strategic importance that local
governments have in overcoming neoliberalism on the political agenda.
Since the dictatorship in Chile, the historical complaint of leftist
political groups has been that the centralisation of power and resourcesin the national government leaves very little space for transformative
political action locally. The government of Recoleta has shown that with
innovation and an anti-neoliberal political vision, it is possible to reclaim
public services and even create new forms of public organisation at the
local level.

136

Rebuilding public ownership in Chile: Social practices of the Recoleta commune and challenges
to overcoming neoliberalism

The possibilities of implementing anti-neoliberal policies at the local
level have important legal and institutional limitations. At the sametime, what these concrete initiatives do is exactly that: they highlight thelimitations of Chile’s political system and call for change in the current
order to achieve social and environmental justice. This can be a key
strategy to challenge the neoliberal model in Chile in the coming years.
With the mass mobilisation of October 2019, the political horizon for thissocial momentum has widened.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Alexander Panez Pinto is an activist in the
Movement for the defense of water, land andenvironment (MODATIMA), Chile. He holds a
PhD in Geography from the Fluminense Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and currently
is Assistant Professor at the University of Bio-Bio
in Chile.

Endnotes
1

In Latin America, the use of the word ‘remunicipalisation’ as a strategy for achieving the
democratisation of the commons is controversial. Latin America has a long tradition ofcommunity management of the commons: water, land, education, health, etc. Whereas ‘remunicipalisation’ can indeed be progressive in some European and North American countries,
in the Latin American reality this kind of initiative has been used by States as dispossession
policy to end community management. Networks of movements and organisations such as
Plataforma de acuerdos público-comunitarios de las Américas (Platform of public-community
partnerships of the Americas) prefer to talk about social re-appropriation of the public orsocial re-appropriation of the commons.

2

The commune is the smallest administrative subdivision in Chile.

3

According to a 2015 survey, see: Ministry of Social Development (2015) Resultados Encuesta
CASEN. http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-multidimensional/casen/
casen_2015.php

4During the five-year rent period, the municipality of Recoleta will be responsible for advisingfamilies in the search for a more permanent housing solution.

5

This situation was one of the main reasons for the student mobilisation in 2011, which put
the problem of profit in education and family indebtedness on the political agenda in Chile.
Major protests demanded a change in educational policy, calling for free, quality public education. The demands of the students have not yet been accepted by the national government
authorities.

137

Chapter 9

United States: Communities
providing affordable, fast
broadband Internet
By Thomas M. Hanna and Christopher MitchellIn the United States, one of the fastest growing areas of municipalisationand local public ownership is high-speed broadband Internet networks.
This is due, in part, to the failure of the highly concentrated, corporatedominated telecommunications sector to provide fast and affordable
service in many parts of the country – especially rural areas, smaller
towns and cities, and communities with low levels of income and economic
development. In the modern, information-driven economy, this has
profound implications for economic development, social and economic
equality, and ecological sustainability. Just as they did with the criticalbackbone economic infrastructure of the twentieth century – electric
systems, roads and bridges, water and sewer systems, airports, ports,
mass transit, and so on – communities across the country are starting
to use public ownership to build and operate the digital infrastructureneeded in the twenty-first century. Data from the Institute for Local
Self-Reliance (ILSR) shows that in the past several years, more than800 communities (including cities, towns and counties) have establishedcommunity owned broadband networks.1 Of these, 500 are publicly
owned.2 Moreover, more than 150 of these communities (in 29 states)
have super-fast networks of at least 1 Gbps and 20 communities (in fourstates) offer 10 Gbps networks, which is hundreds of times faster than the
average US Internet connection.

138

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

USA OF CASES 230
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 81
Municipalisation 149

Energy11
Health care &social services

2
Local government

1

Telecommunications

145
Water

Highlights

71• A total of 11 energy (re)municipalisations occurred, aimed at tackling theclimate crisis, building community wealth and increasing democratic (user)
control.
• Since 2002, there have been 71 water remunicipalisations. The busiest year
was 2010, with 10 reclaimed water services, leading to reduced user fees.
• Flagship water remunicipalisations took place in Atlanta, Missoula, Montara
and Pittsburgh.
• At least 141 new public telecommunication services were created to
improve access and democratic control, to deliver jobs and stimulate
economic activity (Tullahoma and Chattanooga), improve quality of life andto advance health and education (EC Fiber in Vermont).
• Interesting public-public partnership models involving local authorities
in Washington State (Northwest Open Access Network), Skagit County andThomasville.

Prison 1

Supporting the development of local, publicly owned broadband
networks has also become a mainstream national political issue. In
early 2015, then-President Barack Obama visited the site of one such
publicly owned network (Cedar Falls, Iowa) and announced several steps
his administration would be taking to bolster public and community
broadband networks.3 As discussed further below, a centrepiece of thiseffort was an attempt to stop state governments enacting corporatebacked laws impeding communities from establishing such networks.
This effort ultimately failed due to the limits of executive branch powers
and the election of Donald Trump as President in 2016. However, in August
2019, Senator and Democratic Party presidential candidate Elizabeth
Warren unveiled a US$85 billion plan to aid in the development of such

139

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

networks (along with co-operative and non-profit networks), especiallyin rural areas.4 Critically, for-profit corporations would be excluded
from receiving these funds. The plan also called for legislation to remove
state-level limitations on local networks. One of her challengers, themore centrist Pete Buttigieg, unveiled a similar plan.5

Slower speeds, limited access
Many people probably assume that in the twenty-first century, theworld’s largest economy would also have the best access to high-speed
Internet. However, that simply is not the case. According to recent estimates by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 21.3 million
Americans (more than the total population of the Netherlands) do nothave access to an Internet connection with download/upload speeds of atleast 25 Mbps/3 Mbps (considered by the government to be the bare minimum to qualify as broadband service). Meanwhile, 138 million people
do not have access to a connection with speeds of at least 250 Mbps/25
Mbps.6 When considering these numbers, it is also worth rememberingthat first and foremost, they are likely an underestimate, and second, justbecause a person may have access to high-speed Internet, does not mean
they can afford it. As Senator Warren pointed out in her plan, nearly 30
per cent of households in some urban areas, such as Detroit and Cleveland, do not have any Internet connection, and this is primarily due tocost. On top of this, Internet in the United States is far slower and more
expensive than most other advanced countries. According to recent estimates, the United States may be as low as 15th in the world when it comesto average speeds; and 56th when it comes to cost per Mb.7
A corporate oligopoly in the telecommunications sector is a major
reason why wide swathes of the country (both geographically and socioeconomically) are left with inferior or unaffordable service. ‘Given that
duopolies presently dominate both the wired (Comcast, Time Warner)
and wireless (Verizon, AT&T) U.S. markets’, University of Pennsylvania

140

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

professor Victor Pickard writes, ‘it is reasonable to assume that a lackof competition plays an important role in this predicament’.8 Similarly,
Harvard’s Susan Crawford writes:‘most Americans probably believe the communications sector of theeconomy has room for innumerable competitors, but they may besurprised at how concentrated the market for the modern-day equivalentof the standard phone line is. These days what that basic transmission
service is facilitating is high-speed access to the Internet. In that market,
there are two enormous monopoly submarkets – one for wireless andone for wired transmission. Both are dominated by two or three large
companies.’9
These corporations have little incentive to invest in improving Internet
networks in sparsely populated or low-income areas, and every incentive
to raise prices as much as possible in areas where they have a monopoly(or duopoly).
Simply put, many municipalities cannot rely upon a few large
telecommunications corporations to provide the digital infrastructureneeded to develop thriving local economies and communities in thetwenty-first century. For many areas in the US, this is especially critical
as a lack of economic opportunity is a major factor in the migration ofpeople to large cities (and their suburban areas) and lower population
growth in rural areas.10 This leads to a downward spiral of lower tax
revenues, service cuts, and further population loss that has left many UScommunities struggling to survive.

Local ownership and control
For an increasing number of US communities, the solution to this problem
has been municipalisation. Specifically, that means the development anddeployment of publicly owned, high-speed broadband Internet networks,

141

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

often established and operated by a local, publicly owned electric utility.
These networks use fiber-optic cables and have the capacity to provide
phone and television service in addition to Internet access. They canconnect a whole city or community (‘Fiber to the Home’ or FTTH), most ofa city or community, or certain areas (e.g. business or medical districts).
One of the primary motivations for establishing a municipal broadband
network is access and affordability, especially as it relates to economic
development and ensuring local businesses can thrive. For instance, inThomasville, Georgia publicly owned Community Network Services (CNS)
is credited with helping to support local small businesses and a thriving
downtown area. ‘The best part about CNS’, the company explains, ‘isthat it is funded locally, by the cities which it serves. This means if you
are a CNS customer, you are investing in your own communities, not a
corporation headquartered across the country’.11

Case I: Tullahoma, Tennessee
Municipal broadband networks are also often credited withattracting business investment and jobs to areas that otherwise
would not have been considered. Recently, EnableComp (a medical
claims processor) announced that it would set up an office witharound 200 jobs in the city of Tullahoma, Tennessee. The city’s
mayor and economic development chief both credit the municipal
broadband network LightTUBe (run by the publicly owned
Tullahoma Utilities Authority, which is also responsible for thecity’s water, electricity and wastewater services) for the decision.
According to Lisa Gonzalez of ILSR, ‘before the city invested in the
network, job growth in Tullahoma lagged behind the rest of thestate, but within two years after the city began offering broadband,that statistic changed. Job growth in the city doubled Tennessee’s
statewide rate’.12

142

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

Case ll: Mount Washington, Massachusetts
Many communities, especially those not served or underserved by
the few large telecommunications corporations, have establishedpublicly owned broadband networks in order to ensure further
reaching or more reliable service. For instance, because of its
remote location, residents of the small town of Mount Washington,
Massachusetts were forced to rely on unreliable and expensive
satellite Internet service. In 2013, the town began to explore thepotential for municipalisation. After receiving an exemption (dueto population size) from state laws that require such networks
to be run by a publicly owned Municipal Light Plant (electricor gas utility), the municipality established the Town of Mount
Washington Fiber Network in 2017. The town received financial
support in this endeavour from the Massachusetts Broadband
Initiative, a state agency.13

Case lll: Wilson, North Carolina
Poor service and affordability were also reasons why the City ofWilson, North Carolina established a city-wide municipal broadband
network called Greenlight in 2006. The success of Greenlight hasforced Time Warner Cable (now Charter Spectrum) to keep its
prices down to compete. Between 2007 and 2009, Time Warnerraised its rates in non-competitive neighbouring jurisdictions by
as much as 52 per cent but kept prices stable in Wilson.14 Fasterand more reliable Internet for residential customers also has an
economic component as it supports small home-based businesses
and entrepreneurs, telecommuting options for larger businesses,
and general quality of life improvements that make local areas
attractive to businesses.15

143United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

Case lV: Chattanooga, Tennessee
While many municipal broadband networks offer faster than
average service, some are even starting to roll out 10 Gbps service. One example is in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where the city’s
publicly owned utility (Electric Power Board) has been operatinga fiber network since 2009. It was the first location in the UnitedStates to offer 1 Gbps service and it subsequently upgraded to
10 Gbps. ILSR reports that from 2011 to 2015, the network was
responsible for adding around 2,800 new jobs and US$1 billion
to the local economy.16 It is also one of the larger publicly owned
networks in the country, serving not only the roughly 180,000
residents of Chattanooga, but also those in the neighbouring
jurisdictions of East Ridge, Ridgeside, Signal Mountain, Lookout
Mountain, Red Bank, Rossville (Georgia), Flintstone (Georgia)
and Wildwood (Georgia).

Partnership options
While many municipal broadband networks are owned and operated bya single municipality, a few communities have come together in publicpublic partnerships. This allows municipalities, especially those that aresmaller in size or density, to overcome certain hurdles related to scale
and the cost of providing service. For instance, Community Network
Services is a partnership between Thomasville and the cities of Cairo,
Camilla and Moultrie. In 1997, these municipalities formed the South
Georgia Governmental Services Authority, through which CNS was
subsequently established. In 2015, CNS expanded into two additional
communities (Doerun, where it took over operations of another, small
publicly owned utility; and Norman Park, where it purchased a for-profit
cable company). Another similar network is ECFiber in East Central
Vermont. Comprised of 24 communities that are ill-served by corporate
providers, ECFiber partnered with a non-profit Internet service provider

144

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

called ValleyNet to deliver ‘fast, reliable, and affordable Internet to every
home, business, and civic institution in our territory’.17 As of June 2019,
ECFiber has connected 3,500 residents in 22 of the towns (with eight fully
covered). ‘If private business cannot or will not create the infrastructureneeded to support the Vermont lifestyle’, the network states, then ‘local
government and community-based organisations such as ECFiber can
and will’.18
Three other variations on this theme of partnership are: 1) publicpublic partnerships between local public enterprises and services withina municipality; 2) ‘balanced’ public-private partnerships with smaller,
for-profit companies (and with the city retaining ownership); and3) municipal support for the development of multi-community cooperatives.
To illustrate the first, the recent public-public agreement between two
publicly owned entities in Skagit County, Washington – the Port of Skagit
and the Skagit Public Utility District (which provides water services) –plans to develop a fiber network that will improve access in rural areasof the county (the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington already havemunicipal broadband networks).19
Westminster, Maryland is an example of a “balanced” public-private
partnership. Here, the municipality is building a city-wide fiber networkthat will provide all residents access to a 1 Gbps Internet. The service isprovided by a small, private Internet service provider called Ting, whichhas 400 employees and operates in several small towns and cities. Aftera period of exclusivity, Ting will be required to provide open access tothe network (meaning other companies or entities can provide service
to customers).20 Unlike larger corporations, Ting prides itself on its
commitment to the concept of a free and open Internet (net neutrality)
over the possibility of generating higher profits by prioritising certain
contents and customers.

145

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

Finally, an example of municipally supported multi-community cooperatives is the RS Fiber Cooperative in south central Minnesota. The
co-operative offers wireless and fiber-optic service to around 6,200
homes, farms and small businesses in a roughly 700 square mile area.
To establish the co-operative, 10 small cities and 17 townships came
together and formed a Joint Powers Agreement that allowed them to sellbonds, the proceeds from which were then lent to the co-operative tostart building the network.21

Challenges
Due to the rapid spread of municipalisation and the success of local,
publicly owned broadband networks, the large telecommunications
corporations and their political allies in state governments have madeit a priority to block and hinder such efforts (although in recent years,
as discussed below, a détente has settled in). Currently, 19 states haveenacted laws that impede or impair the establishment of municipal
broadband networks, often, ILSR reports, ‘at the behest of large telecom
monopolies’.22 Commonly referred to as ‘preemption laws’, these range
from outright bans in a handful of states to onerous and complicated legal
and financial requirements that do not apply to the private sector. These
preemption laws have in some cases prevented new municipalisations,
restricted expansion of municipal broadband networks, or forced
municipalities to consider selling or closing their service.
In early 2015, during the Obama administration, the FCC issued a rulingthat attempted to use federal regulatory authority to overturn statelaws restricting local municipalisation efforts. As expected, hostile
state governments led by Tennessee and North Carolina sued the FCC
in an attempt to maintain their state-level preemption laws. In August
2016, the Sixth Court of Appeals overturned the FCC ruling, findingthat only a direct act of Congress could stop state-level restrictions
on local publicly owned broadband networks. It is for this reason that

146

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

a centrepiece of Senator Warren’s plan for supporting municipal andco-operative broadband networks was federal legislation banning suchstate-level laws. ‘We will preempt these laws and return this power tolocal governments’, her plan stated.23
Alongside preemption laws, corporate lobbyists in state governments
are also actively trying to bar municipal broadband networks (andmunicipalities more generally) from receiving state investment funds forbroadband development – limiting the expansion potential of municipal
broadband while at the same time diverting those funds into corporate
coffers. For instance, in 2018 Michigan introduced legislation that would
have established a state fund to support broadband infrastructure.
Municipalities would have been barred from receiving grants from thefund and the threshold for a project to qualify for grants was set at ameasly 10 Mbps/1 Mbps. With such provisions, the law would transfer‘money from the state treasury to Frontier, AT&T, and any other telcothat refuses to invest in anything better than DSL [Digital Subscriber
Line] in rural Michigan’, wrote Lisa Gonzalez of ILSR at the time.24
While the original bill failed, the restrictive provisions were included inappropriations legislation that subsequently became law. Tennessee andVirginia have also prevented local governments from applying for statebroadband subsidies.25

A bright future
While

corporate

lobbying

andstate-level

preemption

laws

are

undoubtedly an ongoing challenge, broadband municipalisations in the
United States are likely to continue in the coming years. In addition topotential future federal action that could dramatically scale up financial
and legal support for the development of municipal networks, there
are indications that some states are beginning to think more critically
about the impact that such preemption laws have on their economies
and communities. The last major preemption law was enacted in 2011147

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet(North Carolina), and since then restrictions in three states (California,
Colorado and Arkansas) have been lifted, weakened or proven a false
barrier to municipal broadband development. Moreover, more than halfof all states, including the populous states of California and New York,currently have no such restrictions.
The primary reason municipalisation is likely to continue, however, isthat it has a proven track record of success and is generally popular at
the local level. Hundreds of US communities have decided not to abandon
their fate to a handful of large corporations, and instead are taking controlof their own destiny by establishing the economic infrastructure they
will need to thrive in the twenty-first century. Many are already seeing
the fruits of their efforts as their publicly owned broadband networks
deliver jobs and economic activity (e.g. Tullahoma and Chattanooga,
Tennessee), improved quality of life (e.g. Wilson, North Carolina andMount Washington, Massachusetts), advances in health and education(e.g. EC Fiber in Vermont), and, crucially, local democratic control. For
the tens of millions of Americans and thousands of local communities
that continue to lack access to affordable, high-speed Internet, thesepioneering efforts illuminate a path to economic stability and a more
equitable and prosperous future.

148

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Christopher Mitchell is the Director of the Community
Broadband Networks Initiative with the Institutefor Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) in Minneapolis.
Mitchell is a leading national expert on community
networks and Internet access. He also serves as
the Policy Director for Next Century Cities within
his role at ILSR. On a day-to-day basis, Mitchellruns MuniNetworks.org, the comprehensive online
clearinghouse of information about local government
policies to improve Internet access.
Thomas M. Hanna is Research Director at The
Democracy Collaborative and Co-Director of theorganization’s Theory, Policy, and Research Division.
He has published dozens of articles in popularand academic journals on democratic models ofownership and governance. His recent publications
include Our Common Wealth: The Return of Public
Ownership in the United States (Manchester
University Press, 2018), The Crisis Next Time:
Planning for Public Ownership as an Alternative toCorporate Bank Bailouts (Next System Project, 2018).

149

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

Endnotes
1

Community Networks (2019) Community Network Map. Available at: https://muninetworks.org/
communitymap (retrieved 4 September 2019).

2

Electric co-operatives own networks that serve around 300 communities. ILSR is still gathering information on networks developed by telephone co-operatives and considers the current
data to be a dramatic underrepresentation of the actual number of communities served bysuch co-operative networks.

3

Obama, B. (2015) ‘Remarks by the President on Promoting Community Broadband’. Obama
White House Archives. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/14/remarks-president-promoting-community-broadband (retrieved 4 September2019).

4

Warren, E. (2019). ‘My Plan to Invest in Rural America’. Medium. Available at: https://medium.
com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-invest-in-rural-america-94e3a80d88aa (retrieved 4 September2019).

5

Coldewey, D. (2019). ‘Pete Buttigieg Echoes Warren with $80B Rural Broadband Plan’. TechCrunch. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/13/pete-buttigieg-echoes-warren-with-80brural-broadband-plan/ (retrieved 5 September 2019).

6

Federal Communications Commission (2019) 2019 Broadband Deployment Report. FCC.
Available at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-44A1.pdf (retrieved 5 September2019).

7

Lai, S. (2019). Countries with the Fastest Internet in the World 2019. Atlas & Boots. Available
at: https://www.atlasandboots.com/remote-jobs/countries-with-the-fastest-internet-in-the-world/(retrieved 4 September 2019); Lai, S. (2019). Countries with the Cheapest Internet in the World– Ranked. Atlas & Boots. Available at: https://www.atlasandboots.com/remote-jobs/countrieswith-the-cheapest-internet-world/ (retrieved 4 September 2019).

8

Pickard, V. (2015) America’s Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 221.

9

Crawford, S. (2013) Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New
Gilded Age. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 5.

10Wharton Public Policy Initiative (2018) Rural America is Losing Young People – Consequences
and Solutions. University of Pennsylvania. Available at: https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/
live/news/2393-rural-america-is-losing-young-people- (retrieved 4 September 2019).

11

Community Network Services (2019) About CNS. Available at: http://www.cns-internet.com/
Content/Default/7/426/0/cns/about-us.html (retrieved 6 September 2019).

12

Gonzalez, L. (2019) LighTUBe Attracts 200 New Jobs to Tullahoma, Tennessee. Community
Networks. Available at: https://muninetworks.org/content/lighttube-attracts-jobs-tullahoma-tennessee (retrieved 4 September 2019).

13

Gonzalez, L. (2017). Mount Washington, MA, Makes the Next Move: Design, Construction.
Community Networks. Available at: https://muninetworks.org/content/mount-washington-mamakes-next-move-design-construction (retrieved 5 September 2019).

14

The Executive Office of the President, (2017). Community-Based Broadband Solutions. [Obama
White House Archives. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/
docs/community-based_broadband_report_by_executive_office_of_the_president.pdf (retrieved 5
September 2019).

15

Community Networks (n.d.) Municipal Networks and Economic Development. Available at:https://muninetworks.org/content/municipal-networks-and-economic-development (retrieved 5
September 2019).

150

United States: Communities providing affordable, fast broadband Internet

16

Community Networks (n.d.) Municipal FTTH Networks. Available at: https://muninetworks.org/
content/municipal-ftth-networks (retrieved 5 September 2019).

