Advertisement

Does Social Connectivity Influence Tap Water Access? Evidence from India

  • Prasenjit SarkhelEmail author
  • Subhalakshmi Paul
Chapter

Abstract

Contemporary assessment of water availability in India predicts that by 2020 close to 600 million Indians would be under water distress. The threat is more potent for the rural households as more than 80% of them are yet to have tap water within their premise. Public authorities have scaled up the rural water supply schemes and have set the target of universalizing indoor tap water in rural areas by 2024. In this background, using a panel of rural household water use data from 2005 and 2012 rounds of India Human Development Survey (IHDS), this paper attempts to empirically investigate whether the extent of social network influences the households’ access to the public water supply via tap water connection. Our paper shows that even in water-scarce areas the planners might fail to tap the potential demand for tap water if community ties are weak and households are not well integrated into social network. We find that if access to public water schemes is contingent on the intensity of social ties, it might exclude asset poor and socially disadvantaged groups from its ambit. Our result, thus, suggests that strengthening networks including poor households and scaling up of information and communication activities might be effective strategies to ensure increased access to piped water.

Keywords

Drinking water India human development survey PROBIT Recursive bivariate PROBIT 

JEL Classifications

C35 H44 Q58 

References

  1. Anderson, S., Francois, P., & Kotwal, A. (2015). Clientelism in Indian villages. American Economic Review, 105(6), 1780–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balasubramaniam, D., Chatterjee, S., & Mustard, D. B. (2014). Got water? Social divisions and access to public goods in rural India. Economica, 81(321), 140–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandiera, O., & Rasul, I. (2006). Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. The Economic Journal, 116(514), 869–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, A., & Somanathan, R. (2007). The political economy of public goods: Some evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics, 82(2), 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardhan, P. K., & Mookherjee, D. (2000). Capture and governance at local and national levels. American Economic Review, 90(2), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bassi, N., & Kabir, Y. (2016). Sustainability versus local management: Comparative performance of rural water supply schemes. In Rural water systems for multiple uses and livelihood security (pp. 87–115). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Beaman, L., & Magruder, J. (2012). Who gets the job referral? Evidence from a social networks experiment. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3574–3593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Besley, T., Pande, R., Rahman, L., & Rao, V. (2004). The politics of public good provision: Evidence from Indian local governments. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Betancourt, R., & Gleason, S. (2000). The allocation of publicly-provided goods to rural households in India: On some consequences of caste, religion and democracy. World Development, 28(12), 2169–2182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhagat, R. B. (2013). Conditions of SC/ST households: A story of unequal improvement. Economic and Political Weekly, 62–66.Google Scholar
  11. Blackden, M. C., & Wodon, Q. (2006). Gender, time use, and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Working Paper, 73.Google Scholar
  12. Bollinger, B., & Gillingham, K. (2012). Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Marketing Science, 31(6), 900–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coffey, D., Spears, D., & Vyas, S. (2017). Switching to sanitation: Understanding latrine adoption in a representative panel of rural Indian households. Social Science and Medicine, 188, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Comptroller and Auditor General of India. (2018). “Performance Audit of National Rural Drinking Water Programme”, Union Government (Civil). Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitaion. Report No. 15.Google Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, I. (2005). Common property resources: Economic analytics. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(16), 1610–1622.Google Scholar
  16. Desai, S., & Vanneman, R. (2005). National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi. India Human Development Survey (IHDS). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2010-06-29. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR22626.v8.
  17. Desai, S., & Vanneman R. (2012). National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi. India Human Development Survey-II (IHDS-II), 2011–12. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2015-07-31. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36151.v2.
  18. Desai, S. B., Dubey, A., Joshi, B. L., Sen, M., Shariff, A., & Vanneman, R. (2010). Human development in India. New York: Oxford University. Downloaded from: https://ihds.umd.edu/sites/ihds.umd.edu/files/publications/pdf-files/11HDinIndia.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2015.
  19. Dutta, P., Murgai, R., Ravallion, M., & van de Walle D. (2014). Right to Work? Assessing India’s Employment Guarantee Scheme in Bihar. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0130-3. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falk, A., & Ichino, A. (2006). Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Filippini, M., Greene, W. H., Kumar, N., & Martinez-Cruz, A. L. (2018). A note on the different interpretation of the correlation parameters in the bivariate probit and the recursive bivariate probit. Economics Letters, 167, 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galeotti, A., & Merlino, L. P. (2009). Endogenous job contact networks, Memio.Google Scholar
