The Swedish motor-vehicle inspection has worked very well and was monopolized in 1965. After the monopolization, the company AB Svensk Bilprovning was formed and had a monopoly until 2010 when the bourgeois government deregulated the monopoly for the motor-vehicle inspection services. It had been discussed earlier around the 1990s but the planned deregulation of the service did not occur. The main reason for the deregulation was for the service to act on a competitive market which would improve it in several aspects. One of the main aspects were the availability. The deregulation in 2010 had positive effects and mainly the availability increased throughout Sweden. In year 2014 the social-democratic party were not satisfied before or after deregulation even though it improved the service. The bourgeois on the other hand were very satisfied of the results.

<p>The purpose of this essay is to illustrate the debate of water politics and privatisation of water distribution. My method is debate analysis and qualitative idea analysis and for my essay I used three books that try to persuade the reader that his or her idea is the best for this water crisis. My main question is to illustrate the debate concerning water privatisations. I will also look at the arguments for or against privatisations and finally determine how the authors think the state should act towards this subject. The first book I used was Vandana Shivas “Water Wars” that when published started an international discussion about the water privatisations. The next book was Ann-Christin Sjölander Hollands book “Vatten rättighet eller handelsvara?” who just like Shiva is negative against market solutions. The third book was “Vatten till salu” by Fredrik Segerfeldt. He is positive to both privatisations and deregulations in the public sector. Shiva considers trans national companies one of the biggest enemies for the development countries and a source for this problem. Her opinion is that agreements like GATS only benefit the already rich. The solution for the water crisis in her opinion is to legislate against foreign companies right to operate in poor countries. Her wish is to keep the water distribution in the state or towns own hands. Sjölander Holland dislike big companies as well but her opinion are that a privatisation can work if the contract with the state is well designed without corruption. However the state should handle water delivery, not companies thirsting for economical gain. Segerfeldt disagrees totally with these opinions and his firm believe is something has to be done. This is to let companies in to the water market and take over with their special knowledge and technology. My conclusion is that something has to be done, but it is not to let the companies set the agenda. Instead the United Nations and its sub-organisations should change the terms for their loans and make sure they sponsor water investments instead of arms. The solution for this problem is not purely market or state distribution, rather a good combination of both.</p>

The purpose of this essay is to illustrate the debate of water politics and privatisation of water distribution. My method is debate analysis and qualitative idea analysis and for my essay I used three books that try to persuade the reader that his or her idea is the best for this water crisis. My main question is to illustrate the debate concerning water privatisations. I will also look at the arguments for or against privatisations and finally determine how the authors think the state should act towards this subject. The first book I used was Vandana Shivas “Water Wars” that when published started an international discussion about the water privatisations. The next book was Ann-Christin Sjölander Hollands book “Vatten rättighet eller handelsvara?” who just like Shiva is negative against market solutions. The third book was “Vatten till salu” by Fredrik Segerfeldt. He is positive to both privatisations and deregulations in the public sector. Shiva considers trans national companies one of the biggest enemies for the development countries and a source for this problem. Her opinion is that agreements like GATS only benefit the already rich. The solution for the water crisis in her opinion is to legislate against foreign companies right to operate in poor countries. Her wish is to keep the water distribution in the state or towns own hands. Sjölander Holland dislike big companies as well but her opinion are that a privatisation can work if the contract with the state is well designed without corruption. However the state should handle water delivery, not companies thirsting for economical gain. Segerfeldt disagrees totally with these opinions and his firm believe is something has to be done. This is to let companies in to the water market and take over with their special knowledge and technology. My conclusion is that something has to be done, but it is not to let the companies set the agenda. Instead the United Nations and its sub-organisations should change the terms for their loans and make sure they sponsor water investments instead of arms. The solution for this problem is not purely market or state distribution, rather a good combination of both.