17

EC Fiber (2019) Available at: https://www.ecfiber.net/ (retrieved 5 September 2019).

18

EC Fiber (2019) Available at: https://www.ecfiber.net/ (retrieved 5 September 2019).

19

Gonzalez, L. (2018) Port and PUD Partnering for Fiber in Skagit. Community Networks.
Available at: https://muninetworks.org/tags/tags/mt-vernon (retrieved 5 September 2019).

20

Lucey, P. and Mitchell, C. (2016) Successful Strategies for Broadband Public-Private Partner=
ships. [online). Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Available at: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/08/PPP-Report-2016-1.pdf (retrieved 5 September 2019).

21

Carlson, S. and Mitchell, C. (2016) RS Fiber: Fertile Fields for New Rural Internet Cooperative
Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Next Century Cities. Available at: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/04/rs-fiber-report-2016.pdf (retrieved 5 September 2019]; RS Fiber,(no date). What is RS Fiber? [online)Available at: https://www.rsfiber.coop/about-us/what-is-rsfiber/ (retrieved 5 September 2019).

22

Kienbaum, K. (2019) Preemption Détente: Municipal Broadband Networks Face Barriers in 19
States. Community Networks. Available at: https://muninetworks.org/content/preemption-detente-municipal-broadband-networks-face-barriers-19-states (retrieved 5 September 2019).

23

Warren, E. (2019) ‘My Plan to Invest in Rural America’. Medium. Available at: https://medium.
com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-invest-in-rural-america-94e3a80d88aa (retrieved 4 September2019).

24

Gonzalez, L. (2018) Malicious Michigan Bill in Committee December 6th. Community
Networks. Available at: https://muninetworks.org/content/malicious-michigan-bill-committee-december-6th (retrieved 5 September 2019).

25

Gonzalez, L. (2019) Three States, Their Local Communities, and Broadband Funding Denied.
Community Networks. Available at: https://muninetworks.org/content/three-states-their-localcommunities-and-broadband-funding-denied (retrieved 10 September 2019).

151

Part 2.
From (re)municipalisation
to democratic public ownership

152

Chapter 10

A new water culture: Catalonia’s
public co-governance model in themakingBy Míriam Planas and Juan Martínez

In 2010, a slow but constant movement for public water services began
in Catalonia, and remunicipalisation is now a reality in 27 municipalities(with another seven determined to follow their example in the next few
years). Eighty-four per cent of the population in this Spanish autonomous
region depend on a private company for their water supply. This isequivalent to roughly 400 of Catalonia’s 900 municipalities.
In 2011 the Aigua és Vida (Water is Life) regional platform was set up in
Catalonia by a wide variety of civil society organisations: neighbourhood
associations, trade unions, environmental and international solidarity
organisations, among others. The aim of the platform is to advocate forthe public sector to decide on water policy and manage the entire water
cycle in Catalonia, with civil society participation and oversight to ensure
the quality of the service and democratic governance. The platform alsodenounces the role of the private sector in the management of waterand sanitation, and participates in groups and networks at the national,
European and global level.
Other municipal local platforms campaigning for remunicipalisation indifferent cities emerged during the same period, such as Aigua és Vida
Girona and Taula de l’Aigua de Terrassa, with more in subsequent years
to reach 18 local groups across the region. These are local neighbourhood
platforms working in each municipality to develop citizen oversight ofwater and advocate for the remunicipalisation of the service.

153

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

SPAIN OF CASES 119
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 105
Municipalisation 14

Health care &social services

Waste

6

14
EnergyWater

Education

18

38

2

Local government

41

Housing 2
Food and catering 1

Public (green) space maintenance 12
Parking 6
Building cleaning and maintenance 10
Sports 2
Cultural activities 2
Construction 1
Funeral services 2

Highlights• The number of (re)municipalisations has more than doubled since 2017.
• A very strong social and municipalist movement has pushed for the 38
water remunicipalisations.
• Water remunicipalisation in Terrassa is leading to new forms of democratic
decision-making. With the support of civil society, the city created a Water
Observatory so users can participate in public management.
• Valladolid has saved €13.3 million since water remunicipalisation in 2017,
almost 4% of the municipal budget for 2018.
• In total, 41 local government services were remunicipalised, such as school
canteens, green spaces, parking, cleaning and funeral services.

Other 3More recently, the Association of Municipalities and Organisations for
Public Water in Catalonia (Asociación de Municipios y Entidades por el
Agua Pública, AMAP) was established in January 2018. The founders of
this association were seven municipalities, two public service providers
and the Asociación Catalana de Enginyeria Sense Fronteres, representing
Aigua és Vida. One third of the inhabitants of Catalonia live in these sevenmunicipalities. The purpose of the association is to publicise and promote
fully public management of water, and to support municipalities thatwish to move towards public management. Another aim is to advocate forpublic policies on public management of water. On the eve of its second
anniversary, AMAP continues to grow and now has 36 members.

154

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

In this complex scenario, coordination, sharing and trust among diverse
movements and actors in the water sector have been key to chip away at
the private sector’s monopoly.The immediate challenge is how to build
new, long-lasting models designed for new forms of water governance.
In this sense, the case of the water movement in Terrassa can serve as
inspiration for new experiences.1

The process of recovering ownership of the service inTerrassa
Terrassa is a municipality located some 20 kilometres away from the cityof Barcelona. It is Catalonia’s third largest city in terms of population,with 218,535 inhabitants in 2018. In 1941, in the midst of the dictatorship,
the concession to manage and run the water supply service was awarded
to the company Mina Pública de Aguas de Terrassa, S.A. for a period of 75
years. Despite being ‘public’ in name, this is a strictly private company
owned by a group of industrialists from the city.
Taula de l’Aigua de Terrassa (Water is Life Terrassa) was created in 2013.
It is a social organisation originally formed to return the management of
the water supply service into public hands by 2016, the year the concession was due to end. It launched a process of information, documentationand training for its members, made contact with networks such as Aigua
és Vida and Enginyeria Sense Fronteres, and organised numerous information events and campaigns to collect signatures. When the municipal
elections were held in 2015, it campaigned for a ‘Social Pact for Public
Water’, a pledge committing to public, integrated and participatory management of the entire water cycle, and it invited all political groups andsocial organisations to become signatories.
Despite pressure from the city’s business lobby, in July 2016 Terrassa’s
City Council approved a motion in favour of direct management of thewater supply service. Finally, in June 2018, Taigua, Aigua Municipal de155

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

Terrassa was created as a public enterprise 100 per cent owned by themunicipal government.2 A month later, the by-laws were approved for
the Terrassa Water Observatory (Observatorio del Agua de Terrassa),
mandating it to facilitate citizen participation in order to define policies
and guide strategic decisions affecting the municipal water supply service.3

The Water Observatory as a body for collaboration
The Terrassa Water Observatory has its origins in a motion approved by
the Citizen Parliament of Terrassa, a forum that promotes debate andagreements pushed by citizens for consideration by local authorities. Prolonged negotiation with the municipal government and political groups
in favour of remunicipalisation led to the approval of its by-laws in July
2018. Putting the Observatory in place was another lengthy negotiation
process, which unfolded during three key meetings held in 2019: in February when it was officially set up; in March when appointments weremade for all of the management posts; and in April when the work plan4
and budget were approved and working groups were set up.5 The Observatory is an innovative body for participation and collaboration, which
has become a point of reference for many other municipalities in Catalonia and Spain, particularly for the movement campaigning for publicmanagement of water.
The Observatory was set up as an autonomous organisation affiliatedwith the Terrassa City Council. The nature of its work is to consult,advise, deliberate and make proposals, and it is able to carry out studies
and produce reports and recommendations on water management. It also
has the power to draft agreements that must be studied by the municipal
government with the aim of including citizen participation in defining
policies and strategic decisions to ensure that the service operates
properly.

156

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

Publish agreements, reports,
studies, proposals, publications
and opinions

Exercise public control over theserviceNew water culture:actions, training andinformation

Transparency policy:
information, communication and indicators

Energise participation
processes within thewater service

The Terrassa Water
Observatory

Participate in defining
municipal policy

Management andcommunication

Promote networking

The preamble to its by-laws states that the Observatory was established‘with the political will to improve governance of the city by increasing
participation, collaboration and consensus-building with citizens andsocial actors’, and it specifies that ‘this new space is designed to be aparticipatory forum that will operate autonomously, with its own work
plan and sufficient funding to be able to fulfill its roles and responsibilities
and achieve its objectives, in compliance with the democratic quality
criteria established by the Terrassa City Council’.
The fact that the Observatory operates autonomously is essential toenable it to perform its roles. This autonomy is guaranteed by theappointment of an independent president by the Plenary, as well as thatof coordinators whose actions must follow the guidelines issued by thepresident and the Standing Commission, all of which aims to insulate itfrom politics related to election cycles.
As the highest governing body, the Plenary is composed of a representativefrom each political group in the municipality, a representative of themunicipal government (in this case, the councillor responsible for thecity’s water service who attends meetings but does not chair them), and157

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

Standing
Commission

Group on social
control

Plenary
Water Observatory of Terrassa

Group on thehuman rightto water andsocial justice

Board of
Research

Group ontransparency
and indicators

Group on water
footprint, circular
economy andecosystem
services

Group on water
quality andtaste

Board of
Education

Group onEuropeanprojects
and funding
sources

Board of
Research

representatives of technical service staff, businesses, community groups,
unions, the education sector and university-based research groups. Boththe president and the Plenary can also invite people from outside theObservatory (with no voting right) to enrich the debate and discussion on
any specific issue. This diverse composition makes management of the
Observatory somewhat complicated, but it also enhances its consensusbuilding capacity and gives it a high level of legitimacy.
The driving forces behind the Observatory and ensuring that its work planis implemented are the six working groups and the three collaboration
boards or networks – research/university, education/schools andcitizenship/community groups. The working groups are coordinated by
the Observatory’s Standing Commission, and are open to everyone who
wishes to contribute. The individuals involved are mainly from socialorganisations, universities and other groups that are members of the
Observatory.
The three collaboration boards are autonomous forums that act as interest
groups, aiming to reinforce the common project, raise the Observatory’s
profile and lobby to influence their sector. For example, the Observatory158

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

has delegated to the board of Education the task of promoting the newwater culture in the education system. The board of Research acts as a
broker within the university setting and facilitates communication withteaching staff and students. The board of Citizenship does the same with
community groups. All of these spaces are open to anyone who wishes tocontribute.
The representatives and members of the governance structure areappointed for a four-year term. The president is elected by the Plenary,with an absolute majority of members (except the person representing
the municipal government), and the position is voluntary. Consecutive
terms are not allowed.

Now that we have recovered ownership of water, whatnext?
Now the major task for Taula de l’Aigua, the social organisations, thepolitical groups and city government is to consolidate the Observatory’s
process and project. This implies delivering on the agreed work plan andovercoming process-related barriers.
The work plan is structured around four main areas of action. The firstis communication: this involves defining the image of the Observatoryand developing the communication tools that will enable it to transmit
information and knowledge successfully. The second area of work is tomake the concept of social control6 meaningful and develop objectives, awork plan and methodology; this also involves information management,
transparency and indicators for monitoring. The third area is related topromoting a new water culture locally, through activities in schools.
Finally, the fourth area involves conducting studies on key issues
pertaining to the water cycle in the city, as they relate to the social,environmental and technical-economic dimensions relevant to theworking groups.

159

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

Of the many and varied challenges that must be addressed, we present
three salient ones. The first is the conflict between the autonomy of partof the management structure and the hierarchy of municipal government
responsibilities. The second is to guarantee the co-production of public
policy and collaborative governance in a public service. The third is the
weakness linked to disagreements between social groups due to different
ways of understanding social mandates.
With regard to the first challenge, in a study on the Observatory7 theresearcher Hug Lucchetti asks whether the Observatory as a com-munity
management body fits within the municipal government’s organisational
structures. He concludes that it does not, for two reasons: an institutional
culture receptive to this type of public oversight does not yet exist in local
government; and the local government architecture and legislation thatwould facilitate it is not in place either. There is no doubt that the oldforms of governance are not a suitable format for the shared developmentof public policy. For this reason, there is a need to move forward withproposals to make changes to the regulations regarding participation to
include the approach of co-produced public policy and co-managementof public services, as well as a need to develop new narratives that help
to change the current political culture that is suspicious of innovationsof this type. The difficulty of combining the desire for citizen oversightand the desire for an increasingly managerial style in public service isclear. Everything will depend on the political balance of power between
City Council and the social movements, which need to defend the model.
Although the new municipal government has reiterated its commitment
to the project, many politicians and officials are still very reluctant tofacilitate participation by the Observatory in the City Council’s internal
assessment processes and legislative proposals, and this aversion willneed to be overcome.
In order to surmount these misgivings and such reluctance, it will be necessary to do things properly, work thoroughly, maintain a firm commit-

160

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

ment to the project and its objectives, multiply and strengthen channels
for dialogue and collaboration, reinforce the project’s support networks
and adopt an attitude of patience and persistence. Right now, the continuity of the Observatory depends on the strong conviction of its supporters and on the perception among the main actors that it represents
a worthwhile political playing field. This demonstrates that it is difficult
to make the transition to these participatory models without empowering
citizens first.
With regards to the second challenge around the co-production of public
policy and collaborative governance, when the City Council remunicipalised the service it declared that its objective was to ‘take a step further
and define a new phase and culture of citizen participation in the management of the city’s common goods’.
The discussions and negotiations required to launch the Observatory
were lengthy and intense. Such debates are essential to define thenature of the Observatory and its place within the City Council. It is aquestion of defining what we want this ‘new phase and culture of citizen
participation’ to look like. It will need to be the result of an agreement
and shared commitment. For example, how will the different actors –local government, public water operator Taigua, the Observatory andother relevant organisations at the municipal level – coordinate with eachother? What are the roles and responsibilities of each actor? Does thiscoordination require specific spaces? How will information be managed?
And, in general terms, how do we design the new policy on water?
Concerning the third challenge, which relates to the different ways ofunderstanding social mandates among the social groups, it is worthemphasising that the Observatory is the result of the city’s social andpolitical actors placing their faith in collaboration and consensus-building
for co-production of public policy and collaborative governance. This
determination means devoting time and effort to discussion and forging

161

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

agreements among actors with different points of view. But participatingin local government also means working within a highly bureaucraticsystem, which implies a time commitment that may be exhausting forsocial groups.
Not every group is in favour of this strategy and some question whether
it is the most effective one for promoting certain ideas. They ask who
wins and who loses in these processes, how resources are distributed,
how power relations are transformed, how decisions are taken, who
benefits, and what degree of legitimacy the decisions have. Consensus
is necessary to take public policies forward. But social gains are
exercises in counter-power8 and are born from dissent. This is why the
civic-deliberative and consensus-building process represented by theObservatory is sometimes viewed unfavourably. Even if the Observatory
has only been operating for a short time, there are already some tangible
results, such as the development of a training proposal in the form ofeducational activities within schools and proposals for research work.
In addition, the working groups are organising social reflection days,
and work is being done to prepare assessment reports and proposals on
how to define and implement the human right to water in the city, how
citizen oversight of public services can be defined and put in practice,
how to achieve transparency, what indicators should be used for theevaluation and monitoring of the service, what is the quality of the water
we consume, what are the implications of different forms of water use(particularly on health), how can we act as responsible consumers, whatis the water footprint of the city and its activities, and how can we make
improvements from the circular economy perspective.
The Observatory is a very new process. It is a great achievement thatcame after six years of work by many of the city’s social groups, but at
the time of writing it had only been running for nine months. As such,it remains an experiment and it is only with time that it will be able todemonstrate its effectiveness.

162

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

Box I‘Write water, read democracy’
This is a slogan deeply rooted in the battle to recover the publicmanagement of water throughout the world. In Terrassa, it has
been mentioned repeatedly and we have our own reading of its
meaning. The European Union Framework Directive on Water
introduced the notion of ‘active public participation’, which wasthen inserted in the legal framework that has developed since.
But in Terrassa, the word ‘participation’ is no longer usefulfor understanding each other. It is used by political groups,
governments and public administration in general, but we havecome to realise that they use it to mean something completely
different from what we, grassroots groups and citizen movements,
mean by it. This is why we need to use new words and seek new
definitions. So, instead, we talk about spaces for collaborationand consensus-building, collaborative networks, collaborative
governance, co-production of public policy, social empowerment,
citizen oversight, citizens sharing responsibility, governance forsustainability, a new political culture, a new social culture and a
new water culture.
The inclusion of these new words in the city’s political vocabulary
is disconcerting to political groups and the government, but theold words no longer help us to solve problems. This is, without adoubt, the main social and political battle in the city.

163

A new water culture: Catalonia’s public co-governance model in the making

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Míriam Planas is an activist with Engineering Without
Borders in Catalonia and spokesperson for Aigua ésVida (Water is Life), an organisation that campaigns toremunicipalise water in the Barcelona region and bring itback to public control.
Juan Martínez is the first president of Terrassa Water
Observatory, appointed by the Plenary. He is a memberof Taula de l’Aigua de Terrassa and is part of the UNESCO
Chair on Sustainability at Universitat Politècnica deCatalunya.

Endnotes
1

Planas, M. (2017) ‘Una ola ciudadana reivindica unos servicios públicos y democráticos de agua
en los municipios catalanes’, in S. , and (eds.) Remunicipalización: Cómo ciudades y ciudadanía están escribiendo el futuro de los servicios públicos, pp.162-172. Amsterdam: TNI et
al. Available at: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/remunicipalizacion_como_ciudades_y_ciudadania_estan_escribiendo_el_futuro_de_los_servicios_publicos.pdf

2

Taula de l’Aigua de Terrassa (2017) La remunicipalización del agua en Terrassa. Available at:https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_WhhRdbb1CoZzUwOGQ3cE9Rbk0

3

Taigua, Acuerdos municipales: https://www.taigua.cat/es/acuerdos-municipales/

4

Observatorio de l’Aigua de Terrassa (2019) ‘Pla de Treball’, Plenary 21 March. Available at:https://drive.google.com/file/d/12a9-xKpyh2h1isJ7aLIAYW7tP1VnsUE1/

5

Observatorio de l’Aigua de Terrassa (2019) Grups de treball, 25 April. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q1XPszhcPMpoNwWFpLMi0f7sDobi9fDT

6Social control is understood as the mechanism and process to guarantee society’s access to
information, technical representation and participation throughout the decision-making process around public services. It is understood as the participation of society in formulation andimplementation of policies. Planning, regulation, inspection, evaluation and services delivery
should be under social control.

7

Lucchetti, H. (2019) TFM. Estudi de Cas de l’Observatori de l’Aigua de Terrassa. Màster
Interuniversitari en Polítiques Socials i Acció Comunitària, UAB-IGOP Institut de Govern i
Polítiques Públiques. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cQkpd1CONCmDxiYe4gSBEb-KCN9gisOs/

8

Castro, M. y Martínez, M. (2016) ‘No hay participación sin redistribución del poder’. Diagonal
Periódico, 24 April. Available at: https://www.diagonalperiodico.net/movimientos/30226-no-hayparticipacion-sin-redistribucion-del-poder.html

164Chapter 11

The empire strikes back: Corporate
responses to remunicipalisation
By Olivier Petitjean

Over the last years, there has been a significant trend towards the remunicipalisation of public services in many sectors, which challenges thedominant narrative of a seemingly irresistible tide of privatisation sincethe 1980s and 1990s. Remunicipalisation involves taking back a public
service from a private entity. In some cases, this private operator is asmall, local company. In many cases, though, cities are dealing with large,
powerful transnational corporations, such as Suez and Veolia in the water
and waste sectors. In most cases, then, remunicipalisation takes place inthe context of a blatant imbalance of power in knowledge and resources
between a local public authority and a global corporation. It is all themore significant that we have witnessed so many remunicipalisations inspite of such unfavourable conditions.
Corporate representatives tend to deny that they have the upper hand andportray themselves as subjected to the rules and conditions imposed bypoliticians and public officials. Formally, from a purely legal perspective,
the relationships between public authorities and corporations are on an
equal footing: in theory, cities can freely negotiate the terms of theircontractual arrangements with private operators, and they are equally
free to end these contractual arrangements if they prove unsatisfactory.
Reality is often very remote from this ‘theoretical’ model. Corporations
have far more resources than local authorities, and far more allies; there
are many ways in which they can make their interests prevail and limit
the political options of elected political representatives.

165

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation

FRANCE OF CASES 156
TOTAL NUMBER

Remunicipalisation 155
Municipalisation 1

Transport

Waste

21

3

Energy

Water

2

109

Local government

21

Highlights

Food and catering 4
Sports 1
Parking 3• Around 70% of all cases took place in the water sector, which has seen awave of remunicipalisation since 2000, including large cities such as Paris,
Rennes, Grenoble, Nice and Montpellier.
• Paris is a significant model for remunicipalisation, with the introductionof groundbreaking democratic accountability mechanisms, an emphasison access to water for all, including homeless people and migrants, andadaptation to climate change - while keeping prices lower than they were
before remunicipalisation.
• Access to organic, local food in school restaurants and childcare is anothersector where progressive cities and local authorities are reinventing public
services, with the creation of municipal farms and innovative procurement
policies.
• Several cities like Paris and Rennes have introduced innovative partnerships
with the farming sector to protect water catchments, encourage a shift toorganic production and create new markets for them through procurement
and public labels.

This article is an overview of some ways in which corporations respond to
remunicipalisation, before and after it takes place. Its aim is to illustrate
the different levers of power and influence that corporations are able touse to prevent or hinder remunicipalisation. Also, it aims to provide somestrategic learnings for city officials and civil society groups confronted
with the uphill battle for remunicipalisation. It relies heavily on theexperience of the French water sector, where there has been an intense(and partly successful) political battle to break the stranglehold imposedby private corporations over the last 20 years.

