Nearly 2 billion individuals, accounting for almost a quarter of the global population, do not have regular access to clean drinking water. Each year, around 800,000 people die due to diseases linked to contaminated water. Access to drinking water is crucial for both human well-being and economic progress. In 2015, the U.N. emphasized this issue in its Sustainable Development Goals, setting safe drinking water as a key global objective.<\/p>\n
Historically, democracies have been more effective than other government types at providing public goods, which benefit a large number of people. This success is often attributed to elements like elections, transparency, and civil liberties. However, a recent study led by an MIT professor reveals that in almost 100 nations with developing economies, this trend has become more complicated in recent years. While democracies still lead slightly in providing some water, they lag in ensuring safe water on tap.<\/p>\n
MIT’s political scientist Evan Lieberman, a co-author of the study, notes that in low- and middle-income countries, democracies and non-democracies show little difference in providing basic drinking water. Surprisingly, democratic nations are becoming less effective at expanding access to safe drinking water. The study suggests that the invisibility of safe water makes it less of a priority for politicians, as the safety of water is not as easily observable as infrastructure.<\/p>\n
The research, titled \u201cBeyond the tap: The limited value of democracy for delivering universal safe water access in low- and middle-income countries,\u201d appears in the journal World Development. It was conducted by Lieberman and Naomi Tilles, a Stanford University doctoral student. They analyzed data from the World Health Organization\/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, which includes information on basic water availability and safe drinking water.<\/p>\n
The researchers examined 96 low- and middle-income countries, considering various measures of democratic and non-democratic governance. They conducted 39,000 regressions to assess the relationship between government type and water provision. Although democratic governance is modestly linked to an increase in basic water availability, the effect is not strong. Between 2000 and 2024, most countries made progress in safe water access, but democracies have been less successful than non-democracies in achieving universal access.<\/p>\n
Lieberman observes that the gap between democracies and non-democracies is widening over time. The study does not claim to explain why this trend exists but suggests that newer democracies may struggle with governance, affecting results. Lieberman emphasizes that visible public goods attract more attention, whereas safe water, which requires testing and treatment, does not.<\/p>\n
Lieberman, an expert on African politics, argues that democracy remains the best path toward “dignified” development, offering economic growth and equal legal treatment. However, he acknowledges the challenges in ensuring safe water access, suggesting that elected officials may focus on short-term issues. Citizens and civil society must raise awareness of water safety’s importance and push for political action.<\/p>\n
Lieberman concludes that while democratic governance holds intrinsic value, there is a need to improve its effectiveness in delivering crucial outcomes like safe water. He sees potential for citizens, NGOs, and governments to create incentives for enhanced water safety.<\/p>\n