Billions of people in the world suffer from water scarcity. The problem is not a lack of suitable water in the world; it is an uneven distribution of that water--an uneven distribution, to be more exact, of the resources and facilities needed to manage water, as well as the natural sources of water themselves. It has been estimated that a billion people lack access to potable water, and 2.4 billion lack access to the basic sanitation that is necessary for basic water usage.
     In the case of the domestic shortage of water, which is small in demand relative to commercial uses of water, the problem is not so much that there are no water resources, but that those without water lack the political and financial capital to access that water. Granted, natural forces do play a role. In regions of need, terrestrial water resources may be distributed quite unevenly, leaving large populations at great distances without such sources, and rainwater may fall only sporadically throughout the course of a given year. In such regions, making water accessible is costlier and may require considerable investment in infrastructure.
     I would like to propose a radical measure to address water shortage, especially in African countries. I suggest that multinational soft drink companies be given incentives to enter the countries afflicted by water shortage and invest in the development of the water infrastructure. This proposal is not as absurd as it may first sound. First of all, most major soft drink companies nowadays are also in the business of selling bottled water; they have expertise in purification and other relevant knowledge areas. Second, the soft drink industry is among the very first industries to penetrate and profit in emerging markets, because of the general appeal and low price of their product. Moreover, the more a given economy develops, the more that particular soft drink provider stands to profit. In other words, soft drink companies have both the capability to help and some interest to operate in a given country that needs assistance.
     You may object that soft drink companies already would have entered a country to help if they had seen benefit in doing so. That critique may be true, but it does not necessarily mean that a company could not be driven to action through direct financial incentives, partial ownership of constructed infrastructure, assistance from international organizations and pressure from more developed neighboring countries in which that company already has an entrenched interest. Moreover, to the criticism that infrastructure building is the work of governments, not companies, there is a valid response: partnerships between governments and corporations have thrived for centuries in major projects and could benefit both the people and involved corporations in this case, as well.