166

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation‘First, they ignore you...’A few years ago, an international publication by the private water sector
referred indirectly to remunicipalisation as ‘the R word’.1 It was probably
a sign that the first, standard response of corporations to the threat ofremunicipalisation – trying to pretend it does not exist – was starting
to unravel. They were not ready to acknowledge that the return of waterto public management was a viable, potentially attractive alternative tothe domination of corporate giants, yet they could not ignore it anymore
either.
At first in France, corporations tried to act as if water remunicipalisation
was not happening. Then, they tried to depict the early examplesof remunicipalisation as marginal initiatives, motivated by purely
ideological reasons. Both arguments, of course, have been disproved.
First off, remunicipalisation is real: we have counted at least 110 casesin the water and sanitation sector in France since 2000. What is more,
it has been demonstrated that such a change also made sense from atechnical and economic point of view.2 Even conservative mayors, who
can hardly be accused of ideological bias, have done it.3 Still today, thedefault response of private sector representatives to remunicipalisation
will be to dismiss it.
What is true, however, is that remunicipalisation is unlikely to ever makeheadlines in the national media. First, it is essentially a local development
and often the very politicians who push remunicipalisation in their city
do not wish to make it a politicised or public issue. What is more, thesedevelopments contradict some commonly held beliefs about the public
sector and the unavoidability of corporate dominance that are deeply
ingrained in mainstream media. This is why the work of publicising
remunicipalisation is so important.

167

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation

Hostile environment
Corporations have more financial and technical resources, they have moreexperience in a variety of contexts, and they are used to dealing with many
local authorities. In contrast, when a public service has been privatised
for a very long time (or has always been private: think of water services
in Nice or Barcelona), municipal expertise in the water sector needs to berebuilt from scratch. In the case of the Paris water remunicipalisation,
the city decided to take the time necessary, years before the end of theprivate contract, to regain this expertise.
Given the profound imbalance of power between local authorities (often
small and scattered) and corporations, the former obviously needassistance. National public administrations, sectoral bodies, academics
and consultancy firms should all be there to help local authorities deal
with corporate providers and make the best decision possible according
to their policy objectives, by providing adequate advice and expertise. In
reality, the opposite often happens.
In France, Veolia, Suez and the private industry have managed toinfluence or exert control on the whole water sector, including nationallevel officials, so that the ‘advice’ received by local authorities is skewed
in their favour. This is true of both the technical advice specific to thewater sector, and of the legal advice about what local authorities canor cannot do in terms of EU law, for instance. Many of the specialised
consultancy firms hired by local authorities to advise them on theiroptions for water services are biased, often because they have a historicalconnection with private corporations or have an indirect economic
interest in the matter (and sometimes, to be fair, they are reluctant tosupport remunicipalisation because of their experience with poorly run
public services). Sectoral bodies and trade associations are funded byprivate companies and staffed by seconded personnel from Suez andVeolia. Public administrations often take a narrow view of the issues

168

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation

at hand and favour the private sector for two reasons: fiscal austerity(private management makes it look as if government is spending less)and supporting national ‘champions’ such as Suez and Veolia to continue
to be global leaders in the water market.
The only force that could counter-balance an environment so hostile toremunicipalisation is collaboration among public services. This can bedone through public-public partnerships4 or through the creation of
networks such as France Eau Publique or Aqua Publica Europea at theEuropean level, which allow for mutual support and operational synergies(at the national level) such as joint procurement, sharing of technicaldevelopments, and so on.

Privateers buying hearts and minds
In the battle for remunicipalisation, winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of
the different stakeholders and of the general public is crucial. This meanselected politicians, public administration staff, water sector workers, civicorganisations, consultants, and of course citizens: there are many players
who can push for or against remunicipalisation. Private companies havelong understood how important it is to cultivate good relationships withdecision-makers and all of those who could influence their business. And
they have the financial capacity to dedicate significant resources to this.
In France, Veolia organises every year a lavish dinner for French mayors
during their official annual conference. But this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the lobbying targeted at local officials. For years, both
Veolia and Suez were involved in the financing of French political parties,
through commissions on water contracts.5 This kind of blatant abuse has
become very rare, but as an illustration, until recently Veolia was still asponsor of the annual festival of the Communist newspaper L’Humanité,
and bought expensive ads on its pages. The reason is simple: Communist mayors from the suburbs of Paris had (and still have) deciding votes

169

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation

when it came to awarding the contracts to water service provider SEDIF
and SIAAP in the sanitation sector, both strategic for Veolia.
Even when political leaders opt for remunicipalisation, private companies
can turn to other stakeholders to mount opposition. It can be the oppositiongroups in the city council; or sometimes private companies turn to national
governments that actively seek to thwart remunicipalisation efforts by
local authorities, as seen in Spain when the national government joineda lawsuit initiated by the private sector against the city of Valladolid. Or
sometimes they have allied with the workers from the private service
providers and their unions, particularly in the water and energy sectors
where wages and conditions were historically better in the privatecompanies. This strategy was compounded by the fact that proponents ofremunicipalisation were sometimes undiplomatic in their public discourse
against private companies, omitting to differentiate between workers
who were just doing their job and company executives and shareholders
who focused on profit-making. In France, initially, some union leadersactively campaigned against water remunicipalisation. This is no longer
the case as workers and unions have come to see that their fears about
remunicipalisation were not justified all the while conditions within theprivate water companies were worsening.
In Barcelona, where the city council is seeking to take back its water
service from the hands of the private sector and is trying to organise acitizen referendum to this effect, the water company Agbar (now a subsidiary of Suez) has pushed this strategy very far. It has improved theconditions for its workers to turn them against remunicipalisation, it haslavished civil society organisations in Barcelona with generous subsidies
and sponsorships, and it has launched large-scale advertisement campaigns in the media... all on top of its traditional funding of local politicalparties.

170

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation

Legal straitjackets
Clearly, corporations have more resources and deeper pockets than local
authorities, but the average reader would logically think that at least‘there is the law’, and the law is the law. The relations between publicauthorities and private operators are governed by legal and contractualrules that should correct this profound imbalance of power. In theory,
cities have the right to defend their interests and end their contractual
relations with private companies if they have good reasons to do so. In
practice, however, things are not so simple. There are many layers oflegislation, national and international, and, unfortunately, some legal
provisions and mechanisms serve the interests of corporations. Even whena contract expires and a local authority exerts its seemingly very normal
right not to renew it and take the service back to public management,
there are still legal avenues for corporations to challenge the decision or,at least, claim large sums of money in compensation.
The most famous – or rather infamous – of these legal mechanisms areinvestor-state dispute settlements (ISDS). In a nutshell, these take placein private, opaque commercial tribunals which companies can resort towhen they consider that their investments and their profits have been
unfairly diminished by governments, and through which they can ask
for a hefty compensation. The key problem with this system is that thedefinition of ‘unfair’ is decided by a panel of private arbitrators, on thebasis of vague commercial law principles rather than on the substanceof the cases. As a result, most ISDS cases are resolved in favour ofcorporations, which is why it caused such a public outcry when it was
proposed that they be included in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership. Some ISDS cases have been initiated against laws passed
to protect water sources from fracking or mining, against new taxes oragainst raising the minimum wage. There have been several high-profile
cases targeting remunicipalisation or renationalisation of public services,
particularly in Argentina.6 Every time a large-scale remunicipalisation

171

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation

is being considered by a local authority, you can be sure the threat of an
ISDS complaint is aired, explicitly or implicitly.
In a sense, however, ISDS is just the tip of the iceberg. Many national
or EU laws can also be used against remunicipalisation. Some countries
such as Spain have even passed laws that actually ban local authorities
from creating new local public companies. In the end, a simple fact
remains: cities can decide to privatise their water service at any time,
but once they have signed a contract with a private company they cannot
easily get out of it, and they remain bound by its terms. In addition,
any dispute on the implementation of the contract will be judged by acommercial court, under commercial law, in which corporate lawyers are
obviously very versed – local officials much less so. And any mistake inthe remunicipalisation process or in the terms of the contract can be paidvery dearly, in the form of financial compensation.
This legal straitjacket on remunicipalisation is not so much about the actual
trials and court cases – which remain very few – as it is about the constantthreat of legal action. This is something that local politicians usually wantto avoid at all costs, and it is often sufficient to hinder remunicipalisationor convince them to pay significant compensation to private providers.
Experience shows, however, that when city councils choose to go to court
and challenge the compensation claimed by corporations, they often
succeed in getting these compensation costs cancelled or at least reduced.
This is why, in the fight for remunicipalisation, legal expertise is perhaps
just as important as technical expertise.

Political control versus technical control
Another key learning from French experiences with water remunicipalisation is that taking back control of the services involves much more thanjust deciding not to renew a contract. You might be in charge in principle,
but many key aspects of the service were put in place by private opera-

172

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation

tors. And many times, even when all the material pipes and the plants
have been returned to public management, the private companies stillown (or claim to own) all the immaterial aspects of the service, such asdata on equipment and customers, information systems, patented technologies used in water plants, possibly water meters, and the like. They
can decide either to make remunicipalisation more difficult by retainingsome of these assets, or by charging local authorities for their continued
use by the remunicipalised operator. This obviously leaves remunicipalised operators in a position of fragility, at least until they can build theirown tools and take back control of the immaterial aspects of the service
as well.

Price wars
Price is often a key reason for politicians and citizens to want to do awaywith private management of public services. Behind many stories of
remunicipalisation, there is a background of unjustified price hikes andthe siphoning of cash from the public service for private benefits. Take
away the unnecessary financial transfers to a parent company and its
shareholders, and you can lower the price almost instantly. This is justwhat the city of Paris did when it remunicipalised its water service: theprice of water was cut by 8 per cent on account of the many million euros
that were being ‘saved’ because there was no private shareholder involved
any more. More recently, in Montpellier, the price of water dropped by
10 per cent upon its return to public management, while maintaining
the same level of investments. This book includes many other examples
where a return to public management has resulted in significant savings
while maintaining or improving the quality of the service and theconditions for workers.
At the same time, price can also be a factor that corporations can use asleverage in their fight against remunicipalisation. In France, Veolia andSuez have responded to the threat of water remunicipalisation by offering

173

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation

dramatic cuts in the price of water when negotiating new contracts withlocal authorities. Since 2000, many large French cities (Paris, Grenoble,
Nice, Montpellier, Rennes) have opted to remunicipalise water. Other
large cities (Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux, Toulouse) that have decided torenew their contracts with Suez or Veolia justify their decision by thesesubstantial price cuts. Local authorities and private companies havereported an estimated 25 per cent price cut in Toulouse or Lyon, anda 20 per cent reduction in Marseille, although consumer organisations
have disputed the figures. On the one hand, this can be seen as a positive
development, as it is a corrective to some of the most blatant abusesof the past. On the other hand, lowering the price of water in suchproportions while still trying to make a profit obliges private companies
to cut on maintenance, investments and workers’ conditions. It results
in a ‘low-cost’ public service, which will prove unsustainable in thelong term for local authorities, and very probably for the corporations
themselves. Responsible public operators cannot and should not engage
in a ‘dumping’ strategy to keep prices low at all cost. This is a reminderthat although price is important and often decisive, it is not the only
criterion. Democratic control and the long-term sustainability of theservice are equally important.

Co-opting remunicipalisation
First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...
and then they pretend you are on the same side. A sign of the successof remunicipalisation is seeing private companies using the samelanguage as their opponents. Some private providers, such as Veolia
for the hotly contested SEDIF contract (Paris suburbs), have revamped
their entire communications strategy and now advertise themselves asa ‘public service’ just like their public rival Eau de Paris (city of Paris).
Other private operators now seek to imitate the governance innovationsof remunicipalised operators, such as creating seats for civil society
or citizen representatives on the board of directors. Needless to say,

174

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisationthese initiatives are usually much more superficial, and never reachthe degree of accountability that has been introduced in Paris with theWater Observatory for instance.7 Their aim is to suggest that the politicaldebates of the past and the opposition between public and private
management are no longer relevant. It might be perceived as a sign that
remunicipalisation has won the ‘battle of ideas’. While this might be true
on a very general level, in practice there are still many highly problematic
contracts in place, and the water sector in France remains under thedomination of large corporations. More than ever, these corporations areseeking new, indirect forms of privatisation (such as the building andrunning of water plants) that keep them more sheltered from the publicgaze, or new contractual formulas that have the appearance of publicmanagement while keeping the private company in the driving seat.8

Conclusion
When all is said and done, local politicians and citizen groups pushingfor remunicipalisation and undertaking to rebuild a public water service
still face an uphill battle in France. The achievements of the last 20 years
are all the more remarkable. In spite of the creation of networks such as
France Eau Publique, the public service side remains scattered and focusedon local issues in comparison to large companies such as Suez and Veolia.
Many of the issues and problems that have triggered the recent wave of
remunicipalisation are still present in cities such as Marseille or Lyon.
The fight needs to continue in those places, as efforts are called for to
reinvent democratic, sustainable and inclusive public services able to faceissues such as pollution and the impacts of climate change. There is no
possible equilibrium in a context where the legal and political framework
is still veered towards the private sector and big companies such as Suezand Veolia are still seeking to extract unjustified profits from delivering
public services. If the remunicipalisation movement in France does notcontinue to push ahead, it might soon start losing ground.

175

The empire strikes back: Corporate responses to remunicipalisation

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Olivier Petitjean is a journalist based in Paris. He
is the co-founder and chief editor of Observatoiredes multinationales (multinationales.org), an
investigative website and watchdog on French
corporations. He also writes for Basta!, a progressive
news website, on issues related to lobbying, corporate
power and the commons. He is the co-founder ofthe European Network of Corporate Observatories.
Previously he worked in various positions in the nonprofit sector and the publishing business.

Endnotes
1

See Elkins, I. (2015) Exorcising the “R” word. Global Water Intelligence Magazine 16(4), 23
April. Available at: https://www.globalwaterintel.com/global-water-intelligence-magazine/16/4/
opinion/exorcising-the-r-word2

See the Chapter 2 in this book, entitled ‘Paris celebrates a decade of public water success’.

3

See Petitjean, O. (2015) ‘Nice: Building a public water company after 150 years of private management’, in S. Kishimoto, E. Lobina and O. Petitjean (eds.) Eau publique, eau d’avenir: L’expérience mondiale de la remunicipalisation, pp. 88-95. Amsterdam: TNI, PSIRU, Observatoire desmultinationales, MSP, EPSU, FEP and APE. Available at: https://www.tni.org/en/publication/
our-public-water-future.

4

See Chapter 11 in this book on ‘Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public
partnership in the water sector’.

5

Lenglet, R. and Touly, J-L. (2006) L’eau des multinationales. Paris: Fayard.

6

See Kishimoto, S. (2015) ‘Trade agreements and investor protection: A global threat to public water’,in S. Kishimoto, E. Lobina and O. Petitjean (eds.) Our Public Water Future: The global experience with remunicipalisation, pp. 96-111. Amsterdam: TNI, PSIRU, Multinationals Observatory, EPSU and MSP. Available at: https://www.tni.org/en/publication/our-public-water-future.

7

See Petitjean, O. (2015) ‘Taking stock of remunicipalisation in Paris. A conversation with Anne Le
Strat’, in S. Kishimoto, E. Lobina and O. Petitjean (eds.) Our Public Water Future: The global
experience with remunicipalisation, pp. 66-74. Amsterdam: TNI, PSIRU, Multinationals
Observatory, EPSU and MSP. Available at: https://www.tni.org/en/publication/our-public-water-future

8

An example in France is the semi-public company structure (société d’économie mixte à
opérateur unique), which is advertised as an entirely publicly controlled company that is just‘operated’ by a private provider.

176

Chapter 12

The labour dimension of
remunicipalisation: Public service
workers and trade unions intransition
by Daria Cibrario

Public service remunicipalisation involves and affects workers. Tradeunions are often key actors in the campaigns to bring municipal services
from private management or ownership back into the public domain. By
exposing to local authorities, service users and union members the evidenceof the human and social costs of privatisation, they frequently lead thediscourse in favour of reclaiming public services in the common interest.
Labour therefore plays a critical role in remunicipalisation processes,
both as a progressive force and key collective actor entrenched in the
fabric of the transferring services. However, the specific circumstancesand concerns faced by workers and trade unions undergoing private-topublic transitions are yet to be fully addressed.
Remunicipalisation is a complex process, and every case is unique tospecific local and national regulations, political and social movement
landscapes, and industrial relations systems. Each instance has its
specific challenges, which can include issues from the transfer of pay
and entitlements such as pension funds, leave and seniority to changes
in job descriptions or career development paths from a private to a publicorganisation. Moving the workforce across sectors can be complicatedwhen different legislations and collective agreements apply, or when thelaw is silent or unclear. Legal obstacles can stand in the way of transfers,
such as rules mandating workers to win a public competition to do thesame job in the public sector. There are also instances where unions

177

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

are restricted to representing workers only in private or public sector
employment, but not in both. This could cause union membership loss
in a transition.
While awareness of the strategic importance and human rights imperativeof the labour dimension of any remunicipalisation process is increasing,1
the concrete challenges, workplace stories and lessons learned fromcompleted or ongoing private-to-public transition experiences remain
largely under-researched and at times misunderstood. As the number ofcases rises across continents and sectors, many public service workers’
and trade unions’ remunicipalisation stories are waiting to be told.
This chapter is part of Public Services International’s (PSI) ongoing
efforts to shed light on the growing union experience in this field, aiming
to lay the groundwork for successful remunicipalisation while avoiding
common pitfalls.2 For the purpose of this publication, it focuses on alimited sample of the many labour actions, challenges and issues thattypically remain under the remunicipalisation radar. It is largely basedon information obtained during interviews carried out by PSI with union
representatives directly involved in remunicipalisation cases.

Mobilising and building knowledge to challenge thepro-privatisation narrative
Trade unions have actively built and participated in remunicipalisation
campaigns by joining forces with civil society organisations to document
and expose the impact of privatisation on people and communities, whilebuilding a service user and citizen vision for the public services of the
future. Due to their workplace and community presence, unions are
traditionally strong at grassroots mobilisation. Thanks to their organisingcapabilities, they can mobilise their membership and use collective action
to trigger a discourse shift in some pro-privatisation environments.

178

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

The use of reputable research centres, investigative journalism, academia
and participatory public hearings, along with the systematic documentation of workers’ stories, allows unions to expose the damage caused byprivatisation and inform the public and local authorities about the reality
behind the gloss – ultimately helping them make informed decisions on
the future of the service.

Case l: Exposing privatised waste workers’ abuse in Winnipeg (Canada)
When the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) wanted
to make the case for insourcing the city of Winnipeg’s municipal
waste collection services privatised 13 years earlier, the union
approached the province’s Manitoba Office of the Canadian Centre
for Policy Alternatives to expose the dramatic deterioration ofservice quality and the abuse endured by municipal waste workers
in the privatised services. The private contractor had hired truck
drivers to collect refuse, pushing them to accept a ‘bogus selfemployment’ scheme, shifting social security costs and relatedrisks onto them. Meanwhile, to staff the trucks these drivers often
hired day labourers who were sometimes paid in cash, could be
easily let go, and were subject to substandard working conditions.
Even if citizens and users perceived a deterioration of service
quality, they did not know what was going on.
The researcher reached out to the workers and many answered
the call. The Trashed3 report exposed the precariousness, poverty
wages, health and safety risks, and exploitation endured bymunicipal waste workers in Winnipeg’s privatised services. It also
shed light on the ethnic and social segregation underlying such
exploitation, as most subcontracted workers were Indigenous and/or had a criminal record and faced trouble finding better quality
employment. The publication had a serious impact, prompting

179

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

reactions from Winnipeg City Council and making a strong casefor bringing Winnipeg waste services back in-house.4

Case ll: Australia’s ‘People’s Inquiry into Privatisation’
In 2016, ahead of a looming threat of even more public service
privatisation by then-Conservative government, Australian public
sector unions joined forces with civil society organisations andlaunched a national ‘People’s Inquiry into Privatisation’ – aparticipatory, transparent, grassroots and democratic assessmentof the consequences of 20 years of privatisation for people andcommunities. Unions and civil society allies approached three
independent, highly regarded investigators and launched a public
consultation that ran for 18 months across Australia.
Unions and civil society organisations did the grassroots
mobilisation through calls, flyers and social media to encouragecommunity participation, applying the same principles usedin door-to-door political campaigning and union organising.
People wishing to contribute and speak at the public hearings
could sign up on the website and at the venue. The inquiry built aparticipatory vision around a new generation of public services forthe people of Australia. It unveiled hard evidence of the ways thatprivatisation had damaged the lives of service users and workers,
as well as entire communities. This was the case for services forchildren with disabilities, vocational education and training, healthservices, and power generation and distribution. The inquiry brokethe dominant neoliberal pro-privatisation dogma, creating a morefavourable context in which to reclaim public service ownershipand management in Australia.5

180The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

Keeping cohesion, overcoming union fragmentation
Trade unions are not monolithic, and many factors can affectremunicipalisation outcomes. Depending on the industrial relations
system, union membership in public services may be fragmented acrossseveral, sometimes competing, unions in the same workplace. In addition,
when a service involves multiple facilities, different union branches cancoexist at the same workplace. If privatisation and outsourcing only
affect parts of a service, membership can cut across public and private
status. Workers may be covered by different collective agreements andconditions. Some workers may not be union members or excluded fromcollective bargaining coverage, as can be the case for temporary or agency
workers in some jurisdictions.
A variety of corporate cultures and private company-specific labour conditions and benefits can affect workers’ perceptions of remunicipalisation.
In some countries, the transition from private to public services canbe welcome and bring with it considerably better conditions, stronger
employment protection and status. In other countries, it can be perceived
negatively as potentially representing a loss of status and lower pay andconditions. Private companies that stand to lose profitable and prestigious
contracts will lobby, seeking to influence the political process and theworkers. These intricate configurations can create divisive dynamics
among workers and unions in the same workplace, but also among
different branches of the same unions.
Finally, unions can have different views and political positions overremunicipalisation. Some may support it openly by taking a strong politicalstance, while others may consider it a policy choice of each individual
worker. Interests, positions and strategies over remunicipalisation candiverge among workers on the shop floor and their unions.

