> It has ducked fundamental reform, which would probably involve breaking up Coal India, privatising local distribution companies and installing new regulators with teeth.

The Economist thinks privatization is the answer? Is this thing real?

Well a lot of people think like this,

  if(org.isFailing){
    switch(org.ownedby){
      case GOVT: print "Privatization is the answer"; break;
      case PVT: print "More Regulation needed"; break;

    }
  }

Just want to point that that phrase says "Privatization is the answer; more regulation is needed". I'm still wondering how it's classified.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but a common criticism of The Economist's values is that they have never seen a problem that could not be fixed by deregulation and privatization.

Like the second-to-last paragraph here, for instance: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/aug/21/pressandpublish...

For their 2015 outlook issue, The Economist asked readers to submit predictions by Twitter about the year's events. One prediction they published said, "The Economist will continue to recommend market-based solutions for everything."

And yet they actually recommend better regulation, not getting rid of it.

Generally there are two reasons for blackouts:

* Not enough power is being generated. If the price of electricity is high enough this will not happen.

* Unreliable equipment - which means not enough money has been spent repairing it or buying new.

India seems to be affected by both.

Try solar http://www.nedcap.gov.in/PDFs/Solar_Net_Metring/Indicative_C...