OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a sanitation campaign that combines 'shaming' (i.e. emotional motivators) with subsidies for poor households in rural Orissa, an Indian state with a disproportionately high share of India's child mortality. METHODS: Using a cluster-randomized design, we selected 20 treatment and 20 control villages in the coastal district of Bhadrak, rural Orissa, for a total sample of 1050 households. We collected sanitation and health data before and after a community-led sanitation project, and we used a difference-in-difference estimator to determine the extent to which the campaign influenced the number of households building and using a latrine. FINDINGS:Latrine ownership did not increase in control villages, but in treatment villages it rose from 6% to 32% in the overall sample, from 5% to 36% in households below the poverty line (eligible for a government subsidy) and from 7% to 26% in households above the poverty line (not eligible for a government subsidy). CONCLUSION: Subsidies can overcome serious budget constraints but are not necessary to spur action, for shaming can be very effective by harnessing the power of social pressure and peer monitoring. Through a combination of shaming and subsidies, social marketing can improve sanitation worldwide.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a sanitation campaign that combines 'shaming' (i.e. emotional motivators) with subsidies for poor households in rural Orissa, an Indian state with a disproportionately high share of India's child mortality. METHODS: Using a cluster-randomized design, we selected 20 treatment and 20 control villages in the coastal district of Bhadrak, rural Orissa, for a total sample of 1050 households. We collected sanitation and health data before and after a community-led sanitation project, and we used a difference-in-difference estimator to determine the extent to which the campaign influenced the number of households building and using a latrine. FINDINGS: Latrine ownership did not increase in control villages, but in treatment villages it rose from 6% to 32% in the overall sample, from 5% to 36% in households below the poverty line (eligible for a government subsidy) and from 7% to 26% in households above the poverty line (not eligible for a government subsidy). CONCLUSION: Subsidies can overcome serious budget constraints but are not necessary to spur action, for shaming can be very effective by harnessing the power of social pressure and peer monitoring. Through a combination of shaming and subsidies, social marketing can improve sanitation worldwide.
Authors: Christopher Curtis; Caroline Maxwell; Martha Lemnge; W L Kilama; Richard W Steketee; William A Hawley; Yves Bergevin; Carlos C Campbell; Jeffrey Sachs; Awash Teklehaimanot; Sam Ochola; Helen Guyatt; Robert W Snow Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Lorna Fewtrell; Rachel B Kaufmann; David Kay; Wayne Enanoria; Laurence Haller; John M Colford Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Subhrendu K Pattanayak; Christine Poulos; Jui-Chen Yang; Sumeet R Patil; Kelly J Wendland Journal: J Water Health Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Darcy M Anderson; Ankush Kumar Gupta; Sarah A Birken; Zoe Sakas; Matthew C Freeman Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Parimita Routray; Wolf-Peter Schmidt; Sophie Boisson; Thomas Clasen; Marion W Jenkins Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sumeet R Patil; Benjamin F Arnold; Alicia L Salvatore; Bertha Briceno; Sandipan Ganguly; John M Colford; Paul J Gertler Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Michael Loevinsohn; Lyla Mehta; Katie Cuming; Alan Nicol; Oliver Cumming; Jeroen H J Ensink Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 3.344