181

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

Box lBehind the scenes of the Paris water remunicipalisation: thechallenges of union fragmentation
Prior to remunicipalisation and the creation of Eau de Paris as anintegrated water utility, Paris water services consisted of four
different companies: SAGEP and CRECEP6 (the water analysis laboratory) were under public control; private companies Veolia and
Eau et Force (a Suez subsidiary) provided water distribution services under 25-year lease contracts from the City of Paris. Union
membership was spread across 15 different local union branches:
CGT, UNSA, CFDT Interco, FO and CFE-CGC7 were among theunions representing the majority of the workers. These unions
had organisational differences: the CGT was mostly present at theworkplaces through plant-level union branches (syndicats d’établissement) and could negotiate with a certain autonomy fromits national federation. The CFDT Interco, on the other hand,
was organised as a sectoral local union (Syndicat des eaux d’Îlede-France) and was typically more closely accompanied by its
national federation in negotiations. On the political dimension of
remunicipalisation, the national CFDT Interco position was thata public service under private lease contract would be acceptableprovided there was effective control by the public authorities. The
CGT federation was openly in favour of returning water supply
to public ownership and wanted revenues from public water thatwere no longer paid out to shareholders to be reinvested in the
public utility.
Both federations supported workers in the transition, but many
were anxious about the remunicipalisation. Some rejected any
transfer to the public sector. This can be partially explained by
the fact that pay and conditions in French water services werecomparatively higher in the private companies at the time. Public

182

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

sector job security was not a compelling argument because in
France workers who transfer from a private to public sector
company find themselves under a hybrid private law regime(régie publique) and do not enjoy the same level of job security as
full-fledged public servants (fonctionnaires titularisés). Different
workplace cultures, as well as how attached certain workers felt
to their companies, also played an important role. The union
federations produced materials giving employees the facts about
the transfer process according to French legislation and described
how the service would operate under public ownership, with theaim of reassuring employees and reducing any uncertainty overthe employment transitions.8
Experience shows that in these situations, it is crucial for union
federations

and

local

representatives

tomaintainregular,clear

communication and dialogue with workers on the shop floor over the
implications of the remunicipalisation process. Unions also need tosupport non-union workers in the transition, by reaching out to themahead of remunicipalisation. It is vital to put in place proactive two-way
communications and outreach to build maximum cohesion within union
ranks. National union federations are well placed to grasp the complexity
underpinning such processes, but local unions have a better understandingof how the workplace is organised. National federations can increase
the chances of a positive transition by supporting their local brancheswith strategic advice, resources, legal and communication services, andby reaching out to shop stewards, members, public authorities and the
media.

Organising through remunicipalisation
Public sector workplaces traditionally feature high rates of unionisation,
whereas privatisation often means weaker, atomised or no unions due
to job loss, outsourcing and the erosion of collective bargaining rights.9

183

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

Privatisation can also force workers into different unions, depending on
labour legislation and union demarcations.
By moving from service profitability to service quality and embracing
societal goals, remunicipalisation can be an opportunity for unions toincrease membership, strengthen bargaining power and (re)build strong
union workplaces in public services.
Retaining membership and seizing the opportunity for growth in atransition means that unions have an interest to build a specific organisingangle into their remunicipalisation strategy. This is intertwined with thedialogue process and union cohesion approach referred to above, andwith the negotiation of a fair transition for all involved workers with thelocal authorities described in the following section.
In industrial relations systems where remunicipalisation implies a shift
in union jurisdiction and collective agreement coverage as workers movefrom the private to public sector, specific unions may lose members. In
such cases, cooperation, solidarity agreements and membership portability mechanisms can be explored as means to minimise or offset
adverse impacts and ensure the best possible union representation for
the transferred workers.

Case lll: Norwegian municipal workers’ union early outreach and organising of transferring workers
In 2017, when Oslo’s decision to remunicipalise waste services waslooming, the Fagforbundet local union set up a dedicated team anddeveloped a strategy to recruit the workers, many of whom were on
temporary contracts. The union team put together a comprehensive
list of the workers whose jobs were to be remunicipalised andestablished a visible local presence. They set up stands in frontof the workplace and made representatives available during

184The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

the work shift. This meant private provider Vereino’s workers
could approach them, ask questions and join the union. Many
Vereino employees were immigrants and there were major
language barriers. Fagforbundet hired interpreters and organised
personalised meetings with them. The union prepared leafletsand materials in languages the workers spoke, to make sure they
were aware of the situation and their rights. This outreach effort
was also an opportunity to organise them: out of the 170 Vereino
workers, 80 joined the union before the remunicipalisation. Whenthe company went bankrupt and the City of Oslo internalised theservice, Fagforbundet had already achieved the power necessary tonegotiate a new collective agreement with the municipality.10

Fagforbundet local shop stewards approach Vereino workers to organize them into the union ahead of theimminent Oslo waste remunicipalisation. Photo credit: Fagforbundet

185

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

Negotiating a fair private-to-public transition forworkers
Regardless of whether there is a clear legal framework underpinning achange from private to public sector, unions must seek to negotiate theterms of any employment transition with the public authorities taking
back control of the service. This is not a given, especially in countries
where union rights in the public sector are limited or constrained by law
or in practice, or where collective agreements exist at a national level but
local government-level bargaining is not enabled or practiced. In somecountries, local authorities and mayors have little power over public
service resources or do not see themselves as employers. They may favour
remunicipalisation as a political decision but will not necessarily see or
act on the implications of the labour dimension of the transition process.
Negotiating a fair transition for the workers and their unions is in everyone’s interest. It is a fundamental step to ensure that remunicipalisation
succeeds. In the immediate aftermath of a private-to-public transition,
the priority is to ensure service continuity or (re)establish capacity todeliver. This is a window of vulnerability. Any perception that the
remunicipalised service is less efficient than under private management
needs to be addressed, and social support needs to stay high until theprocess is completed. In addition, if workers are to deliver effective public
services, they must enjoy decent working conditions. They also need tohave a say over how the service will be run, as they have a unique view on
its operations and on user and citizen needs and expectations. Frontline
workers are usually best placed to know what competences, infrastructureand systems are needed or missing to ensure efficient delivery.11
The employment transition requires care, transparency and fairness,
which greatly contribute to creating a climate of trust from the moment
the insourced service begins to operate under public control. For thisreason, if a full re-hiring process is deemed necessary, all job posts for

186

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

the remunicipalised service should be published as vacant and thosealready doing the work in the privatised service should be considered aspriority candidates.
From the union side, giving a strong and united mandate to representatives
at the bargaining table is recommended. This will help offset union
fragmentation, reconcile different workplace interests and ensure thatnegotiations with public authorities are practicable and effective.12 No
transitioning workers should remain excluded from collective agreement
coverage or find themselves in a legal limbo, and all workers should receive equitable treatment.13
Box llParis water: the challenges of negotiating a fair transition acrossmultiple companies
Prior to their consolidation into the Eau de Paris public utility, thefour companies had very different pay levels, working conditions
and benefits. Harmonising these provisions meant long and hardnegotiation of two agreements. The negotiations started in 2009
between the City of Paris and the two pre-existing companies underpublic control, SAGEP and CRECEP. The City of Paris expected theemployees of the various companies to be incorporated into thenew public utility as a result of the ownership transfer. However,the city had not fully anticipated the extent of the harmonisationand negotiation process required to ensure a fair transition for
all employees. Achieving fairness required the participationof all representative trade unions in the negotiations over theworkers’ employment transfer with the Paris public authorities.
The CGT launched a petition for this approach, collecting morethan 500 signatures of employees from all concerned companies.
Negotiations were then extended to union representatives of Veolia

187

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

and Eau et Force. Many different representatives and interests
were around the table, and discussions were tense and complex.
A critical step was to go through different job descriptions acrossall four companies, agree on a merged classification system toidentify equivalent positions (fiche de transposition) and build asingle pay structure for Eau de Paris. The final harmonisationagreement was signed in 2011 and represented a major collective
achievement for all parties. The union elections that followed thesame year reduced the number of unions from 15 to eight.14

Conclusion: public services that work for the people,
including workers
There is a strong case for public authorities, public service users, citizens
and civil society organisations in favour of remunicipalisation to include
labour issues from the outset of a campaign; to properly engage at theearly stages with service workers and trade unions; and to maintain that
relationship throughout the negotiations. Ensuring a fair employmenttransition for public service workers and negotiating with their electedunion representatives should be viewed as an integral part of any
remunicipalisation checklist. Getting this right can be a deciding factor
in the overall success or failure of a remunicipalisation initiative.
Remunicipalisation is also an opportunity to build an innovative societal
vision of quality public services that are participatory, democratic, andwork for people and their communities. That vision must include workers
and their trade unions. Whenever remunicipalisation of essential public
services can lead to a regular stream of income, such as in the case of water
services, it presents an unparalleled chance to leverage public ownershipto pioneer new, progressive staff management and worker participation
practices while creating quality employment in local communities, allwhile delivering universal access to quality public services.

188

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Daria Cibrario is Policy Officer at Public Services International (PSI), in charge of Local and Regional Governments
and Multinational Enterprises. Prior to this role, Daria
served as Political Secretary for the Food and Drink sector
at the European Federation of Food, Tourism and Agriculture Trade Unions in Brussels and as International Officer
for the Food and Drink sector at the International Union ofFood Workers in Geneva. She holds a Master’s in Politics ofthe World Economy from the London School of Economics.

Endnotes
1

See Kishimoto, S. and Petitjean, O. (2017) Reclaiming Public Services. How cities and citizens
are turning back Privatisation. Amsterdam: TNI. https://www.tni.org/files/publication-down-loads/reclaiming_public_services.pdf.

2

PSI held a Global Labour Remunicipalisation Conference on 4-5 December 2018.
http://www.world-psi.org/en/psi-global-labour-remunicipalisation-workshop-geneva

3

Smirl, E. (2018) Trashed: How Outsourcing Municipal Solid Waste Collection Kicks Workers to
the Curb. EBC in Labour Issues, 6 February. Winnipeg, Canada: Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives-Manitoba. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/
Manitoba%20Office/2018/02/Trashed.pdf

4Author’s interview with M. McLean, Research Representative, Canadian Union of Public
Employees, Manitoba Regional Office, Canada, 27 September 2018.

5

Author’s interview with M. Whaites, Sub-Regional Secretary for Oceania, PSI, 9 August 2018;
People’s Inquiry into Privatisation (2016) Taking back control. A community response to
privatisation. https://www.peoplesinquiry.org.au/report

6

Société anonyme de gestion de l’eau de Paris and Centre de recherche, d’expertise et decontrôle des eaux de Paris, today Laboratoire de l’eau de Paris.

7

Confédération générale du travail, Union nationale des syndicats autonomes, Confédérationfrançaise démocratique du travail intérieur et collectivités, Force ouvrière, Confédérationfrançaise de l’encadrement.

8

Author’s interview with B. Fasola, CFDT Interco Federation, 6 September 2018; and with R.
Montbobier, CGT Eau de Paris, 12 July 2018.

9

Hall, D. (2015) Why public-private partnerships don’t work. The many advantages of the
public alternative. Greenwich, UK: PSIRU.

10Interview with U. Bjerregaard Moe, Fagforbundet by Kjetil Vevle, Fagforbundet and PSI, 5September 2018. Also see the Chapter 1 in this book: ‘Norway: Bankruptcy sparks more than
100 cases of remunicipalisation’.

189

The labour dimension of remunicipalisation: Public service workers and trade unions
in transition

11

Le Strat, A. (2015) ‘Une victoire face aux multinationales. Ma bataille pour l’eau de Paris’,
Les Petits Matins, p. 157.

12

Author’s interview with R. Montbobier, CGT Eau de Paris, 12 July 2018.

13

Author’s interview with B. Fasola, CFDT Interco Federation, 6 September 2018.

14

Author’s interview with R. Montbobier, CGT Eau de Paris, 12 July 2018; and with B. Fasola,
CFDT Interco Federation, 6 September 2018.

190

Chapter 13

Knowledge creation and sharing
through public-public partnershipin the water sector
By Milo Fiasconaro

Managing water resources is not an easy job. Providing safe drinking
water to citizens and businesses, and treating wastewater so that it
can be returned to the environment without putting health or nature indanger is a complex enterprise that requires a wide range of different
skills and knowledge. For a water operator, the continuous developmentof workforce capacity – from the chemist to the plumber, from the IT
technician to the geologist – is therefore crucial in order to provide
an ever-improving service. Further, socio-economic transformation,
climate change and legislative evolution are creating new challenges,
requiring that water operators constantly search – both internally andexternally – for potential new solutions or approaches.
More generally, the absorption, use, reproduction and generation ofknowledge – be it embodied in workers, machines or scientific texts –represents a fundamental dimension of the mission of a water operator.
While this is true for both public and private operators, the ownershipmodel can significantly affect the way an operator ‘organises’ knowledge
management. Two main differences can be identified.
The first difference has to do with the diverse ‘spatial nature’ of public
and private operators. A public operator is necessarily territorially boundto the public authority or consortium of public authorities conferring on
it the responsibility to manage local water resources (in certain contexts,

191Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public partnership in the water sector

the possibility for a public operator to provide services outside thegeographical perimeter determined by the mandating public authoritie[s]is explicitly forbidden by law). On the contrary, a private operator,
particularly a multinational, will tend to be organised in a networked,
trans-territorial fashion, connecting and integrating different plants
and facilities across the world. As a result, a multinational company canquickly mobilise, disseminate and transfer new knowledge in its network.
In other words, once an effective solution to a shared problem is identified
in a private water plant, or once a process improvement is developed at
a decentralised research facility or at headquarters, such knowledge canbe easily, effectively and cheaply transmitted to the company’s plants
and management centres worldwide. In addition, the relative economic
cost of generating new knowledge will tend to be lower for private thanfor public operators due to economies of scale. In short, knowledge
generation for a private operator will likely be easier and cheaper thanfor a public operator, thanks to its size and transnational nature.
The second difference concerns the incentives or rationales for investingin knowledge generation. The main drive for such investments from bothpublic and private operators is the need to find solutions to concrete
problems. However, a private operator can also decide to invest in
knowledge creation (through internal research and development, R&D,
or external acquisition) as a competitive strategy: developing newtechnological solutions that, once patented, can create a competitive
advantage over competitors, thus increasing profits. Obviously, suchinvestments can also cause economic losses if they do not yield the
expected results – a normal entrepreneurial risk for a profit-making
entity. For public operators, selling technologies or patents is notnormally part of their mission or mandate so they cannot recover costs
involved in R&D activities in that way. In most cases public operators
can only recover costs through the tariffs they charge on domestic orbusiness users, which means they have to be extremely careful about the192Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public partnership in the water sector

way they use tariff-generated resources to finance uncertain explorative
efforts; otherwise they could be sanctioned, for example by a Court of
Auditors, for misuse of public resources.
These two ‘structural’ differences between the public and private models
of water management help explain certain intrinsic limitations, orasymmetries, that public operators face when it comes to knowledge
generation and management. The problem becomes even more acute in
the case of newly created public services, especially if they are the resultof de-privatisation processes. For reasons explained elsewhere in thisbook (see Chapter 11 for instance), one of the most daunting difficulties
public authorities face when they decide to bring water management backinto public hands is precisely the definition, sourcing and organisationof the knowledge needed to manage the service. The range of concreteknowledge-related issues is enormous, like understanding the skills
needed to manage the service (and then recruiting accordingly), or
gaining control or buying the software needed for user databases (or any
other soft or hard assets needed). For all these reasons, public operators,
and the public authorities in charge of their organisation, have to devise
modalities for knowledge generation and use that are different from theirprivate counterparts.

Public-public cooperation as an alternative to marketbased solutions
Public operators have different options to compensate some of theasymmetries in knowledge generation described above, and to improvetheir capacity to address current and future challenges in water
resources management. Some options are more ‘traditional’ because
they have been in the public water sector for quite some time. We canmention the possibility for water operators to purchase innovative
solutions from the market through public procurement, to rely on

193

Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public partnership in the water sector

consulting companies for the provision of specialised services, or to
recruit and train specialised staff.
A promising alternative is the growing number of public operators
deciding to pursue public-public cooperation as another strategy forknowledge creation. Public-public cooperation can offer some advantages
compared to traditional market-based solutions. These advantages lie
in the ‘public nature’ of the organisations involved, allowing actors to
pursue general interest objectives that can go beyond the specific andcontingent interests of the parties involved in the partnership. In thischapter, we illustrate how public-public partnerships in the watersector can advance public service objectives by presenting two common
forms: collaboration between water operators and academic institutions,and collaboration among public water operators within national andinternational networks.

Partnerships between water operators and academic
institutions
The first example of public-public partnership pertaining to knowledge
management in the water sector consists in collaborating with research
entities, particularly universities. Objectives can vary but a typical goal
is to increase knowledge on a specific issue or solve a specific problem.
In Italy, concrete examples include: Gruppo CAP (water operator in theprovince of Milan), which has signed a partnership agreement withLa Sapienza University (Rome) for an in-depth analysis of geologicalmorphology of the aquifer in the Milan area1; or Uniacque (water operatorof Bergamo), which has signed a research contract with the Italian
National Research Council for a study on pollution of surface water frommicro-plastics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.2
Another common objective behind water operator–university collaboration is ensuring the promotion of academic investigation on water194Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public partnership in the water sector

resources management and training of young professionals. Examples inthis domain include the joint financing by the Scottish Government andScottish Water of research awards and a scholarship programme for PhD
students focusing their research on water issues,3 or the co-financing
by EMASESA (Seville water operator) of a Master’s in Technology andManagement of the Integrated Water Cycle at a local university.4
Finally, another objective can be ensuring that students are aware ofcareer opportunities with water operators and in the water sector moregenerally. Indeed, a shortage of qualified workers represents one of
the major challenges of the water sector, as pointed out in a UN-Water
report.5 An example in this context comes from Eydap (Athens’ water
operator), which has created summer time dedicated positions for higher
education students (250 in 2019) in its numerous departments.
What is common – and important – in all of these examples is that theknowledge generated through collaboration will remain in the public domain or contribute to the general interest. More precisely, the knowledge
generated in the partnership will not be captured in a proprietary form
(e.g. a patent, a licensing contract, etc.). On the contrary, such knowledge
will be used and shared by the water operator to address or better
understand a specific problem; for its part, the public academic entity canpublish the knowledge generated – if scientifically relevant – throughpublications, thus contributing to the general advancement of knowledge
in society. In short, launching a knowledge partnership between public
entities means that the result of joint work will not serve to generate
profits but will be accessible to all, thus contributing to the well-being ofsociety as a whole.

Networks of public operators
As a not-for-profit entity, a public water operator can share knowledge
freely through a second type of public-public partnership: participation in195Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public partnership in the water sector

national and international networks of professionals and water experts.
Over the last 15 years, there have been a growing number of networks
that bring together only publicly owned operators, in comparison to
traditional professional networks that used to encompass the private
sector as well. In the European context, some of these networks havea national scope: this is the case of France Eau Publique (Public Water
France), Asociación Española de Operadores Públicos de Abastecimientoy Saneamiento (Spanish Association of Public Water and Sanitation
Operators), or Allianz der öffentlichen Wasserwirtschaft (Alliance of
Public Water Companies, Germany). They can also have an international
scope, as is the case of Aqua Publica Europea (European Association of
Public Water and Sanitation Operators).
All of these networks were explicitly created to pursue two main
objectives. The first objective is to enable public operators to develop theirown policy proposals for water resources management given they may
have different views and ideas to put forward than private operators. The
choice of ownership model is not just a matter of dialectic confrontation
on a political level (e.g. whether one thinks an essential service like water
should be a profit-making business), but it also has concrete implicationsin terms of how water resources are – or should be – managed fromsource to tap. The ownership model will affect the way technological ororganisational options are selected, or decisions taken over investments,
or even how potential conflicts between alternative water uses will be
arbitrated. Consequently, public operators need their own space toelaborate and channel their alternative proposals.
If such a ‘representation need’ is often the main reason behind thecreation of these networks, having a dedicated platform where to shareknowledge, expertise and solutions on concrete management issues
certainly represents the other main drive for the creation of ‘public only’
associations. The greater homogeneity of the membership can facilitate thedevelopment of trust and the circulation of information among members:

196

Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public partnership in the water sector

when trying to address a specific problem, an operator can be confident
that commercial interests do not motivate solutions suggested by othermembers. The idea that the non-profit nature of relations can facilitate
knowledge-sharing and capacity-development initiatives among peers
was also behind the creation of the Global Water Operators’ Partnership
Alliance (GWOPA), under the umbrella of UN-Habitat. Although GWOPA
is not an association like those mentioned above, it was launched morethan 10 years ago by a UN Secretary General Advisory Board on similar
grounds, namely that water resources management issues are partly a‘capacity problem’ and that peer-to-peer learning on a solidarity basis
can be a powerful tool to disseminate best practices and know-how.
More generally, the creation of networks of public operators can respondto knowledge-sharing needs, based on two rationales. The first one ispractical: the assumption is that in a national or transnational networkof operators there already exist several solutions to common problems,
which can easily be shared precisely because there is no commercial
competition among members. In this sense, networks of public operators
can compensate the ‘geographical asymmetry’ mentioned above by
becoming catalysers of information and capacities that are not bound bycompetitive concerns and can consequently be shared freely.
The second rationale can be more value-laden: if water is a common goodand water provision, a natural monopoly, and if all economic resources
generated by the water management cycle should be reinvested in thewater cycle itself, then the knowledge needed to manage and address
water management problems should also be a common good. Importantly,
public operators would have a duty to share this knowledge.
Public water operators’ duty to help other operators is enshrined in Aqua
Publica Europea’s Founding Charter, for instance. Aqua Publica Europea
is a knowledge-sharing platform that performs this mission in different
ways. For example, it routinely organises technical meetings to address

197

Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public partnership in the water sector

specific issues by relying on the internal expertise of members; it supports
the activity of internal working groups led by staff from members who
coordinate in-depth exchange of data or information on more complex
matters; it supports the creation among members of consortia to bid forinternational research grants. The most recent initiative launched by
Aqua Publica Europea in this domain is Water Erasmus,6 a programmethat promotes short-term staff exchanges among members. Water
Erasmus has been designed to strengthen operators’ internal capacity by
responding to different needs: promoting mutual knowledge of different
management models; facilitating the mobilisation of knowledge andknow-how that is embodied in people; making the workplace more
attractive especially for young professionals and helping them to build
their own international network. Since its launch in 2017, several
operators have participated in the programme:•

Scottish Water’s staff visited Eau de Paris (Paris’ water operator) tolearn about their strategy on public drinking water fountains andEau de Paris reciprocated the visit to study Scottish Water’s remotecontrol technologies;•

Gruppo CAP (Milan) visited Hamburg Wasser to learn more fromthe technologies and strategies on wastewater treatment, and BCASA(Barcelona’s sewage company) visited CAP to study their internal
performance assessment methodology;•

SWDE (Wallonia, Belgium) and SMAT (Turin, Italy) exchanged on
their innovation strategies.

