Talk:Global public good/Archives/2013

Updating

This article is in need of updating and expansion. New sections will be:

• 1 Definition
• 2 Challenges to the traditional definition
• 3 Implications

Suggestions are welcome here on this talk page. Meclee (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lack of alternative points of view in section: Implications

The Implications section represents a (largely unverified) particularly egalitarian/cosmopolitan point of view of the subject. Libertarian and neo-liberal economists and political philosophers would not agree that privatising water is not appropriate, as equity itself is a contested concept, even if the unverified empirical claim is accurate. Many statements seemed to be too quickly generalised from the one example of Ecuador.

The sentence "Thoughtful design of transnational or international water management authorities over such global common-pool resources is the only logical solution to peak water problems" is a very strong statement and would be disputed by many Realists, which is why I marked it for lack of neutrality. Rather than try to represent the large spectrum of views on water management in particular and trans-national resource management in general, I would suggest shortening the section considerably, to get across the main point - that goods that were public by default may be better understood (and potentially managed) as common pool resources, without entering into the controversy. A new title for this section may be needed as well. Spokeydoke80 (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Language softened and reference added. Arguments from alternative economic stances can be added as an additional section. Regards, Meclee (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)