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 estimates^{a} of the effect of an IEC sanitation campaign on individual household latrine ownership in Bhadrak, Orissa, India, 2005–2006
Model 1^{b} | Model 2^{c} | |
---|---|---|
A: Full sample | ||
No. of households/clusters | 1050/20 | 2100/20 |
IEC effect (%) | 19.0 | 28.7 |
95% CI^{d} | 4.7–33.3 | 14.6–42.9 |
P-value | 0.006 | 0.000 |
B: BPL only | ||
No. of households/clusters | 632/20 | 1264/20 |
IEC effect | 23.7 | 34.2 |
95% CI^{d} | 6.7–40.7 | 18.0–50.4 |
P-value | 0.003 | 0.000 |
C: Non-BPL only | ||
No. of households/clusters | 418/20 | 836/20 |
IEC effect | 12.0 | 20.7 |
95% CI^{d} | 1.9–25.8 | 6.2–35.2 |
P-value | 0.084 | 0.000 |
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.