Photo by Gruppo CAP (Milan, Italy): theteam from Gruppo CAP visited HAMBURG
WASSER (Germany) with the Water Erasmus
programme

198

Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public partnership in the water sector

Public policies on strengthening knowledge in the
public water sector
To conclude, it is important to stress that, in the water sector, the scientificand technological content of routine operations has been growing. Due tosome structural differences in terms of public operators’ organisation andmission, it is more challenging for them to develop and integrate suchcontent than for their private counterparts. Public-public partnerships– by activating interfaces with the academic world or by collaborating
in international networks – can represent an effective response forpublic operators to compensate for the lack of transnational economies
of scale that multinational companies can benefit from. National andtransnational associations of public operators pursue the mission ofknowledge-sharing and capacity development autonomously, by relying
exclusively on resources coming from members. However, this effort will
not be enough to address a great challenge of our time: strengthening
the capacity of the public sector more broadly. Governments and public
powers have a crucial responsibility in facilitating and incentivising thiskind of capacity-development effort. This is true for the water sector
and for all other public administration sectors. Mariana Mazzucato7 andseveral other scholars have shown in recent years that a strong, wellstaffed and skilled public sector is an essential condition for fostering thewell-being of societies, including the development of a vibrant private
sector.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Milo Fiasconaro has been the Executive Director of
Aqua Publica Europea – the European Association of
Public Water Operators – since 2012. Prior to that, heworked for public authorities on the implementation of
local development policies. He holds an MA in Human
Geography from Durham University, UK, and a degree in
Political Science from Florence University, Italy.

199

Knowledge creation and sharing through public-public partnership in the water sector

Endnotes
1

See Gruppo CAP (n.d.) CAP e la Ricerca Universitaria. http://www.gruppocap.it/attivita/ricercae-sviluppo/cap-e-la-ricerca-universitaria (retrieved 23 January 2020).

2

See Uniacque (n.d.) Iniziative per l’ambiente. http://www.uniacque.bg.it/cosa-facciamo/comunicazione/iniziative-per-lambiente/index.html (retrieved 23 January 2020).

3

See Scottish Water (n.d.) The Hydro Nation Scholarship Programme. https://www.hydronationscholars.scot/apply (retrieved 23 January 2020).

4

See EMASESA (n.d.) Cátedra del Agua. http://catedra.us.es/catedraemasesa/ (retrieved 23 January2020).

5

UNESCO (2016) The United Nations World Water Development Report 2016 – Water and Jobs.
Paris: UNESCO.

6

See Aqua Publica Europea (n.d.) Water Erasmus. http://www.aquapublica.eu/ape/exchange#water-erasmus (retrieved 23 January 2020).

7

Mazzucato, M. (2017) The Entrepreneurial State. London: Penguin.

200

Chapter 14

Transforming the state: Towards
democracy-driven public
ownership
By Hilary WainwrightThis chapter asks ‘What are the conditions of possibility for democratic
public ownership?’ This is a question facing those, across the world,
who believe in a democratic egalitarian economy. But this chapter will
focus on experiences, struggles and ideas concerning public ownershipin two countries more specifically, Uruguay and Britain. Both arecountries where questions of public ownership have played an importantpart in national politics. Both national experiences of public ownershipprovide challenging laboratories for thinking through what are thepolitical, administrative and industrial relations factors favouring the
democratisation of public ownership.
First a background historical note on each country. In Britain, the major
utilities and the primary industries in coal and steel1 were nationalisedby the Labour government, which followed the Second World War. Thesepublic utilities and industries were re-privatised later by Margaret
Thatcher between 1979 and 1990. In 2017, the Labour Party committed
itself to bringing all the utilities back into public ownership. Moreover, itcommitted to doing so under democratic forms of public administration,
involving the participation of frontline workers and users.2
In Uruguay, the public ownership of utilities goes back to the earlytwentieth century when José Batlle y Ordóñez led the country under very
favourable economic conditions and made the welfare state (one of thefirst in the world) and the expansion of public enterprises a basis for class201

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownership

harmony, social mobility and a satisfied middle class.3 This integrative
approach, led by the state but facilitated by a mandatory, secular national
education system (established at the end of the nineteenth century)
became known as Batllismo and is a semi-permanent part of the political
economy of Uruguay, entrenched in the constitution and outlasting the
1973–85 military dictatorship.
In the late ’80s, the elected governments of the right initiated a processof privatisation in Uruguay, in line with the global neoliberal economic
orthodoxy. The majority of the people in this small country of 3.5
million resisted the global trend towards privatisation. The resistancewas organised through an alliance of a politically radical trade union
movement – which under the leadership of the Communist Party had
played an important role in opposing the dictatorship –, networks ofcommunity activists and the coalition of left parties, the Frente Amplio,
which won the government office in 2005. The resistance to privatisation
used a provision for referenda in the democratic constitution amended
after the fall of the dictatorship, not only to defeat the privatisations
but also to entrench the principle of water as a public good into theconstitution along with the principle of democratic participation in its
management. The Frente Amplio governments of 2005, 2009 and 2014
developed a more radical form of public ownership than Batlle’s model
based on national integration. Frente Amplio governments treated public
enterprises as instruments of state-led industrial strategy to meet socialand environmental as well as economic goals.4

Democratic public ownership requires a democraticstate
A fundamental lesson from both the limits of the 1945 nationalisationsin the UK and, positively, from the more recent attempts to democratise
public enterprises in Uruguay and make them part of a state-led
industrial strategy to meet social, environmental and economic goals,

202

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownershipis that the ideal of democratic public ownership cannot focus simply
on mechanisms and relationships internal to an industry. Since we aretalking about state ownership, we have to think about the nature of thestate itself and scrutinise how democratic it is or is not, looking at two
dimensions:•the function and mission that the elected government gives to publicindustries and how they are managed; and•the extent of openness to citizen participation in, and awareness of,the decision-making of public industries.

First then, this chapter analyses the lesson from the UK’s 1945
nationalisations regarding the state. The original nationalised utilities –British Gas, British Telecomm, British Rail, and so on – were seen as
insufficiently responsive to service users, which helps to explain why
Thatcher faced little resistance to her privatisation programme, until shecame to the National Health System where her privatising plans came up
against an exceptional degree of user and staff loyalty.
From the perspective of the importance of a democratic state for determining the character of the nationalised industries, the limits of Labour’s1945 nationalisations from the standpoint of democracy were not surprising. The Labour government had inherited a state originally constructed to manage an empire. Its methods were (and still are) secretive,
its unwritten rules opaque to the public but infinitely flexible for the
powerful, who were hence under no obligation to be accountable. This
peculiarly elite rule, which Labour has traditionally sought to deploy
for its own purposes rather than for social transformation, is based ona historic compromise that led to Britain becoming a ‘constitutionalmonarchy’ rather than a republic.5 As such, various functions of government are neither subject to parliamentary debate nor to public scrutiny.
A symbol of this is the way that Members of Parliament swear their oathsof allegiance not to the people but to the crown, which, in effect, stands
for the moral authority of the state.

203

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownership

The consequence is that there is little recognition of the importancefor democracy of open public debate on the rules that guide how we aregoverned. Yet without explicit, democratically formulated and publicly‘owned’ rules, the ruling elite is left to interpret unwritten rules
and conventions more or less as it likes. Neither the public nor theirrepresentatives have an adequate basis, beyond party manifestos, on
which to call the executive to account.
This culture of flexibility disguised by opacity pervaded all parts of thestate, including the nationalised industries. The nationalisations of 1945
were mainly pragmatic, a means to reconstruct after the war. There was
no explicit statement or agreement on their social objectives, and hence
no mechanism for public scrutiny or amendment.
In this model, politicians, advised by specialised professionals, set
policy goals, and managers had day-to-day control as if they were
simply technicians. This form of administration treated questions of
implementation (the sphere of management) as purely technical, with
only one ‘correct’ approach. It militated against popular participation andthe debate and judgement that this would have entailed in the process of
implementation.
For a positive example of how a democratic, written constitution influences
the way public enterprises are managed, we can look at the experience ofUruguay, a country that has not only developed a democratic constitution
to protect collective and individual rights but whose recent history has
also produced a unique political economy in which public enterprises playa leading role in meeting social and environmental development goals
rather than simply increasing state revenue or providing infrastructure
for the private sector. Under governments of the Frente Amplio, it became
an exemplary case of a developmental state,6 as distinct from a competitiveor market-led state.7

204

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownership

Uruguay from 2005 to 2019 (when the Frente Amplio government was
narrowly defeated) illustrated two key features of a developmental state.
First, it intervened in the market to promote economic development
rather than allowing market forces to determine the future of thenational economy and the life chances of those who live and work in it.
Second, it coordinated the different parts and powers of the state andstate enterprises around explicit social and developmental goals, such as
overcoming poverty, establishing economic security and strengthening
the self-confidence and power of working people.
Public companies are seen as a central means of intervention in themarket through their investment strategies and their purchasing andemployment policies, and through their coordination to meet social andpolitically determined goals. For instance, Uruguay’s public utilities all
had social objectives written into their missions. This explicitly social
purpose has influenced how the public views these companies and has
led to an unusual degree of popular support for the state and to public
consciousness of the social, pro-public role of the state enterprises.
Two distinctive dimensions of Uruguay’s constitution are particularly
important. The first is the longevity of the public sector as part of theconstitution, even though it has changed character in the twenty-first
century compared to the model of José Batlle in the last century. Publiccompanies are part of the constitution and hence understood as partof Uruguayan democracy. Generations have been educated in this viewof their country. Hence, they have been quick to mobilise to defend
these companies against privatisation and eager to advance democratic
principles (as in the case of the public water company through which they
won the right of citizens to participate on company boards).
The second dimension is the importance of providing a foundation stoneof public values to which citizens can refer to protect basic social as wellas individual rights. In Uruguay, the constitution is a living institution

205Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownershipthat citizens can change democratically to meet new needs, such as toprotect water as a natural commons from the pressures of the corporatedriven global market.
For a constitution to be democratic, it must be drawn up with full popularparticipation so that its values reflect the realities of people’s lives.
Such a constitution could establish the fundamental framework andshared values of democratic public ownership in the UK and elsewhere,with subsequent legislation determining specific organisational andgovernance structures. In turn, this would frame how public enterprises
are to be managed, turning questions of management from being purely
technical to questions that recognise how forms of management have an
impact on the nature of power relations.

Valuing the practical knowledge and capacity of every
citizen
The means of management, then, are neither value neutral nor simply‘techniques’. For a start, they either perpetuate or challenge existing
relations of power, including those based on race, gender and class. And
they shape the character of social relations both within an institution
and externally – for example, whether they are collaborative, hierarchicaland/or competitive. In other words, there are choices involved in theimplementation of policy, based on purpose and values. The recent
proposals of the Labour Party illustrate an alternative option to the modelof implementation that, until 2017, had been typical of Labour’s approach
to public ownership.
‘We should not try to recreate the nationalised industries of the past’,said John McDonnell, the British Labour Party’s Shadow Chancellor of
the Exchequer. ‘We cannot be nostalgic for a model whose management
was often too distant, too bureaucratic’. Instead, a new kind of public
ownership is needed based on the principle that ‘nobody knows better206

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownership

how to run these industries than those who spend their lives with them’.8
John McDonnell’s principle of valuing the knowledge and capacity of every
citizen implies a profound cultural shift in the attitudes and strategies ofpublic sector management and in the consciousness and self-confidenceof working people. This requires a break from both the ‘new public management’ encouraged by Thatcher to apply private business methods tothe public sector and from the command-and-control hierarchies of the
post-1945 state, inherited from the war and reinforced by the paternalistic
and narrowly scientific understandings of knowledge of Labour’s policymaking elite.
What does this innovative approach of John McDonnell imply about how
we move beyond – democratise – these traditional models of publicmanagement in which democracy meant only electoral democracy? The
assumption behind post-1945 public utilities in the UK and Thatcher’s‘new public management’ was that the knowledge to implement thepoliticians’ mandate lay with the experts. Beatrice Webb, an influential
adviser to Labour leaders from the Fabian Society – a group of left-wing
intellectuals who were part of the founding of the Labour Party – put thisvividly when she wrote in her diary: ‘We have little faith in the averagesensual man. We do not believe that he can do much more than describe
his grievances, we do not think he can prescribe his remedies’.9
Policies based on this approach have meant that possibilities for increased productivity that enhance workers’ skills and satisfaction are
missed, resulting in production processes that exhaust, de-skill and demoralise otherwise creative, energetic workers and fail to respond to thespecific needs and desires of service users. This has meant for instance,
public housing designed by architects who live in entirely different environments; public transport planned and run by people who travel byprivate car; and women’s lives shaped by public provision designed andmanaged by men.

207

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownership

A simple reversal of new public management and the Fabian approachis not enough, however. In developing John McDonnell’s ‘new model of
public ownership’, we must address the problem of how, and throughwhat institutions and processes, the knowledge of those ‘who spend
their lives with these industries’ (both those who work for them and thecommunities and users affected by them) can gain effective expression
and utilisation.
This is not simply a matter of democratic principle. Rather, because
this aspiration to ‘radical’ democracy is based on a recognition of thepractical knowledge and capacity of all, it is also the basis for improved
public efficiency. In a sense, it implies a realisation of Marx’s ideal ofa society in which the ‘fulfillment of all depends on the fulfillment of
each’. It could be called ‘productive democracy’, as distinguished from aliberal democracy in which political rights are conceived in isolation from
economic and social equality.10

Workers on the board: necessary but not sufficient‘Workersontheboard’

isthecommonunderstanding

of

the

democratisation of public companies. Certainly, worker representation isnecessary if a real change in the relations of production is to be achieved.
But it is by no means sufficient to change the balance of power between
management and workers, which is essential for workers’ knowledge andcapacity to have an effective influence on company efficiency in meetingsocial goals.
Experience has shown that unless there has been a change in the balanceof power in the workplace, due to trade union organisation and changed
management methods, board representation alters little. This is illustrated negatively by the experience of Mitbestimmung in Germany, where
the fact of workers on the board has often had limited effect unless theunions were strong and in those circumstances the influence of workers

208

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownershipwas more through collective bargaining than through participation on
boards. ‘Workers on the board’ is illustrated positively in Uruguay, where
union industrial power and political influence has been decisive and theunions have pushed for board representation as a means of consolidating
their power through collective bargaining and political accountability.11
Furthermore, the social benefits of practical and often tacit knowledge
cannot be realised by simply being turned into ‘demands’ fed throughthe structures of a union or company from shop floor to the board. Of
course, on some key decisions, workers’ views can be conveyed throughsuch a process, but there is a deeper level of workers’ and citizens’
knowledge that is tacit and embedded in skills and capacity that are
expressed and shared through practice, whether in technological design
and manufacturing, caring for other people, or creating works of art. This
practical dimension of knowledge can only be released for the benefit of
all through collaborative practice.

Replacing market ‘discipline’ with that of social andenvironmental needTo move beyond hierarchical models in the public sector, we need to learn
from Elinor Ostrom’s approach to the management of the commons12 andencourage principles like strong common purpose, inclusive, participatory
decision-making, commitment and peer-group monitoring, fairness inreward and cost, just conflict resolution, local autonomy and consistent
governance. This would involve replacing the bureaucratic hierarchies
traditionally typical of the public sector with structures that coordinate
problem-focused teams working within the framework that encourages
experimentation and innovation.
Still, worker representation plus democratic relations of production
and/or service delivery are insufficient to meet fundamental social andenvironmental goals, such as transition to a low-carbon economy or209

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownershipovercoming the poverty, exclusion and wasted human talent caused
by decades of market-driven politics. Unless its external economic
relationships and environment are changed, a publicly owned company
is still subject to the same pressures that lead private companies to act inanti-social ways.
The ‘discipline’ of the market must be replaced with the discipline ofdemocratically determined social and environmental need. To achievethis, all the different powers of public bodies – procurement, borrowing,
employment, planning, property ownership, environmental and healthand safety regulations, and more – need to be deployed to take asmuch economic activity out of the market-driven economy and into thecooperative or public democratic (ideally) economy. Public money could
then be used to generate a positive ‘multiplier effect’ in meeting need andcreating socially useful and satisfying jobs. The social and environmental
benefits resulting from public economic activity as it percolates throughthe economy must be accorded value beyond the monetary cost andbenefits of the initial expenditure. This move beyond single public sector
organisations towards a decentralised democratic economy is alreadybeing at least exemplified through local government.

Community wealth building – an example of analternative to market discipline
Economic collaboration across the public sector and with co-operatives
around a common purpose is already happening in a few localities in
the UK, developed through local councils in the nationally hostileenvironment of a Conservative government. A pioneer exemplar of sucha collaborative approach can be found in what has become known as‘community wealth building’ in the UK. Inspired by US experiences ofmore democratic forms of community economic development, it began
in Preston post-2008 after the local authority was let down by a private
partner in a major regeneration project.13 As part of the ‘Preston Model’,210

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownershipthe council has collaborated with other public authorities in the town andregion to deploy their procurement budgets, investments and workforce
development policies to support local, unionised and democraticenterprises (such as co-operatives).
The Preston model offers a building block for further systemic change.
National government support could strengthen and spread such local
exemplars with greater powers to local government and through a
network of regional public development banks.

Moving from a defensive to a transformative tradeunionism
Government action is necessary, but insufficient and limited, given theimportance of achieving collaborative rather than hierarchical relationsof power and a form of organisation that can facilitate the sharing of tacitand practical knowledge.14 The democratic drive in an effective strategy
for democratic public ownership requires the central involvement of atransformative agency beyond government, like trade unions.
For instance, recent experiences of community wealth building have seen
innovative local councils, determined not to be dependent on private
finance, turn to workers’ co-operatives, other public bodies and the tradeunions within them, for alternatives that would grow the local economy.
Similarly, the wealth creators, the working and would-be working people,
organised through their unions and co-operatives, should be the allies
of a government seeking to democratically transform the economy. And
sometimes, as in the recent history of Uruguay, they are – or show how
they could be.
By way of illustration, in Uruguay the vision of democratic, socially useful
public companies is shared and sometimes driven by the trade unions.
Here is how Gabriel ‘Chefle’ Molina, president of the telecoms union

211

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownership

Sutel, sees the significance of the industry being public: ‘because [thetelecoms company] Antel is public, its services must be for everyone –including those who can’t afford it. [And because revenues go back to thestate] nowadays we have tablets for pensioners and laptops for young
kids to go to school and study with’.15
This positive commitment to the social purpose of Antel has had practicalconsequences. First, it has led to the union being a strong supporter ofthe integrity of Antel as a public company and a fierce opponent of anyplans to privatise services or contract them out to multinational telecoms
companies.
Second, the role of the union went beyond the defensive to participationin the appointment of the new director of Antel at the time, Carolina
Cosse Garrido. For 10 years, in close collaboration with the union, she led
Antel in a direction that was both ambitiously innovative technologicallyand commercially, and also radical in its social provision.16 The involvement of the union, and specifically frontline workers, led to successes
that would not have been possible if the workers had not understood andsupported such ambitious projects.
The relationship between the unions in Uruguay and the left coalition
party was forged in the common struggle against the previous dictatorship. As a result, rather than a rigid division of function between them, as
seen in the UK, there was a culture of collaboration and mutual solidarity
against a common enemy, originally the dictatorship (until 1985), thenright-wing parties and then the corporate-driven global market. We are
beginning to see the signs of similar collaboration and solidarity in acommon cause – resisting austerity, privatisation and deregulation –in the UK. But even now key unions are not preparing a transformative
strategy for their industries, including in the public sector. Thispreparation, this shift to a more strategic, political trade unionism, is aprecondition for the realisation of democratic public ownership.

212

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownership

Conclusion
In sum, democratising public ownership requires a radical shift in thebalance of power towards frontline workers, users and affected communities. Such a shift cannot be achieved simply by institutional engineering,such as workers on boards. This kind of institutional opening up isnecessary, but it will only release a democratic dynamic if there is a
conscious movement for industrial and service transformation comingfrom workers and communities themselves. And this requires a steadytransformation, including democratisation, of the labour movement
itself.
Note:

The author would like to acknowledge the help of Claudia Torrelli,Professor Jenny Pearce and Pablo Da Rocha of the Duarte Institute associatedwith the PIT-CNT federation of labour unions, for their contribution to the
Uruguay research on which this chapter draws.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Hilary Wainwright is a Transnational Institute
Associate and a Founding Editor of the British newleft magazine Red Pepper. Her research focuseson new forms of democratic accountability within
parties, movements and the state. She is also an
Honorary Associate of the Institute of Development
Studies, Sussex University.

