![[Mariana Mazzucato] A new economics of water](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F08%2F11%2Fnews-p.v1.20250811.a937cb9d743c4d61a8437dd849bf12e3_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
[Mariana Mazzucato] A new economics of water
The scale of the challenge is staggering. Over half the world's food production now comes from areas experiencing declining freshwater supplies. Two-thirds of the global population face water scarcity at least one month per year. More than 1,000 children under 5 die every day, on average, from water-related diseases. And if current trends continue, high-income countries could see their gross domestic product shrink by 8 percent by 2050, while lower-income countries (many in Africa) face losses of 10-15 percent.
Yet this crisis also presents an extraordinary opportunity. As South Africa assumes the G20 presidency (for which I have been appointed special adviser to President Cyril Ramaphosa), it can champion a new economics of water that treats the hydrological cycle as a global common good, rather than as the source of a commodity to be hoarded or traded.
The economic case for action is compelling. The International High-Level Panel on Water Investments for Africa shows that every $1 invested in climate-resilient water and sanitation delivers a return of $7. With Africa requiring an additional $30 billion annually to meet the Sustainable Development Goal on water security and sustainable sanitation, the financing gap is significant, but it is surmountable with the right strategy. The Global Commission on the Economics of Water (which I co-chaired with Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director general of the World Trade Organization, Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and Singaporean President Tharman Shanmugaratnam) recently called for such a strategy.
Treating water as a global common good and adopting mission-oriented approaches to transform the crisis into an opportunity requires that we recognize three critical facts. First, water connects us all — not just through visible rivers and lakes, but through atmospheric moisture flows that travel across continents. Second, the water crisis is inseparable from climate change and biodiversity loss, each of which accelerates the others in a vicious cycle. And, third, water runs through every SDG, from food security and health to economic growth.
Yet too often, water investments follow the failed playbook of climate and development finance. There is a tendency to derisk private capital without ensuring public returns; to fund projects without strategic direction; and to treat water as a technical problem, rather than a systemic challenge. Such approaches risk creating water infrastructure that serves investors more than communities, exacerbates existing inequalities, and fails to address the interconnected nature of the water, climate and biodiversity crises.
This interconnectedness demands a new economic framework that aims to shape markets proactively rather than simply fixing failures after the fact. We need to move from short-term cost-benefit thinking to long-term value creation, and that calls for mission-oriented investments that shape markets for the common good.
Missions require clear goals — like ensuring that no child dies from unsafe water by 2030. Once goals are established, all financing can be aligned with them through cross-sectoral approaches spanning agriculture, energy, manufacturing and digital infrastructure. Rather than picking sectors or technologies, the point is to find willing partners across all industries to tackle shared challenges. Such mission-oriented investments can also lead to economic diversification, creating new export opportunities and development pathways.
Consider Bolivia's approach to lithium extraction. Rather than simply exporting raw materials, the country is developing strategies to avoid the traditional 'resource curse' by building domestic battery-production capabilities and participating directly in the energy transition. In doing so, it is converting its resource wealth into innovation capacity, strengthening value chains and creating new export markets for higher-value activities.
As matters stand, more than $700 billion per year is channeled into water and agriculture subsidies that often incentivize overuse and pollution. By redirecting these resources toward water-efficient agriculture and ecosystem restoration, with clear conditions attached, we could transform the economics of water overnight. To that end, public development banks can provide patient capital for water infrastructure, while requiring private partners to reinvest profits in watershed protection.
Africa is uniquely positioned to lead this transformation. Its vast supply of groundwater remains largely untapped, with 255 million urban inhabitants living above known supplies. Combined with affordable solar power, these supplies present an opportunity to revolutionize agriculture. By focusing on efficiency and reuse, as well as on capacity building, data-sharing and monitoring and evaluation, this relatively stable groundwater resource, accessed by solar-powered pumps, can be a decentralized alternative minimizing the emissions, waste and other environmental costs implied by larger infrastructure projects that disrupt natural waterflows. Through Just Water Partnerships — collaborative frameworks that pool such solar-groundwater projects for increased bankability while ensuring community ownership — international finance can be channeled toward water infrastructure that serves both national development goals and the global common good.
