Shame or subsidy revisited: social mobilization for sanitation in Orissa, India
Subhrendu K Pattanayak, Jui-Chen Yang, Katherine L Dickinson, Christine Poulos, Sumeet R Patil, Ranjan K Mallick, Jonathan L Blitstein & Purujit Praharaj
Volume 87, Number 8, August 2009, 580-587
Table 3. DID estimatesa of the effect of an IEC sanitation campaign on individual household latrine ownership in Bhadrak, Orissa, India, 2005–2006
|Model 1b||Model 2c|
|A: Full sample|
|No. of households/clusters||1050/20||2100/20|
|IEC effect (%)||19.0||28.7|
|B: BPL only|
|No. of households/clusters||632/20||1264/20|
|C: Non-BPL only|
|No. of households/clusters||418/20||836/20|
BPL, below the poverty line; CI, confidence interval; DID, difference-in-difference; IEC, information, education and communication.
a Standard errors were corrected for clustering at the village level.
b Estimate based on a simple comparison of means in 2006.
c DID using observed latrine ownership in 2005 and 2006. As a check for robustness, we estimated a semi-parametric DID model
22 that essentially uses inverse probability weights as a function of baseline latrine coverage, and found virtually identical results. This confirms that the combination of randomized assignment, covariate balance and DID estimation eliminates any potential bias.
d The intracluster correlation coefficient is set at 0.125.