213

Transforming the state: Towards democracy-driven public ownership

Endnotes1

Labour’s Iron and Steel Act of 1949 created the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain asa nationalised industry. This was particularly resisted by the Conservatives (more strongly
than the other nationalisations) who refused to complete the process of nationalisation (thefact that steel companies also had interests in other industries made it especially complex andlengthy) when they returned to office in 1951. Indeed, they privatised it in 1953. It was renationalised by Harold Wilson’s Labour government in 1967, and privatised by the Conservatives
in 1988.

2

Addison, P. (1975) The Road to 1945. Jonathan Cape stresses the centralised origins ofLabour’s plans for nationalisation in the wartime coalition. However, S. Brooke (Labour’s War,1988) analyses the pressures from Labour Party members, especially the returning troops, fora radical shift in power away from the economic and political elite. The final outcome is wellsummarised in: Rugow, A. and Shore, P. (1955) The Labour Government and Industry 1945-51.
Blackwells. For more recent developments, see: Cumbers, A. (2012) Reclaiming Public Ownership : Making space for economic democracy. London: Zed Books

3

Pearce, J. (1980) Uruguay Generals Rule. Latin America Bureau.

4

For a useful history of the left in Uruguay until 2006 see: Chavez, D. (2009) ‘Uruguay. The
Left in government: between continuity and change’ in P. Barrett, D. Chavez and C. Rodriguez-Gravito (eds.) The New Latin American Left, pp. 99-127. London: Pluto Press.

5

Barnett, A. (2018) The Lure of Greatness.

6

Developmental states vary in terms of goals; Japan and other Asian developmental states tend
to goals of economic growth rather than, for example, overcoming inequality.

7

Chavez, D. and Torres, S. (eds.) (2014) Re-orienting Development. State-owned Enterprises in
Latin America and the World.

8

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/new-economics-of-labour/9Webb, B. (1948) Our Partnership. Longman.

10

Wainwright, H. (2018) A New Politics Fromthe Left. Polity.

11

Author interviews with Gabriel ‘Chiflie’ Molina, President of Sutel, the trade union in Antel,
Uruguay’s public telecommunications company and an affiliate of PIT-CNT, the national tradeunion federation.

12

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; and Wall,
D. (2017) Elinor Ostrom’sRules for Radical. Co-operative Alternatives beyond Markets andStates. London: Pluto Press.

13

Chakrabortty, A. (2019) ‘In an era of brutal cuts, one ordinary place has the imagination tofight back’. Guardian, 6 March. See also: Berry, C. and Guinon, J. (2019) People Get Ready. OR
Books.

14

Wainwright, H. (2018), op. cit. For a full analysis of the nature of tacit knowledge see Polanyi,
M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Routledge.

15

Author interview with Molina, 2019.

16

Cosse, C. (2014) ‘ANTEL: A socially committed enterprise at the forefront of technologicaldevelopment’, in Chavez, D. and Torres, S., op. cit.

214

Chapter 15

Putting energy democracy at
the heart of a Green New Deal tocounter the climate catastrophe
By Lavinia Steinfort

Youth climate activists have taken to the streets to demand immediate
action from political power holders. They brought the issues of climate
and labour together by calling for a global climate strike in September
2019, in which an historic 7.6 million students, (grand)parents andworkers from 185 countries participated. Over 70 trade unions around theworld supported the general strike and the number of climate groups thatare demanding just transition pathways for fossil fuel workers are alsosteadily increasing.
The European landscape of climate activism is becoming densely
populated. Numerous communities are defending nature along with theirlivelihoods. Initiatives like the German anti-coal coalition Ende Gelände
practice civil disobedience to mobilise large numbers of activists forclimate justice. Most of the ongoing demonstrations in 2020 – such as
Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion and Earth Strike – are led bypupils and students who are joined by their families and teachers on
the streets. Some, like the Shell Must Fall alliance,1 are more explicitly
tying corporate power to the climate crisis that has long been destroying
communities and the biosphere, particularly in the global South. Or takethe overlap between climate activism and the Gilets Jaunes protesters’
struggle; they successfully mobilised hundreds of millions of lower andmiddle-class folks across France to fight Olivier Macron’s so-calledcarbon taxes, which follow an extractivist logic in favour of the rich andpaid for by the impoverished.2 The message: climate action must haveeconomic justice at its heart.

215

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

Photo of Fridays for Future in Sanremo, Italy. Credit: Tommi Boom, Flickr, Licence CC BY-SA 2.0

The alliance for a Green New Deal for Europe3 was formed to turn demands
for climate justice into policy proposals. Soon after even the European
Commission (EC) endorsed the call for a Green New Deal to re-evaluate
the European Union’s policies in light of the climate and ecologicalemergency.4 However, the EC’s focus on economic growth has proven toprioritise private profits (i.e. privatisation) over social and environmental
concerns. The experience of many cities and citizens is that big businessis blocking the energy transition. By reclaiming energy grids and services,and creating democratic public ownership models, they have been able
to take climate actions that put people and planet first. For the labourand climate justice movements to prevail, we need to collectively standup against market solutions and build on the diverse forms of energy
democracy that are already being developed across Europe.

216

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

How market solutions continue to fail people andplanet
The first half of 2019 was the worst for clean energy spending in six
years, with investments dropping globally.5 There has been a slowdown
in the shift to renewable electricity across the EU since 2014, with annual
investments in renewables dropping by 50 per cent between 2011 and2017.6 The EC has warned its member states that their energy and climate
plans are unlikely to meet the EU 2030 targets for renewable energy andenergy efficiency. Half of the EU countries will probably not even meettheir 2020 target for renewables.7 As Trade Unions for Energy Democracy
explains in much more detail,8 leaving renewable energy to the market
implies that small energy companies have to compete with the big
multinationals for subsidies and energy supply. This approach has failed
to bring the necessary investments. Since 1996, the EC has been pushingfor energy liberalisation. The promise was that this would increase
competition. However, by 2009 only five big energy companies werestill dominating the European market.9 This market approach is not only
leaving many Europeans in energy poverty,10 it also has not delivered anenergy transition at the needed scale and speed. For the last two decades,
it was not competition but public policy and state aid, often in the form of
feed-in tariffs (FiTs),11 that drove the growth of solar and wind electricity.
This caused renewable energy prices to drop while people’s energy
bills were increasing,12 because users were ultimately paying for thesesubsidies – lower income users in particular. For example, in Italy 85 percent of the FiTs’ benefits went to large producers and Italian users had tofoot the bill.13 Or take the Netherlands, where the vast majority of publicresources spent on climate and energy policy goes to corporations. Only
one fourth of the funds benefits households, of which higher income onesreceive as much as 80 per cent.14 Because of the initial growth of solar
and wind renewables, many European governments got convinced thatthe energy transition was no longer dependent on subsidies and decided
to partially or completely revoke their FiTs schemes. However, without

217

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

state subsidies and with lower prices for renewables, markets do notdeliver the high returns that private investors are looking for. Moreover,across Europe FiTs have been replaced by competitive bidding, further
benefiting the large and established companies.15 As a result, smaller
energy cooperatives have had to close down in Denmark and Germany,
which shows where current policies could lead us. Generally, investments
in renewables in European countries continue to plummet.16
In the meantime, Europe’s civil society has been doing a whole lot of
advocacy to push the EC to acknowledge the rights of citizens and cooperatives in its Clean Energy Package. But as the EC continues to put allits faith in market rule and competition, it reduces EU citizens to theirmarket value. The package requires EU countries to implement legislationthat protects the right of citizens and so-called energy communities to
produce, sell and store their own energy.17 Although this may benefit
the more affluent European citizenry, these ‘market rights’ turn users
into market players who have to compete with each other while being
outcompeted by the energy incumbents. This approach can only increase
the power of the big energy companies, which will undermine the smaller
energy initiatives that the rulebook promises to protect. Labour andclimate justice movements need to jointly push back against the fallacy
of market competition so that our policies no longer treat the climate andenergy transition as a class privilege, but as a human right.

Why we need democratic public ownership for a
successful energy transition
To kick-start the energy transition, especially a just one, we can nolonger waste time and public funding on the private and incumbent
companies seeking guaranteed profits. Instead, we should take the wholeenergy sector out of the market and into democratic public ownership.
From South Africa to the United States, campaigns that aim to prevent orreverse energy privatisations and build or transform public enterprises

218

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

in an equitable and ecological fashion are in full swing. This is because
energy privatisations, public-private partnerships (including powerpurchase agreements) and outsourcing models have led to worsening
labour conditions, massive price hikes and a dire lack of investments.
In South Africa, a coalition consisting of trade unions and civil society
organisations is fighting to save and transform the electricity multinational
Eskom. The government wants to break up and sell off its generation,transmission and distribution sections.18 Because this notorious WorldBank policy of ‘unbundling’ is known for ushering in private companies,
the coalition is proposing to build a new Eskom that is ‘fully public andserving the people’ in order to develop its renewable potential in waysthat create jobs and improve everyone’s life quality.19
In his Green New Deal proposal, US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
called for realising full public ownership over renewable energy and theentire power system by favouring ‘public power districts and municipallyand cooperatively-owned utilities’.20 This declaration is, on the one hand,a response to the horrific Californian wildfires caused by the negligence of
the American investor-owned utility Pacific Gas & Electric. On the other
hand, it builds on the growing number of citizen campaigns – from San
Francisco and Lancester to Hermiston and Minnesota – that successfully
pushed their local authorities to provide publicly owned electricity fromrenewable sources. Popular pressure from across US cities and states havebeen a pre-condition for Sanders to put country-wide public ownership ofelectricity on the agenda.
European civil society can learn from the South African and UnitedStates campaigns given we face similar bottlenecks. Firstly, they point
to the necessary strategy of proposing pathways to transform Europe’s
corporatised state-owned electricity companies – such as EDF (France),
RWE and E.ON (Germany), Iberdrola (Spain), ENEL (Italy) and Vattenfall(Sweden) – into democratic public entities considering they currently

219

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

behave, domestically and internationally, like predatory multinationals.
Secondly, these campaigns show that the localised and country-wide
demands for publicly owned energy systems should not oppose but
strengthen one another.
It is clear that we need to develop comprehensive proposals for carefullyplanned energy transitions that are country- and continent-wide. But
for these to be endorsed by politicians and policy-makers, grassroots
engagement is essential. This will only reach a tipping point when residents
are experiencing the benefits that the many forms of public ownershipcan bring. Reversing energy privatisations and setting up municipally
owned energy company – in other words, (re)municipalisation – is one
strategy for democratising our energy systems and for building more just
local economies.
In 2017, the Transnational Institute reported in Reclaiming Public Services
that since the start of the twenty-first century, 311 energy services andinfrastructure have either been reclaimed (189) or newly built (122).21
In 2019, the figure of reported (re)municipalisations had risen to an
impressive 374. To show the variety of municipal energy ownershipmodels, and ways in which it can deepen democracy, let us zoom in on
Germany, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria and Spain.

Germany: remunicipalisations to participate in energy
governance
The German energy transition was enabled by an alliance between theSocial Democrats and Green Party, those who introduced FiTs in 2000.
The Big Four energy companies failed to shift to renewable energy, forexample by adjusting the grids for decentralised generation. This coincidedwith many grid concession contracts having expired in the previous two
decades. The anti-nuclear and renewable energy movements pushedhundreds of municipalities to reclaim the grids and create their own local

220

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

supply companies. Exemplary remunicipalisations have happened in
Wolfhagen and Hamburg.
In Wolfhagen, as the contract with private operator E.ON expired andafter three years of tough negotiations, the municipal council managed
to remunicipalise its electricity grid in 2006. The impact has been extraordinary. The annual profit resulted in cheaper prices for electricity,
a two-fold expansion in staff and even allowed to fund the local
kindergarten. Then, after a fierce public debate about the need to go 100
per cent renewable, the town did not have to turn to big private investors,
because residents were able and willing to organise themselves and set
up a citizen co-operative to raise the millions needed to pay for thewind turbines.22 This public–citizen partnership led to improved local
economic democracy as the co-operative became the owner of a quarterof the municipal energy company’s assets and now has two seats on its
board.
Similarly, the Hamburg government decided to create the public energy
supplier Hamburg Energie, but was not willing to remunicipalise the energy
infrastructure. The inhabitants successfully organised a referendum in2013 to reclaim the city’s electricity, gas and heating grids. By 2016, thecity had completely bought back the electricity grid and one year into the
remunicipalisation it had generated savings of €34.5 million. Parallel tothat, it created the Energy Advisory Board, as part of the public energy
agency, with 20 local representatives from the social, science, industry
and business sectors. Their meetings are open to the public, giving
citizens the opportunity to ask questions and submit proposals.23 Then,in 2018, the gas and heating grids were reclaimed as well.

221

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

United Kingdom: transitioning to new public energy
enterprises
Eleven per cent of the UK population is facing energy poverty withthousands of people dying because of cold homes every winter.24 Citizens’
mobilisations have led in recent years to the creation of a public energy
company in Nottingham and an energy community organisation in
Plymouth. Their purpose is to offer more affordable tariffs, providing
energy efficiency services and supporting renewable energy generation.
Plymouth Energy Community (PEC) is a member-owned community
benefit organisation created in 2013 with the support of City Council. The
city provided a grant, loans and staff expertise so that the organisation
could strengthen local capacities to ‘create a fair, affordable, low-carbon
energy system with local people at its heart’. In 2014, it created PEC
Renewables, which funds, installs and manages local renewable energy
generation schemes. By 2019, PEC supported more than 20,000 households
to save over £1 million on their energy bills, clearing over £26,000 insmall debts.25 PEC also built a solar farm on a plot of contaminated land.
Combined with the rooftop panels on schools and community buildings,
the city is producing 6 MW of renewable energy. Revenue is expected
to reach up to £1.5 million and will be reinvested in carbon and energy
poverty reduction projects.26
Robin Hood Energy is a municipal energy supplier in Nottingham thatwas created in 2015 to fight energy poverty and take on the country’s Big
Six energy companies by guaranteeing transparent pricing, no private
shareholders and no director bonuses. Today, it partners with nine otherUK cities to offer certified green energy and better tariffs to residents
across the country. It now supplies energy to 130,000 users, has 200
employees and has already made savings of £200,000, which is being
fully reinvested in more affordable and renewable energy services.27

222

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

However, for these municipal and community-owned companies to succeed and not outcompete each other, the whole energy system needs to bereclaimed. The Labour Party published a report that called for the creationof a National Energy Agency.28 This agency would own the transmission
lines and be in charge of planning and setting decarbonisation targets.
Regional authorities would own distribution grids. Municipalities andcommunities would be able to locally produce renewable energy and supply residents. This scaled and integrated approach would be able to serve
the entire territory, replacing competition with collaboration.

Bulgaria: learning from public control practices
Bulgaria is among the hardest hit by the climate crisis in Europe. It also
faces the highest level of energy poverty, affecting 37 per cent of the
population. While the national government is still betting on coal, municipalities are fighting the climate crisis much more actively. Particularly,
the city of Dobrich has become a role model for other European cities
wanting to transform their energy system, despite limited financial
resources. The municipality has built up refurbishment expertise, which
has led to 30–60 per cent lower energy bills for thousands of families.29
In 2018, it remunicipalised its street lighting, and the city is switching to
LED lights.
Dobrich also benefited from a refurbishment partnership with ENEMONA,a private construction company. Because public-private partnerships
tend to socialise losses and privatise profits, the City of Dobrich decided
to enter into a contract that explicitly guarantees a strong performanceby the private company. It forced the construction company to generateenergy and financial savings for the municipality when its nurseryand kindergarten were refurbished, among other public buildings.
The contract ensured that public interest rather than private gain wasprioritised in this partnership. The kindergarten refurbishment alone
resulted in 112 tons of annual CO2 reductions, €15,000 in annual savingsand 40 per cent reduced energy use.

223

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

Spain: cities and citizens join forces to build energy
democracies
In 2015, building on the 15-M movement in which millions of residents
occupied city squares, Spanish citizens’ platforms brought progressive‘municipalist’ candidates to power. With 15 per cent of the population
living in energy poverty and electricity prices having increased by 83 percent since 2013, fighting the private power system and building energy
democracy was a key priority for these municipalist city councils.

Photo of Plaza de Catalunya occupation in Barcelona on 22 May, 2015. Credit: Fotomovimiento, Flickr,
Licence CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The solutions that have been developed range from setting up newmunicipal electricity companies (Barcelona, Pamplona and Palma de
Mallorca), involving residents in writing more just energy policies (Cadiz)and getting united in the Spanish Platform for a New Energy Model(Plataforma por un Nuevo Modelo Energético), in which municipalists can
exchange lessons learned and best practices. Hundreds of cities are now

224

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

also contracting renewable energy co-operatives, such as Som Energia
and GioEner, with some municipalities agreeing to pay the electricity
bills for impoverished families in their area.30
Moreover, the Network for Energy Sovereignty developed 19 policy
recommendations31 for Spanish municipalities to more systematicallyinvolve citizens in energy decision-making. For example, the network
proposes ways for women, in particular single mothers who are thehardest affected by the fossil fuel model, to steer the climate and energy
transition towards an ecofeminist economy.
In 2018, the governing citizen platform Barcelona en Comu created the
new energy retail company Barcelona Energia to buy energy directlyfrom renewable sources. In 2019, the municipality created a participatory
council that is open to users and citizens’ groups and is authorised tosubmit proposals on the strategic direction of the company, give input on
issues, such as tariffs and investments, and help shape education policies.
The city launched special tariffs too. One is for those who use less energy
to benefit from a cheaper tariff and the other is a ‘solar’ tariff to support
users who produce and use their own energy. The new public company
is supplying the municipal buildings and can serve 20,000 households.
Once in office, the municipalists of Cadiz created two permanent
citizen working groups to fight energy poverty and complete the energy
transition. They pushed the city administration to generate solar
power and switch its whole energy use towards renewable electricity.32
It organised residents who face energy poverty to co-design a social
discount programme, which would guarantee electricity access to over
2,000 families in need by reducing bills by up to 80 per cent. Moreover,due to improved synergies between the city council and the semi-public
electricity company, 55 per cent of the company’s revenues are now being
reinvested to cover the costs of municipal energy use and pay for thesocial discount. This has prevented disconnection for thousands of homes
every year.

225

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

Conclusion
Corporate power will continue to fuel the climate crisis, especially given
many big energy companies have the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) on
their side33 to curtail the democratic powers of more than 50 countries.
The treaty’s investment protection mechanism – also known as investor–
state dispute settlement – enables powerful energy companies to sue
countries for outrageously high sums of money. Three foreign investors
have used this mechanism to pressure Bulgaria into paying hundredsof millions of dollars for decisions that would limit their profits andcombat energy poverty. Moreover, the German multinational Uniper has
threatened to use the ECT to sue the Netherlands, if it were to approve a
law to phase out coal-fired power plants.34 For many civil society groups
it has become crystal clear that the ECT gives corporations the power tohalt the energy transition.
Given the persisting powers of fossil fuel companies, it should come asno surprise that for 2018 global carbon emissions hit a record high, while
use of fossil fuels grew with the demand for gas, oil and coal which all
increased, and the energy demand reached its fastest pace this decade.35
Building energy democracies to avert the climate catastrophe would help
reverse these trends; it would also entail a transformation of our food,transport and industrial systems. However, since energy is the lifebloodof these systems, a more comprehensive transition is not possible if
governments continue to rely on big business.
The public strategies discussed in this chapter are preventing andreversing the privatisation of energy and infrastructure, slowly chippingaway at big energy’s stranglehold, as well as transforming and building
new public companies that are equitable and ecologically sound. Thereis much to learn from the concrete municipal practices presented here,
especially when local authorities partner with co-operatives and give users
and workers decision-making powers. Yet we must also acknowledge

226

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophethat these small-scale alternatives as well as many climate actions canbe easily quelled by big business. For this reason, we need to organise
ourselves en masse to stop the ECT and turn back energy privatisations,while creating a public energy economy of the largest scale.
Most importantly, a Green New Deal will only be meaningful if we takeour country-wide energy systems out of the market and into democratic
public ownership. Otherwise, we will fall short of achieving anythingclose to an energy transition, locally and around the world. At the sametime, public energy is a necessary starting point but will not be enoughif the most affected communities are not in the driving seat of renewableenergy systems.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lavinia Steinfort is a social geographer
and political activist. As a researcher at theTransnational Institute (TNI) she is working on
public alternatives such as (re)municipalisationof public services, a just transition towards
energy democracy and transforming financefor the 99%. Lavinia is co-implementing the‘mPOWER’ project that facilitates peer learning
among European energy transition cities andis the coordinator of the international Energy
Democracy alliance. She co-authored the bookCredit: Samir Achbab

Public Finance for the Future We Want and thereport One Treaty to Rule Them All about theEnergy Charter Treaty.