South Africa's G20 presidency — the first ever for an African country — offers a historic platform to advance this agenda globally. Just as Brazil has used its G20 leadership and role as host of the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference to drive climate action, South Africa can make water security central to the global economic agenda. With the 2026 UN Water Conference on the horizon, and with the international community recognizing that climate change cannot be tackled without also addressing the water crisis, the time is right for bold leadership.
The African Water Investment Summit is not just another gathering, but should be a watershed. This is the moment when we should shift from treating water as a local resource to governing it as a global common good, moving from crisis management to proactive market shaping and from viewing mission-oriented investment as a cost to recognizing it as the foundation of sustainable growth.
Water security underpins Africa's aspirations for health, climate resilience, prosperity and peace. With young Africans set to constitute 42 percent of global youth by 2030, investing in water is tantamount to investing in the world's future. The question isn't whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to.
Mariana Mazzucato is a professor in the economics of innovation and public value at University College London. The views expressed here are the writer's own. — Ed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
a day ago
- Korea Herald
Talks for landmark plastic pollution treaty grind on
GENEVA (AFP) -- Talks on sealing a landmark treaty to tackle the global scourge of plastic pollution were still stuck in second gear on Monday, with time running out to bridge the chasm between the most ambitious countries and oil-producing states. Plastic pollution is so commonplace that microplastics have been found on the highest mountain peaks, in the deepest ocean trench and scattered throughout almost every part of the human body. The 184 countries meeting at the UN in Geneva have little more than three days left to reach an agreement. One African negotiator predicted the talks would conclude with a treaty by Thursday's deadline, even if it did not contain very much. "We haven't worked for three years to come away with nothing," they told Agence France-Presse. Some countries held informal talks on Sunday's nominal day off to try to get things moving -- but nothing emerged that paved the way for a game-changing shift on Monday. The first week of talks fell behind schedule and failed to produce a clear text, with states deeply divided at square one: the purpose and scope of the treaty they started negotiating two and a half years ago. Another diplomat said some informal discussions on the sidelines were now "moving very fast" and could produce answers that could then go forward for formal agreement. The talks have focused on topics ranging from the design of plastic to waste management, production, financing for recycling, plastic reuse, and funding waste collection in developing countries. They also discussed molecules and chemical additives that pose environmental and health risks. A cluster of mostly oil-producing states calling themselves the Like-Minded Group -- including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, Iran, and Malaysia -- want the treaty to focus primarily on waste management. The US and India are also aligned with this club. On the opposite side, a growing faction calling themselves the "high ambition" coalition want more fundamental action written into the treaty. Specifically, they seek to rein in plastic production, which on current trends is set to triple by 2060. This grouping also wants to phase out certain especially toxic chemicals. The European Union, many African and Latin American countries, Australia, Britain, Switzerland and Canada all fall within this fold, as do small island states drowning in plastic trash they did not produce and cannot prevent from lapping up on their shores. "Pollution in our islands is so pernicious and evident every single day in our oceans, in our waterways," Matthew Wilson, Barbados's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, told AFP. "We do not have the waste management and recycling facilities in very small islands, it's very expensive." Instead, much goes to a landfill on islands with limited space. "We need global solutions to a shared global problem." France's Ecological Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher said the treaty would have to be legally-binding, and address all stages of plastic's life cycle. "Every minute, 15 tonnes of plastic are released into the ocean worldwide, or nearly eight million tonnes per year! That's nearly 800 times the weight of the Eiffel Tower!" she said on X. "Complacency and a laissez-faire attitude can no longer be an option." The treaty is set to be settled by universal consensus but with countries far apart, observers said the lowest-ambition countries are comfortable not budging. Some environmental nongovernmental organizations are urging the ambitious majority to push for a vote instead. Claire Arkin, spokeswoman for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, told AFP, "By calling for a vote, it would make this minority of countries who block the whole process realise they would lose it -- and force them to make compromises."
