Abstract
The privatization of the water industry (and the subsequent public debates surrounding the Yorkshire drought of 1995-96) involves a rich and complex set of often related issues. As such, it is possible to take a number of parallel and sometimes interconnecting analytical 'cuts' on this research theme. In my original article, I focused largely on the playing out of public debates over whether, and to what extent, the privatized company Yorkshire Water could be held responsible for worsening the local impacts of the drought. Karen Bakker's response to this article highlights a number of ways in which other analytical 'cuts' can also provide insights into these events, and also challenges some aspects of the particular approach that I adopted. Here, I respond to the main issues raised in this thought-provoking critique.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