227

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

Endnotes
1

For more information about the Shell Must Fall alliance: https://code-rood.org/en/shell-mustfall/2

Dianara, A. (2018) ‘We’re with the Rebels’. Jacobin Magazine, 30 November. Available at:https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/yellow-vests-france-gilets-jaunes-fuel-macron?fbclid=IwAR3_
sy8C-J4NKrERbBpebrhGX2-3G9-Ego3rWylQ6Sz5rd-SxOcO6kFKUAg4

3

For more information about the Green New Deal for Europe: https://report.gndforeurope.com/

4

Harvey, F. i.a. (2019) ‘European Green Deal will change economy to solve climate crisis, says
EU’. Guardian, 11 December. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/11/europeangreen-deal-will-change-economy-to-solve-climate-crisis-says-eu

5Porter, G. Jr. (2019) ‘The World Is Spending the Least on Clean Energy in Six Years’.
Bloomberg, 10 July. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-10/the-world-is-spending-the-least-on-clean-energy-in-six-years

6

Rueter, G. and Russell, R. (2018) ‘Europe breaks own renewables record — but can’t keep up
with China’. Deutsche Welle, 1 January. https://www.dw.com/en/europe-breaks-own-renewablesrecord-but-cant-keep-up-with-china/a-42386502

7European Court of Auditors (2019) Wind and solar power for electricity generation: Significant
action needed if EU targets to be met. Special report, No 08. Luxemburg: ECA. https://www.eca.
europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR19_08/SR_PHOTOVOLTAIC_EN.pdf

8

Treat, J. (2019) ‘What Ever Happened to the Energy Transition?’. Trade Unions for Energy
Democracy, June. http://unionsforenergydemocracy.org/what-ever-happened-to-the-energy-transition/

9

Thomas, S. (2018) ‘Corporate performance of the Seven Brothers of the European energy
market: Then there were five’. Utilities Policy, February. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/abs/pii/S0957178717301534

10

The Right to Energy Coalition (2018) ‘Eliminating energy poverty in Europe: The role ofMarket Design’. 11 September.

11

Feed-in tariffs are fixed electricity prices that are paid to renewable energy producers for each
unit of energy produced and injected into the electricity grid. See: https://energypedia.info/wiki/
Feed-in_Tariffs_(FIT)

12

Institute for Energy Research (2018) ‘Global Investment in Renewable Energy Stalled Due to
Subsidy Cuts’. 26 February. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/global-investment-renewable-energy-stalled-due-subsidy-cuts/

13

Galgóczi, B. (2015) ‘Europe’s energy transformation in the austerity trap’. European
Trade Union Institute, p. 87. https://www.etui.org/Publications2/Books/Europe-s-energy-transformation-in-the-austerity-trap

14

Vergeer, R. (2017) ‘Wie profiteert vn het klimaatbeleid’. CE Delft, April. https://www.ce.nl/
publicaties/1931/wie-profiteert-van-het-klimaatbeleid

15

Alvarez, M. et al. (2017) Auctions for renewable energy support – Taming the beast ofcompetitive bidding. Lyngby, Denmark: Technical University of Denmark, p. 23. https://orbit.
dtu.dk/files/142941994/aures_finalreport.pdf

16

Wierling, A. et al. (2018) ‘Statistical evidence on the role of energy cooperatives for the energy
transition in European countries’. Sustainability 10(9). https://www.mdpi.com/20711050/10/9/3339

17

Friends of the Earth Europe (2019) ‘Unleashing the power of community renewable energy’.
14 February. https://www.foeeurope.org/unleashing-power-community-energy

228

Putting energy democracy at the heart of a Green New Deal to counter the climate catastrophe

18

The electricity multinational has been facing a death spiral because of a drop in electricity
sales, in part because of higher tariffs and renewable energy use that subsidise private operators. For more information: http://aidc.org.za/a-different-eskom-achieving-a-just-energy-transition-for-south-africa/

19

For more information: https://www.new-eskom.org/

20

For more information: https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/

21

Kishimoto, S. and Petitjean, O. (2017) Reclaiming Public Services: How cities and citizens areturning back privatisation. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute. https://www.tni.org/en/publication/reclaiming-public-services

22

Chakrabortty, A. (2017) ‘How a small town reclaimed its grid and sparked a community
revolution’. The Guardian, 28 February. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/28/small-town-wolfhagen-community-revolution-german-europe-energy-contract

23

World Future Council (2016) ‘Energy remunicipalisation: How Hamburg is buying backenergy grids’. 19 October. https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/energy-remunicipalisation-hamburg-buys-back-energy-grids/

24

Chapman, B. (2018) ‘Fuel poverty crisis: 3,000 Britons dying each year because they can’t heat
their homes, study shows’. The Independent, 22 February. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/
business/news/cold-weather-uk-winter-deaths-europe-polar-vortex-a8224276.html

25

For more information: https://www.plymouthenergycommunity.com/about/aims-values

26

For more information: https://municipalpower.org/articles/plymouth-energy-community-a-story-about-energy-transition-and-social-justice/27

For more information: https://robinhoodenergy.co.uk/news/robin-hood-energy-story-2018/28

For more information see Labour Party (2019) Bringing energy home: Labour’s plan for
publicly owned energy networks. London: Labour Party.https://www.labour.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2019/03/Bringing-Energy-Home-2019.pdf

29

For more information: https://municipalpower.org/articles/how-dobrich-is-pioneering-theenergy-transition-in-bulgaria/

30

For more information: http://www.energy-democracy.net/?p=1050

31

La Xarxa per la sobirania energètica, Xse (2019) Acciones para la soberanía energética desdelos municipios. https://xse.cat/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Proposta-Municipalista-Xse-2019-Cast.
pdf

32

Burgen, S. (2019) ‘Renewable Energy in Cádiz and Barcelona, Spain’. AltEnergyMag, 30
May. https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2019/05/renewable-energy-in-cadiz-and-barcelona-spain/31052

33

Eberthardt, P. and Olivet, C. (2018) One Treaty to rule them all. June. Amsterdam:
Transnational Institute and Corporate Europe Observatory. 13 June.

34

Open letter on the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) to the European Union, 9 December 2019.
http://foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/eu-us_trade_deal/2019/en-ect-open-letter1.pdf

35

Chestney, N. (2019) ‘Global carbon emissions hit record high in 2018: IEA’. Reuters, 26 March.

229

Conclusion(Re)municipalisation is redefining
public ownership

Noting the inadequacy of national and multilateral policies to tackle theclimate crisis and widening inequality, a growing network of progressive
municipalities has developed its own policies and measures to do so. (Re)municipalisation is one of the key strategies to address the challengesof our time, including pandemics such as Covid-19 which has madepeople realise that medical staff, caregivers, cleaners, waste collectors,
water and energy workers keep our societies alive. Privatisation is such
an ill-advised policy because these are the very services that tend to
be outsourced first. Cities are well-positioned to reverse the tide andprioritise public health and well-being, to explore democratic models
for public services and their management, and to advance innovative
economic models that build community wealth and create decent jobs.
This conclusion highlights key findings from collaborative research on
the 1,408 compiled cases1 and from the 15 individual chapters.

(Re)municipalisation works where privatisation has
failedMotivations for remunicipalisation are diverse, but often include a needto recover from a failed privatisation. Our research confirms the extent
to which privatisation has missed the mark on delivering vital public
services for all and economic efficiencies.
Controlling costs for users and local authorities
Cost is not the only consideration when deciding to remunicipalise apublic service, but it is obviously one of the deciding factors. For decades,

230

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipprivatisation, PPPs and outsourcing have been sold to officials, politicians
and the public as being more ‘efficient’ than traditional public services,and providing better value for money. Our research convincingly disproves
these claims. We found at least 245 cases where remunicipalisation either
aimed to cut or had effectively reduced the cost of providing services.
Furthermore, in at least 264 cases, municipal companies planned or had
already managed to boost public investment in services and infrastructure.
There are five basic reasons why privatised services are generally more
expensive down the line:
1. Corporations must generate profits and pay dividends to theirshareholders and any parent company.
2. Privatisation brings extra layers of complexity and cost, including
paying high fees to the consultants and lawyers who design thecontracts.
3. Public authorities lose control over the costs of running theservice (private operators tend to outsource some of the work to othercompanies, often within the same corporate group and often at highcost).
4. Private operators lack a long-term vision when it comes to financial
management.
5. Public bodies typically pay lower interest rates on loans than private
entities, which can help finance infrastructure needs for instance.
By contrast, with public ownership of services, tax revenues and any
revenue generated from user fees can be invested directly in the service
and in pursuing broader social and environmental goals. Many examplesof this are featured in this book, from the well-known case of Paris(Chapter 2) to that of Taber in Canada (Chapter 3). Another concrete story
gathered as part of the list of cases is from the capital of South Korea,
Seoul, which created two new city-owned companies in order to hirecleaning workers for the Seoul Metro. The city’s total related expenses

231

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipdecreased 5 per cent despite the higher labour costs, simply because it nolonger had to pay the management fee and 10 per cent value-added tax
to private companies.
Redressing degraded working conditions, creating decent jobs
When private operators come in to reduce expenses, the first line items
they look at are labour costs. By cutting jobs, eroding working conditions
and undermining collective bargaining, privatisation is a powerful driverof precarious work. This is a problem not only for impoverished workers,
their families and local communities, but also for users because service
quality and access decline.
In contrast, there are many examples of remunicipalisation andinsourcing where local councils have saved money while improving
working conditions and/or pay. Since 2011, London’s Islington Council hastaken back contracts worth about £380 million in cleaning, building andgrounds maintenance, and waste management services. The move has
meant better pay and working conditions for 1,200 frontline employees,
and generated savings of about £14 million (Chapter 6). Another successstory for workers is that of Kragerø, Norway, where remunicipalisation ofwaste management has led to a 14 per cent reduction in fees for residents,
while delivering an increase in workers’ wages and pensions (Chapter 1).
Avoiding major economic riskThis book lists 26 cases of remunicipalisation involving bankruptcies ofprivate operators. The 2018 collapse of Carillion, a company specialisingin outsourcing contracts and privatised infrastructure, jeopardised
420 ‘private finance initiative’ projects as well as the future of 18,000
employees in the UK (Chapter 6). In Denmark, ‘free choice’ policies
introduced mandatory competition in elder care, but a large numberof private companies collapsed (Chapter 4). In Norway, the bankruptcy

232

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipof waste management company RenoNorden would have stranded 137
municipalities if the union had not anticipated its economic difficulties
and worked with local officials to remunicipalise the services (Chapter 1).
Bankruptcies

andcorporate

collapses

revealthetruthbehindprivatisation’s alleged service efficiency and innovation: the facts showthat many privatisation deals are economically unviable. Typically,outsourcing contracts and PPPs are specifically designed to prioritise
profits and dividends over service quality. When the profits dry up or failto materialise, corporations and investors just walk away, abandoning
the workers and the people who rely on the service.
Another

illustrationofprivatisation’s

economic

failuresistheunwillingness of private operators to deliver services in unprofitableareas or communities and for user groups who cannot afford to pay or
are more expensive to serve. Take the case of Africa where private wastecompanies tend to operate in the wealthiest neighbourhoods of large
cities, excluding the vast majority of the population (Chapter 5). In the
US, major telecommunication companies were not interested in serving
rural areas, smaller municipalities and low-income communities.
Local governments and community-owned companies stepped in anddeveloped high-speed broadband Internet infrastructure in many areas
where corporations were not interested in operating (Chapter 9).

The broader benefits of (re)municipalisation(Re)municipalisation is much more than a reaction to the failures ofprivatised service provision; beyond pragmatism, it is about guaranteeing
and promoting basic rights, and serving the needs of everyone – asall public services are meant to do. Our research demonstrates that
remunicipalisation – and even more so municipalisation, that is, thecreation of brand new public services – are driven by a positive public
interest ethos. This book uncovers even more than that: in many

233

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipcases, (re)municipalisation drives wider positive changes in the social,environmental and economic areas. It promotes the health and wellbeing of all, including workers; it helps to build resilient local economies
and makes them less dependent on large corporations; and it is in manycases an important building block for a genuine climate transition. As
exemplified by the concept of ‘community wealth building’, a termcoined by the US-based The Democracy Collaborative and used in the
UK’s context as well, municipalities and other anchor institutions can use
procurement and investment decisions strategically to secure ecologicaland equitable economic development.
Upholding and promoting human rights
The 2018 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty andhuman rights found that widespread privatisation of public services andinfrastructure is systematically eliminating human rights protections
and further marginalising people who are living in poverty.2 The report
looks at the human rights implications of privatisation in the criminal
justice system, social services, water, sanitation, electricity, health care,transport and education. UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston criticises
the absence of human rights criteria in most privatisation agreements,
which rarely include monitoring the impact that privatisation has on themost vulnerable people.
(Re)municipalisation can be an antidote to this erosion of human rights.
The global list informing these pages found 138 cases where defending
human rights was a clear policy objective of (re)municipalisation, withmany examples of concrete measures put in place to achieve this goal. In
Chapter 2, the author from the Paris public water company stresses thatits mission goes beyond mere pipe connection. Eau de Paris is committed
to defending the human right to water for all, for instance by maintaining
and expanding a network of public drinking water fountains acrossthe city that provide water access for the most vulnerable population,
including refugees.

234

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownership

In Chile, perhaps the country where neoliberalism is most deeply
embedded, the municipality of Recoleta has swam against the current. It
considers housing, education and access to medicine as human rights andhas created municipal services to provide them to poor citizens (Chapter
8). Chapter 7 also presents initiatives that aim to guarantee health andsocial care for vulnerable groups in Selangor state, Malaysia.
Protecting public health and well-being
Today, the healthcare sector is facing ever-growing pressure to privatise,including through outsourcing and competitive tenders. Profit-making
service providers are enjoying a blooming market thanks to liberalisation
driven largely by international trade and investment agreements.
Research demonstrates there is a much better and viable alternative,
however. As shown by the Covid-19 crisis that was still unfolding as
this book was going to press, the healthcare systems that are publicly
owned, democratically controlled and well-funded – from Costa Rica and
Uruguay to South Korea to Norway – are much better equipped to deal
with the sudden upsurge in patients.
Remunicipalisation and municipalisation in the health sector haveclear public health benefits, especially for the most vulnerable families.
Examples include the remunicipalised emergency ambulance services inSouthern Denmark (Chapter 4), which hired all former employees and an
additional 100 new emergency medical technicians under better working
conditions; this contributed to improving quality of the service and healthoutcomes while the operational costs were reduced by 15 per cent.
Another significant example is found in the municipality of Binalonan,
Pangasinan in the Philippines (Chapter 7) where diverse social services
are provided based on the vision of ensuring ‘that [people who have] theleast in life have the most in law’, with clear positive health outcomes.
Overall, the global list compiled for this book includes at least 142 cases of235

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownership

newly created or remunicipalised public services that did enhance or were
expected to enhance public health and provide harm reduction services3.
Securing better conditions for workers(Re)municipalisation can translate into better conditions for service
workers. The global list of (re)municipalisation documents at least 158
cases where conditions did or were foreseen to improve for workers,
including pay, occupational health and safety, freedom of associationand collective bargaining, freedom of speech and worker participation indecision-making. The presence and role of unions in campaigns and allalong the transition process often prove critical to the achievement of suchoutcomes. As evidenced in these pages, providing quality employment
and improving workers’ conditions while valuing their knowledge andexperience about how services should be organised and operated gohand-in-hand with building economically efficient public services thatare accessible to all (Chapter 12). It is no coincidence that workers andtheir unions are often at the forefront of remunicipalisation efforts.
In addition, remunicipalisation is often linked to the formalisation or
integration of informal workers into public operators or co-operative
structures, effectively realising their human rights and offering better
employment conditions. Chapter 5 by Vera Weghmann on the waste sectorin Africa provides several interesting examples in that regard. In Egypt,privatisation of waste management in the country’s three largest cities
deprived the Zabaleen community of their livelihood and translated into
a significant drop in recycling rates. A much more promising model is tobuild public waste management services based on integrating informal
waste workers and their experiences, given they are often very effectiveat reducing waste.

236

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownership

Building community wealth and local economies
Reclaiming and creating publicly owned services in sectors such as waste,food, cleaning and telecommunication can be a game changer from an
economic perspective. When a public utility is democratically controlled,
it is far more likely than a private corporation to reinvest its profits backinto the community and to ‘localise’ the economy.
For example, through public procurement, local governments cancontract worker co-operatives to keep their cities clean (Valparaíso,
Chile) or partner with local farmers to protect the groundwater and sellorganic food in public school cafeterias (Rennes, France). There are 297
cases in the global list of (re)municipalisation that did or were expected
to contribute to community wealth building and to sustaining the local
economy. Some of these (re)municipalisations enabled using locallyabundant natural resources more wisely, while others created meaningful
local jobs for residents and new, more sustainable business activities.
Together, the chapters in this collection give numerous examples ofhow (re)municipalisation contributes to community wealth building. For
instance, as described in Chapter 6, Stoke City Council in the UK insourced
its housing maintenance work in 2018, increasing workers’ pay by £1,000
per year, and improving productivity and quality of service. The council
then created an arms-length trading company to bid for other work,
which last year produced a surplus of over £4 million for the city, and aproactive procurement policy means that over 80 per cent of materials arepurchased locally. The dozens of municipal broadband Internet services
established in cities across the United States, a story told in Chapter 9,
represent a successful process of community wealth building too. Oneof the primary motivations for establishing a municipal broadband
network is access and affordability, but benefits go beyond that, creating
employment opportunities, increasing economic activity and improving
quality of life by advancing access to health care and education.

237

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownership

Tackling the climate crisis
Municipalities and public authorities have the ability to prioritise longterm ecological concerns over short-term financial considerations.
Tackling the climate crisis, for example by switching to renewable energy
and reducing CO2 emissions, was a key reason to (re)municipalise a public
service in at least 119 of total compiled cases. The majority of these cases
are from the energy sector, for which the number of (re)municipalisations
increased by almost 20 per cent between 2017 and 2019 to reach 374 cases.
Chapter 15 by Lavinia Steinfort discusses the current role and the strong
potential of cities and communities in driving the energy transition
through (re)municipalisation and in doing away with a dependency on
extractive private corporations, and highlights the obstacles related tonational and supranational strategies still focused on liberalisation andprivatisation.
There are other ways in which (re)municipalisation contributes totackling the climate emergency, beyond setting up or reclaiming energy
providers. By retrofitting public and residential buildings, municipalities
can significantly reduce their energy use, and make energy more
affordable for everyone. The recent remunicipalisations of public
transport in the Dutch cities of Rotterdam and The Hague have enabled
them to partially replace the fleet with electric buses. In another case, theFrench city of Briançon remunicipalised its waste services in 2013 andreduced the amount of waste produced by 33 per cent; it is committed toachieving ‘zero waste’ in the coming years. Rennes, France showcases
another ambitious way of integrating water management, supporting
local agriculture and providing quality food for school children. The
city launched a programme to help farmers switch to organic methods
as a way to prevent water pollution at the source. Simultaneously, theinitiative has created local demand for the farmers’ produce by linking
up with school canteens in the wider Rennes area and by creating a brandnew label under the Terre de Sources label that facilitates commercial salesof the sustainably produced food in local supermarkets.

238

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownership

Both the impacts of the climate crisis and municipal responses to it candiffer widely from one geographical context to another. The Philippines
epitomises how the global South has been on the frontline of the climate
crisis for a long time. The local governments across the country havecreated climate schools to help farmers and fishing communities better
address the impacts of extreme weather events and other climate-related
hazards that are threatening their incomes and livelihoods. By learning
how to monitor weather changes and how to adjust agricultural practices
accordingly, students of the Siargao climate school have already managed
to improve local rice production (Chapter 7).

(Re)municipalisation is an opportunity to build
democratic public ownership
Public ownership is not democratic and efficient by default. As it canhappen in private sector companies, the public sector can be captured
by bureaucracy and inefficiency, by vested interests, by corruption
or authoritarian rulers. Building strong, high-quality public services
requires new forms of public ownership through which residents candirectly and indirectly participate in democratic decision-making.
Establishing democratic control
Positive changes brought about by (re)municipalisation range fromincreased accountability and transparency mechanisms and information
disclosure to establishing participatory governance as observed for water
services in Grenoble and Paris. Representatives of workers and users
sitting on the decision-making body of a public entity are key to improvegovernance and expand the meaning of public ownership. In Denmark,the law enables public companies to reserve one-third of board seats forworker representatives. Research for this book identified 149 cases where(re)municipalisation resulted or was foreseen to result in improved
democratic control and public ownership.