Korea Herald
2 days ago
- Korea Herald
[Mariana Mazzucato] A new economics of water
As African leaders gather in Cape Town, South Africa, for the African Water Investment Summit, there can be no equivocation: The world faces an unprecedented water crisis that demands a paradigm shift in how we value and govern our most precious resource. The scale of the challenge is staggering. Over half the world's food production now comes from areas experiencing declining freshwater supplies. Two-thirds of the global population face water scarcity at least one month per year. More than 1,000 children under 5 die every day, on average, from water-related diseases. And if current trends continue, high-income countries could see their gross domestic product shrink by 8 percent by 2050, while lower-income countries (many in Africa) face losses of 10-15 percent. Yet this crisis also presents an extraordinary opportunity. As South Africa assumes the G20 presidency (for which I have been appointed special adviser to President Cyril Ramaphosa), it can champion a new economics of water that treats the hydrological cycle as a global common good, rather than as the source of a commodity to be hoarded or traded. The economic case for action is compelling. The International High-Level Panel on Water Investments for Africa shows that every $1 invested in climate-resilient water and sanitation delivers a return of $7. With Africa requiring an additional $30 billion annually to meet the Sustainable Development Goal on water security and sustainable sanitation, the financing gap is significant, but it is surmountable with the right strategy. The Global Commission on the Economics of Water (which I co-chaired with Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director general of the World Trade Organization, Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and Singaporean President Tharman Shanmugaratnam) recently called for such a strategy. Treating water as a global common good and adopting mission-oriented approaches to transform the crisis into an opportunity requires that we recognize three critical facts. First, water connects us all — not just through visible rivers and lakes, but through atmospheric moisture flows that travel across continents. Second, the water crisis is inseparable from climate change and biodiversity loss, each of which accelerates the others in a vicious cycle. And, third, water runs through every SDG, from food security and health to economic growth. Yet too often, water investments follow the failed playbook of climate and development finance. There is a tendency to derisk private capital without ensuring public returns; to fund projects without strategic direction; and to treat water as a technical problem, rather than a systemic challenge. Such approaches risk creating water infrastructure that serves investors more than communities, exacerbates existing inequalities, and fails to address the interconnected nature of the water, climate and biodiversity crises. This interconnectedness demands a new economic framework that aims to shape markets proactively rather than simply fixing failures after the fact. We need to move from short-term cost-benefit thinking to long-term value creation, and that calls for mission-oriented investments that shape markets for the common good. Missions require clear goals — like ensuring that no child dies from unsafe water by 2030. Once goals are established, all financing can be aligned with them through cross-sectoral approaches spanning agriculture, energy, manufacturing and digital infrastructure. Rather than picking sectors or technologies, the point is to find willing partners across all industries to tackle shared challenges. Such mission-oriented investments can also lead to economic diversification, creating new export opportunities and development pathways. Consider Bolivia's approach to lithium extraction. Rather than simply exporting raw materials, the country is developing strategies to avoid the traditional 'resource curse' by building domestic battery-production capabilities and participating directly in the energy transition. In doing so, it is converting its resource wealth into innovation capacity, strengthening value chains and creating new export markets for higher-value activities. As matters stand, more than $700 billion per year is channeled into water and agriculture subsidies that often incentivize overuse and pollution. By redirecting these resources toward water-efficient agriculture and ecosystem restoration, with clear conditions attached, we could transform the economics of water overnight. To that end, public development banks can provide patient capital for water infrastructure, while requiring private partners to reinvest profits in watershed protection. Africa is uniquely positioned to lead this transformation. Its vast supply of groundwater remains largely untapped, with 255 million urban inhabitants living above known supplies. Combined with affordable solar power, these supplies present an opportunity to revolutionize agriculture. By focusing on efficiency and reuse, as well as on capacity building, data-sharing and monitoring and evaluation, this relatively stable groundwater resource, accessed by solar-powered pumps, can be a decentralized alternative minimizing the emissions, waste and other environmental costs implied by larger infrastructure projects that disrupt natural waterflows. Through Just Water Partnerships — collaborative frameworks that pool such solar-groundwater projects for increased bankability while ensuring community ownership — international finance can be channeled toward water infrastructure that serves both national development goals and the global common good. South Africa's G20 presidency — the first ever for an African country — offers a historic platform to advance this agenda globally. Just as Brazil has used its G20 leadership and role as host of the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference to drive climate action, South Africa can make water security central to the global economic agenda. With the 2026 UN Water Conference on the horizon, and with the international community recognizing that climate change cannot be tackled without also addressing the water crisis, the time is right for bold leadership. The African Water Investment Summit is not just another gathering, but should be a watershed. This is the moment when we should shift from treating water as a local resource to governing it as a global common good, moving from crisis management to proactive market shaping and from viewing mission-oriented investment as a cost to recognizing it as the foundation of sustainable growth. Water security underpins Africa's aspirations for health, climate resilience, prosperity and peace. With young Africans set to constitute 42 percent of global youth by 2030, investing in water is tantamount to investing in the world's future. The question isn't whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to. Mariana Mazzucato is a professor in the economics of innovation and public value at University College London. The views expressed here are the writer's own. — Ed.
