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-crash31