239

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownership

Some cases go further, enhancing representation mechanisms with thecreation of more spaces for users to interact with public companies suchas people’s observatories and assemblies. Terrassa, Catalonia is one of themost advanced experiments to co-govern common resources (Chapter10) through the establishment of the Terrassa Water Observatory, anautonomous body affiliated with the city council that enables citizens
to consult, advise, deliberate, make proposals and conduct research onwater management in the municipality.
Public ownership can also take the form of a collaboration with grassroots
citizens’ organisations and users’ or workers’ co-operatives, or take theform of co-ownership shared between a public authority and a not-forprofit association. In Wolfhagen, Germany the co-operative that helped
fund the town’s wind turbines owns a quarter of the public energy
company, with two seats on the board (Chapter 15).
There are many other examples of public authorities working with nonprofits and co-operatives. These collaborations and partnerships help
reinvent the culture of public institutions. Across Spain, proactive cities
are choosing co-operative energy retailers such as Som Energia, GoiEner
and EnergÉtica over large private companies. In the UK, the City of
Plymouth and its residents established the Plymouth Energy Community
in 2013, a member-owned community benefit organisation whose profits
are reinvested into the community. However, while the involvement oflocal workers’ co-operatives in the delivery of public services can be a
progressive way to enhance community participation in public service
delivery and promote local decent employment, caution is warranted
to ensure that this does not become a way to shortcut costs and lockinformal and co-operative workers into low wages.
One cross-cutting concern analysed in Chapter 14 regards the realisationof the full potential of such democratised services, which may call fortransforming the state itself. Hilary Wainwright argues that the UK’s

240

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownership

non-transparent hierarchical structure undermines efforts to rebuild
public services. Uruguay’s democratic constitution enshrining public
services and the right to water as a public good offers an inspiring way
forward.
Engaging and learning from workers
Alliances of trade unions and civil society organisations have led
numerous fights against privatisation to victory. In Lagos, Nigeria aunions-communities-NGOs alliance built a shared, citizen-focusedvision and common strategies to reform the state water company, as analternative to privatisation. Likewise, when workers are a driving forceof (re)municipalisation, they often influence positively the design of the
new public services by promoting public interest values and objectives.
In Norway, the municipal workers’ union Fagforbundet developed asuccessful remunicipalisation strategy following the massive bankruptcy
of RenoNorden, which affected 137 municipalities’ waste collection
services (Chapter 1), turning the situation into an opportunity to bring
services back in house and to grow membership. Fagforbundet teams
recruited workers of the private company – many of them migrants withtemporary contracts – prior to remunicipalisation. They successfully
built up solidarity with non-union workers during the transition.
In Chapter 12, Daria Cibrario identifies some lessons learned from tradeunion experience to help plan ahead for successful remunicipalisation,
which necessarily involves and affects the workers who operate theservice. The labour dimension exemplifies that every remunicipalisationcase is unique due to local and national regulations that affect workers’
employment terms and conditions. Based on the experience of members
from the trade union federation Public Services International, sherecommends reaching out early to all affected workers and supportingthem throughout the process, as well as ensuring cooperation between
national union federations and their local branches. She also stresses

241Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipthat it is essential to open a negotiation table with local authorities forall service workers as soon as possible to ensure a fair private-to-public
transition.
Hilary Wainwright also insists that democratic public management must
recognise the value of the knowledge and know-how of every citizen,
services user and worker, and involve them in public sector management
and strategy (Chapter 14). This requires a profound cultural shift in the
public sector itself. She also provocatively argues that ‘workers on theboard’ is necessary but insufficient, as it does not automatically bringabout change in the balance of power between management and workers.
Chapter 1 from Norway provides one concrete way to integrate workers’
ideas. Nina Monsen and Bjørn Pettersen unpack the practice of ‘local
tripartite cooperation’ that exists in more than half of the country’s
municipalities, through which politicians, local authorities and tradeunions work constructively to create a culture of dialogue that promotes
finding the best local solutions to the specific challenges facing themunicipality. The Fagforbundet union finds that, through this approach,workers, civil society and other voices too often unheard are given aplatform to engage in constructive dialogue with local authorities andservice managers to share ideas and proposals.
Enabling ecofeminist public services
Ecofeminist public services put care for people and the planet front andcentre. Private operators’ pursuit of profits tends to worsen alreadyexisting injustices, destroy ecosystems and harm vulnerable residents
who are more reliant on public services, a disproportionate number ofwhom are women.
Privatisation often leads to service rate hikes, compromising access toservices; to make matters worse, when austerity measures cut subsidies

242

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipthey make child care, elder and other types of care unaffordable. This worktends to fall to women because the division of labour that underpins our
economic model is deeply gendered and racialised. Not only do women still
perform the majority of the un(der)paid care and domestic work, muchof this work is also outsourced to women of colour. In addition, there
is a high concentration of women working in the public care, cleaningand education sectors, and they bear the brunt when these sectors are
privatised. Reversing privatisation and rebuilding public services canincrease accessibility but public ownership in itself is no guarantee forgender justice.
An ecofeminist approach implies profound transformation, enabling
deeper levels of democratisation with public services run from thebottom-up and with care for human and non-human life. Hence, we needto feminise how politics is done.4 This means that politicians and public
administrators must not only listen to residents but also include themon a permanent basis in policy and decision-making processes (Chapters
2, 6, 10, 14 and 15). It should involve new mechanisms through which
marginalised groups can gain real power to ensure that public services
improve people’s everyday life.
Fostering public-public cooperation
Remunicipalisation can be a very uneven battle. Local public authorities
and communities have far fewer resources than big corporations, and thelatter are often backed by international institutions, national governments
and a variety of ‘experts’ and consultants, as explained in Chapter 9
about the French water sector. Olivier Petitjean goes on to argue thatthe only force that could counter-balance an environment so hostile toremunicipalisation is collaboration among public actors. Local, national
and international cooperation among public operators is key to shifting
the balance of power. Both institutionalised and informal public-public
cooperation have been critical to the growth of the (re)municipalisation

243

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipmovement – not only defensively as a way to overcome obstacles, butalso proactively by helping to build better public services.
Milo Fiasoconaro, in Chapter 13, focuses on the asymmetry of knowledge
between private and public actors in the water sector but also highlights
the fundamentally different motivation and utilisation of knowledge byboth types of actors. According to Aqua Publica Europea’s experiences,public-public partnerships are a useful and essential tool for public
actors to improve their capacity to address current and future challenges
in water resources management. The knowledge generated and sharedthrough public collaboration will remain in the public domain andcontribute to the well-being of society as a whole. Public-public
cooperation and partnerships is now emerging in new sectors such asenergy and telecommunication. Such partnerships are also critical toextending public services to communities or areas that the private sector
has been unwilling or unable to serve, such as rural regions, low-income
neighbourhoods and disinvested communities, as illustrated by theextension of community-owned broadband Internet infrastructure tosmall and rural towns in the US.

Moving forward(Re)municipalisation is a powerful political strategy to push backprivatisation and a promising alternative to move beyond the extractive
economy in general. It is true that most national governments are failingto tackle extreme inequality and the ecological crisis, yet many cities are
stepping up to tackle these challenges and improve the livelihoods oftheir residents. That being said, collective local actions alone cannot solve
systemic problems. Alexander Panez Pinto from Chile rightly argues in
Chapter 8 that the experiences of local governments risk becoming mere
corrections to the neoliberal model to fill essential services gaps where
private companies have pulled out if these initiatives are not informedby the current debate on Chile’s political economy. As a case in point,

244

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipright-wing local governments in that country are also creating so-called
popular pharmacies but they never question the privately controlled
medicine market and the private health system as such. He concludes
that progressive local initiatives are insufficient; Chile needs political
proposals to transform the health system as a whole.
Nevertheless, courageous progressive municipalities are not waiting
for top-down changes and are prioritising the needs of the mostmarginalised people in our society, including migrants, people withdisabilities and low-income families, among others. For instance, theconstitution of Mexico City adopted in February 2017 gives its authorities
full responsibility to provide waste services free of charge, prohibiting
privatisation and outsourcing, and enshrining mutual recognition
between the municipality and labour unions.5 We see this as a strategic
pathway to mounting collective pressure on national and supranational
governments.
These cities and citizen movements are increasingly designated as‘municipalist’. While the municipalist movement could adopt diverse
strategies depending on local context and need, it unanimously recognises
public services including water, energy, housing and health care as
central issues. The global municipalist movement met for the first timeat the ‘Fearless Cities Summit’ in Barcelona in June 2017, at the invitationof Barcelona En Comú. Today, the Fearless Cities network connects 77
cities that are standing up to defend human rights, democracy and thecommon good.6 It is not a coincidence that de-privatisation of public
services is one of their key strategies. They see de-privatisation as a way
to expand citizenship by sharing decision-making powers and opening
up ownership models to representatives from user groups, workers, civilsociety and research institutions.
Many of the cases presented in this book are at odds with the mainstream
portrayal of public ownership as top-down, bureaucratic and oblivious of245

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipthe realities on the ground. Quite the opposite, they are pioneering public
service innovations that are building democratic public ownership models
for the twenty-first century. Municipal initiatives from the participatory
mechanisms of citizen observatories to public-community ownershipmodels and genuine worker engagement can inspire a broader, countrywide vision. These collective, bottom-up experiences at the local level
are already improving people’s lives; they are also a powerful foundation
to push for the democratisation of public ownership at all levels, andespecially nationally.
In the United States, numerous cities are advocating for locally owned
and controlled energy and banking services. Since 2019, the youth-led
Sunrise Movement, various trade unions and ex-presidential candidate
for the Democrats Bernie Sanders have been calling for a national GreenNew Deal that centres around public ownership of energy and finance. The
Covid-19 outbreak further increased the urgency and necessity of thesecalls. When municipalities team up with social movements, they can reseta whole country’s political agenda. Other examples include the alliancein South Africa that is calling for transforming Eskom, one of the biggest
electricity companies in the world and currently a failing public utility,
into a fully public and people-serving utility.7 The 2019 UK Labour Party
platform illustrates the type of national support and policy frameworkthat allows local governments to reclaim public services by insourcing
and rebuilding their capacity to provide local services directly.8
Given austerity measures following the 2008 financial crisis have slashedmunicipal and national budgets, it is of utmost importance to transform
how public resources are spent. As the Covid-19 pandemic has proven,public services are the backbone of our society but they need sufficientfunding if they are to rise up to the task in times of crisis. Governments
across the globe have adopted plans to protect workers and companies,
bail out industries and support economic recovery after the fallout. Somehave pledged to increase public spending in the health sector, but there

246

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownershipshould be safeguards to ensure that this money actually benefits public
services, and is not used to promote further PPPs and other forms ofprivate sector involvement. Public investment must be directed towards
strengthening public services, based on democratic public ownershipmodels, and towards social and environmental objectives such as tacklingthe climate crisis and caring for the most vulnerable.
As Thomas Marois points out in a recent report published by TNI,
worldwide public finance institutions have US$73 trillion in assets,with over half in the hands of public banks.9 This is equivalent to 93
per cent of global gross domestic product. In the current model, most of
this public finance is used to absorb risk by guaranteeing the profits ofprivate investors – at a high public cost. It would be much more effective
if national and municipal governments were to cut out these big privateintermediaries and invest these public funds directly to build publichealthcare systems and other essential infrastructure. Combining directpublic investments with much-needed progressive tax systems could
nurture territorial solidarity by making universal public services a reality.
This book demonstrates that when public services are publicly owned
and democratically organised they can effectively strengthen community
wealth and the local economy. It is time to demand democratic public
ownership at all levels and call for universal access to public services sothat all people can lead dignified and prosperous lives. As racism, fascism
and the far-right are on the rise, offering viable systemic solutions thatwork for people and for the planet can significantly help rebuild oursocieties and economies on a basis of solidarity and cooperation. Our
public future lies in hope, not fear, and rests in the hands of communities,
not corporations.

247

Conclusion: (Re)municipalisation is redefining public ownership

Endnotes
1

The global list of (re)municipalisation consisted of 1,408 cases by the end of October 2019.
The database is available at: https://futureispublic.org/remunicipalisation-global-database/. An
interactive database is under construction in collaboration with the University of Glasgow. It
will be accessible through the above link in the near future. Additional cases and information
will be added to this new database as they are collected.

2

United Nations, Seventy-third session, Agenda item 74 (b) Promotion and protection ofhuman rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving theeffective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Extreme poverty and humanrights. 26 September 2018. https://undocs.org/A/73/396

3Harm reduction refers to policies, programmes and practices that aim to minimise negative
health, social and legal impacts associated with drug use, drug policies and drug laws. It
focuses on positive change and on working with people without stigma and discrimination, or
requiring that they stop using drugs as a precondition for support.

4Roth, L. and Shea Baird, K. (2019) ‘Municipalism and the Feminization of Politics’, Roarmag(6). https://roarmag.org/magazine/municipalism-feminization-urban-politics/

5‘To ensure sustainable waste services, we must value waste workers and make sure they
are in decent jobs’, Daria Cibrario cited in ‘Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2018’.
http://www.2030spotlight.org

6

http://fearlesscities.com/en

7

Eskom research reference group (2018) ‘Our power: achieving a just energy transition forSouth Africa’. https://www.new-eskom.org/

8

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Democratising-Local-Public-Services.pdf

9

Marois, T. (2019) ‘Public banking on the future we want’, in Public Finance for the Future We
Want. TNI. https://www.tni.org/en/publicfinance248

Appendix

Research methodology

The remunicipalisation and municipalisation data gathered are the resultof the concerted efforts of several citizen organisations, researchers andtrade unions. Sixteen organisations1 worked jointly and collected data.
Some 22 researchers did desktop research to verify the collected data.
Data collection for this report took place from mid-2015 to late 2016
(phase 1) and from the beginning of 2018 to mid-2019 (phase 2). The
information is based on a participatory survey that asked participants
to identify cases of (re)municipalisation in their jurisdictions (phase 1).
Questionnaires were distributed in trade union and civil society networks,
as well as to organisations working in the field of public services. We
asked respondents to elaborate on the reasons for (re)municipalisationand to explain why the service is now in public hands.
This survey focused on essential services, including water, energy, transport, waste management, recycling, health and social work, and education. It also included a catch-all category for ‘local government services’,
which includes building and cleaning, security and emergency, public(green) space, housing, school catering, sports, cultural activities, funeral services, construction and repair, human resources, IT and other. In
the second phase of the research, we added telecommunication/Internet
services as a new category.

1

Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (AK), Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE),
Danish Union of Public Employees (FOA), The Democracy Collaborative (US), European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), Ingeniería Sin Fronteras Cataluña (ISF), MODATIMA(Movement of defence of water, land and the environment, Chile), Multinationals Observatory(France), Municipal Services Project (MSP), The Netherlands Trade Union Confederation(FNV), Norwegian Union for Municipal and General Employees (Fagforbundet), Public Services
International (PSI), Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), Transnational Institute (TNI), University of Glasgow (Scotland), We Own It (UK).

249

Appendix 1 - Research methodology

Due to limited time and resources, the list of survey recipients is far
from comprehensive, with notable gaps particularly in African countries
and Australia. There is no doubt that many more cases remain to bediscovered. The current survey does not include cases where a service has
been remunicipalised and then privatised again, or where the contract
simply shifted from one private provider to another. These cases are
obviously outside the scope of this research. The following data werecollected:•

Year of decision and implementation of remunicipalisation andmunicipalisation,•

Previous private operator,•

Name of remunicipalised new operator,•

Ownership structure after (re)municipalisation,•

How de-privatisation happened
E: Contract expired, not renewed and remunicipalised,
S: Shares sold by private operator, contract remunicipalised,
T: Contract terminated and remunicipalised,
W: Private operator withdrew (from management) contract, contract
remunicipalised,
P: Public acquisition,
D: Decision to remunicipalise, not implemented yet, Level of taking
back control (Municipal, Inter-municipal, State/ province/ regional,•

Types of actions
A1: Remunicipalisation including through public-public partnerships[typically inter-municipal cooperation],
A2: Partnerships between public authorities and citizen/worker
co-operatives taking over from profit-driven commercial services
providers,
A3: Worker and/or citizen-led co-operatives taking over from profitdriven commercial services providers,
B1: Creation of new public companies [typically municipally-owned]
and/or services by local authority,
B2: Creation of new public companies and/or services and/or

250

Appendix 1 - Research methodology

infrastructure by local authority in collaboration with cooperatives orcivil society).
In the second phase, researchers collaborated to capture impacts andoutcomes of remunicipalisation and municipalisation. In many cases, theexamples were new and it was too early to draw conclusions. In manyother cases, the researchers simply could not access detailed information.
For instance, the water and energy cases from phase 1 add up to 578
cases and many of them lacked sufficient information for analysis. In
total, 664 cases (47 per cent of 1,408 cases) did not provide sufficient
information to analyse impacts and outcomes. Nevertheless, researchers
could access data for 744 (53 per cent) of the cases. Researchers focusedon cases where the provision of public services was based on clear public
objectives and a certain degree of democratic control by service users.
These public objectives include transparency, equity, universal access,affordability, environmental sustainability, service quality, control overthe local economy and resources, and fair pay for workers. Democratic
control refers to user participation and accountability on the part ofelected officials. Based on the information collected by researchers andthe participatory survey, identified impacts and outcomes were coded
when there were clear references, using these categories:
1. Better value for money and public sector savings
2. Lower fees for residents
3. Better working conditions
4. Increased public investment for quality services
5. Responding to private sector bankruptcy
6. Increased local capacity for community wealth building
7. Achieving policy goals that benefit people and planet
8. Measures to tackle the climate crisis
9. Improved democratic control and public ownership
10. Users, workers or communities partner with public authority

251

Appendix 1 - Research methodology

11. Universal access to protect human rights
12. Enhancing public health and harm reduction
13. A feminist approach to public services

Concerning categories 1, 2 and 3, researchers looked mainly into remunicipalisation cases to compare them with previous private management,
but not exclusively because some newly established municipal energy or
telecommunication companies provide more affordable tariffs comparedwith existing private options in a competitive market. Category 5 only
refers to remunicipalisation cases.
Finally, this global survey is extensively supported by 15 chapters written
by Bjørn Pettersen and Nina Monsen, Célia Blauel, Robert Ramsay,
Thomas Enghausen, Vera Weghmann, Mary Ann Manahan and Laura
Stegemann, Alexander Panez Pinto, Thomas Hanna and Christopher
Mitchell, Olivier Petitjean, Daria Cibrario, Milo Fiasconaro, Míriam Planas
and Juan Martínez, Lavinia Steinfort, David Hall and Hilary Wainwright.
These chapters provide insights on remunicipalisation in the authors’countries and sectors as well as across sectoral or thematic issues.

252

The organisations
Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (AK)www.wien.arbeiterkammer.at
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)
www.cupe.ca
Danish Union of Public Employees (FOA)
www.foa.dk
De 99 van Amsterdam
www.de99vanamsterdam.nl
The Democracy Collaborative
www.democracycollaborative.org
European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU)
www.epsu.org
Ingeniería Sin Fronteras Cataluña (ISF)
www.esf-cat.org
MODATIMA (Movement of defence of water, land andthe environment, Chile)www.modatima.cl
Multinationals Observatory
Contact: Olivier Petitjean, opetitjean@multinationales.
org www.multinationales.org

253

The organisations

Municipal Services Project (MSP)
www.municipalservicesproject.org
The Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV)
www.fnv.nl/mondiaal-fnv
Norwegian Union for Municipal and General Employees(Fagforbundet)www.fagforbundet.noPublic Services International (PSI)
www.world-psi.org
Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU)
www.psiru.org
Transnational Institute (TNI)
Contact: Lavinia Steinfort, l.steinfort@tni.org
www.tni.org
University of Glasgow
www.gla.ac.uk
We Own It
www.weownit.org.uk

254

How to get involved

The organisations worked together for this book welcome yourparticipation. The conference site Future is Public https://futureispublic.
org/ remains a resource center on democratic ownership of the economy
and de-privatisation trend. Contact : Satoko Kishimoto, satoko@tni.org
The team of Professor Andrew Cumbers at the University of Glasgow
is conducting the research project ‘Global Remunicipalisation and the
Post-Neoliberal Turn’, which aims to explore the potential of public
ownership and more specifically the process of remunicipalisation tochallenge neoliberalism and create more democratic forms of urban
and local governance. Within that, an interactive database of global (re)municipalisation is under construction. It will be accessible throughhttps://futureispublic.org/remunicipalisation-global-database/
Additional cases and information will be added to this new databaseas they are collected. You could join by informing new cases throughthe survey English: [https://glasgow-research.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/globalremunicipalisation] German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Swedish
are available. Contact : Franziska Paul, Franziska.Paul@glasgow.ac.uk‘People over Profit’ is the global platform that Public Services
International (PSI) and many partners launched in 2017. The websiteof ‘https://peopleoverprof.it/’ connects trade unions, organisations andcampaigns fighting against privatisation and Public Private Partnerships(PPPs) in public services such as water, health care, education, energy,
waste management and public infrastructure. Contact : campaigns@
world-psi.org

255

How to get involved

The Next System Project https://thenextsystem.org/ is an initiativeof The Democracy Collaborative aimed at bold thinking and action toaddress the systemic challenges facing the United States and the world.
Systemic problems such as economic inequality, racial injustice, andclimate change require systemic solutions. Working with a broad groupof researchers, theorists and activists, the Next System Project functions
as a research and development lab to link alternative political-economic
strategies and institutions, such as energy democracy, public banking,and worker control/ownership, to a larger vision of a political economic
system beyond corporate capitalism. Subscribe to a newsletter and enjoy
a biweekly podcast series.
The Water Remunicipalisation Tracker website is one of the spaces
to share water remunicipalisation cases. New examples are added andexisting cases updated regularly. www.remunicipalisation.org
The Municipal Services Project (MSP) explores alternatives to privatisation in the health, water, sanitation and electricity sectors. The MSP is
an inter-disciplinary project made up of academics, labour unions, NGOs,
social movements and activists from around the globe. www.municipalservicesproject.org
In UK, the question of public ownership of public services has
emerged at the centre of political debate. The national campaign ‘We Own
It’ provides information to make peoples’ voice louder. Public services
belong to you. You pay for them, you use them, they affect your life. You
are more important than private profit. Join us! https://weownit.org.uk/
people-not-profit

256How to get involved

Energy democracy http://www.energy-democracy.net/ is concernedwith shifting power from big business to energy users and workers. The
website provides a global mapping of comparable experiences over theworld, and connects researchers and practitioners working for sociallyjust and sustainable local energy systems. Contact : Lavinia Steinfort,l.steinfort@tni.org
Transformative Cities http://transformativecities.org/ is a space forprogressive local governments and social movements to popularise andshare their experiences in the transfomative political, social and cultural
practices to meet basic need of people such as water, energy, food andhousing. We aim to promote the lessons of these cities globally to inspireother cities. Tell us your story! Contact : Sol Trumbo Vila, soltrumbovila@
tni.org
The Reclaiming Public Water (RPW) network is an open and horizontal network connecting civil society campaigners, trade unionists,
researchers, community water associations and public water operatorsfrom around the world. Contact : Satoko Kishimoto, satoko@tni.org

257

Resistance to privatisation has turned into a powerful force for change.
(Re)municipalisation refers to the reclaiming of public ownership ofservices as well as the creation of new public services. In recent years, ourresearch have identified more than 1,400 successful (re)municipalisation
cases involving more than 2,400 cities in 58 countries around the world.
But this book is about more than just numbers. It shows that public services
are more important than ever in the face of the climate catastrophe,
mounting inequalities and growing political unrest. Together, civilsociety organisations, trade unions and local authorities are crafting new
templates for how to expand democratic public ownership to all levelsof society and opening up new routes to community-led and climate
conscious public services.
The Covid-19 crisis has made clear the disastrous effects of years ofausterity, social security cuts and public service privatisation. But it has
also demonstrated that public services and the people who operate them
are truly the foundation of healthy and resilient societies.
As privatisation fails, a growing international movement is choosing(re)municipalisation as a key tool for redefining public ownership for the
21st century.