Korea Herald
3 days ago
- Korea Herald
[Editorial] Shifting trade rules
Decline of WTO ushers in bilateral leverage, challenging Korea's export-driven economy A quiet yet drastic shift is underway: After three decades of World Trade Organization-led multilateralism, the United States has openly declared the system unsustainable. Writing in the New York Times on Thursday, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer portrayed the WTO as a faltering institution that compromised American industry while enabling China's state-driven economic model to thrive. This is why the world is now witnessing the so-called 'Trump Round,' a new global trade order built not on consensus but on tariffs and bilateral leverage. In Washington's narrative, the multilateral model was naive: It presumed all members would abide by rules they helped to write. Instead, a system meant to bind China into fair competition allowed it to expand market share through subsidies, export controls and opaque regulation. Years of dispute-settlement paralysis left the WTO without a functioning appellate mechanism, further eroding credibility. What has replaced it is a model of direct bargaining, with tariffs deployed both as penalty and negotiating instrument. This has significant implications for South Korea. Its post-1995 export success was built on WTO access guarantees and predictable dispute resolution. Now the playing field is tilting toward power-based negotiation. Under the emerging bilateral terms with the US, Korean exports face a 15 percent tariff, offset partly by market-access pledges in other sectors and by Korean commitments to invest in US infrastructure and advanced industries. This is not a symmetrical arrangement. Washington controls the main 'carrot' — access to the largest consumer market in the world — and the principal 'stick' of targeted tariffs. The absence of binding multilateral enforcement means concessions will depend less on legal rulings and more on political calculation in both capitals. South Korea's first task in this environment is strategic clarity. It cannot treat US market access as a permanent right; it is now a conditional privilege. Securing continued access will require not only diplomacy in Washington but a clear sense of the trade-offs that domestic industry can accept. The second task is diversification. WTO's decline removes the institutional ballast that once made trade with China, the EU and Southeast Asia relatively predictable. Seoul must deepen ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the EU, accelerate talks for joining a major Asia-Pacific free trade agreement known as the CPTPP, and pursue sector-specific agreements that spread risk. The aim is not to decouple from the US but to avoid being trapped in a single-track export dependence. Third, Korea must adapt its industrial strategy. Semiconductors remain its core export, but the risk profile has changed. In a rules-light order, sectors less exposed to punitive tariffs — such as green technologies, biotechnology and digital services — will be vital hedges. Industrial policy should now focus as much on resilience as on speed of growth. Lastly, Seoul should not surrender the principle of rules altogether. Even in a fragmented system, there is room for 'mini-lateral' or regional frameworks that preserve predictable norms. CPTPP accession, deeper engagement with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and targeted high-standards pacts could help anchor at least part of South Korea's trade in enforceable obligations. The end of the WTO era is not the end of trade. It is the end of a certain kind of trade — one where a medium-sized economy like South Korea could rely on codified rules and impartial arbitration to protect market access. The new model prizes leverage, and those without it must find substitutes in alliances, diversification and innovation. The quiet demise of the WTO should be seen not as a collapse but as a strategic pivot. South Korea's track record of adaptation — from rapid industrialization to digital innovation — demonstrates its resilience amid profound change. The critical question now is whether it can convert this loss of certainty into a competitive edge before others seize the opportunity to define the new rules unilaterally.