  23. Gitto, L., Santoro, D., & Sobbrio, G. (2006). Choice of dialysis treatment and type of medical unit (private vs public): Application of a recursive bivariate probit. Health Economics, 15(11), 1251–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Han, S., & Vytlacil, E. J. (2017). Identification in a generalization of bivariate probit models with dummy endogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 199(1), 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchings, P., Franceys, R., Mekala, S., Smits, S., & James, A. J. (2017). Revisiting the history, concepts and typologies of community management for rural drinking water supply in India. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 33(1), 152–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ilahi, N. (2000). The intra-household allocation of time and tasks: What have we learnt from the empirical literature? Policy research report on gender and development working paper series, 13.Google Scholar
  28. Jessoe, K. (2013). Improved source, improved quality? Demand for drinking water quality in rural India. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66(3), 460–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lakshminarayanan, S., & Jayalakshmy, R. (2015). Diarrheal diseases among children in India: Current scenario and future perspectives. Journal of Natural Science, Biology, and Medicine, 6(1), 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larson, B., Minten, B., & Razafindralambo, R. (2006). Unravelling the linkages between the millennium development goals for poverty, education, access to water and household water use in developing countries: Evidence from Madagascar. The Journal of Development Studies, 42(1), 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li, C., Poskitt, D. S., & Zhao, X. (2019). The bivariate probit model, maximum likelihood estimation, pseudo true parameters and partial identification. Journal of Econometrics, 209(1), 94–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Madanat, S., & Humplick, F. (1993). A model of household choice of water supply systems in developing countries. Water Resources Research, 29(5), 1353–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MDWS 2013, NRDWP Guidelines. (2013). Ministry of drinking water and sanitation, Government of India. http://www.mdws.gov.in/sites/default/files/NRDWP_Guidelines_2013.pdf. Accessed October 2015.
  35. MODWS. Ministry Of Jal Shakti. Department Of Drinking Water and Sanitation. Downloaded from: https://jalshakti-ddws.gov.in/.
  36. Montogomery, J. (1991). Social networks and labor market outcomes. American Economic Review, 8(5), 1408–1418.Google Scholar
  37. Morris, S. (2007). The impact of obesity on employment. Labour Economics, 14(3), 413–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mourifié, I., & Méango, R. (2014). A note on the identification in two equations probit model with dummy endogenous regressor. Economic Letters, 125(3), 360–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mu, X., Whittington, D., & Briscoe, J. (1990). Modeling village water demand behavior: A discrete choice approach. Water Resources Research, 26(4), 521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Rural Drinking Water Programme failed to achieve target: CAG. The Economic Times. Downloaded from: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/national-rural-drinking-water-programme-failed-to-achieve-target-cag/articleshow/65308525.cms. Accessed June 7, 2019.
  41. Nauges, C., & Strand, J. (2007). Estimation of non-tap water demand in Central American cities. Resource and Energy Economics, 29(3), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nauges, C., & Van den Berg, C. (2009). Demand for piped and non-piped water supply services: Evidence from Southwest Sri Lanka. Environmental & Resource Economics, 42(4), 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nauges, C., & Whittington, D. (2009). Estimation of water demand in developing countries: An overview. The World Bank Research Observer, 25(2), 263–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oster, E., & Thornton, R. (2012). Determinants of technology adoption: Peer effects in menstrual cup take-up. Journal of the European Economic Association, 10(6), 1263–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Panda, R. N. (2014). Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a hot tin roof and summer and smoke: A study in sexual difference. IUP Journal of English Studies, 9(2).Google Scholar
  46. Panda, S. (2015). Political connections and elite capture in a poverty alleviation programme in India. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(1), 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Persson, T. H. (2002). Household choice of drinking–water source in the Philippines. Asian Economic Journal, 16(4), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prasad, P., Mishra, V., & Sohoni, M. (2014). Reforming rural drinking water schemes. Economic & Political Weekly, 49(19), 59.Google Scholar
  49. Prokopy, L. S. (2005). The relationship between participation and project outcomes: Evidence from rural water supply projects in India. World Development, 33(11), 1801–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ramachandrudu, M. V., & Snehalatha, M. (2010). Can WASH Services be improved by TAPping? Insights from WASHCost (India) Project 1.Google Scholar
  51. Sarkhel, P. (2013). Employment guarantee and natural vulnerability: A study of MGNREGA in Indian Sundarbans. Development and sustainability (pp. 429–447). India: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Srinivasan, S., & Carattini, S. (2016). Adding fuel to fire? Social spillovers and spatial disparities in the adoption of LPG in India. Centre for International Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
  53. Stalker, L., Abyankar, G. V., & Iyer, P. (2001). Why some village water and sanitation committees are better than others: A study of Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh (India) (English). Water and Sanitation Program field note. South Asia. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.Google Scholar
  54. Tewari, S., & Bapat, R. (2019). One in four rural Indian households walks more than 30 minutes to get water. IndiaSpend.com. Downloaded from: https://scroll.in/article/810363/the-great-indian-water-walkathon. Accessed June 7, 2019.
  55. User charge on water in rural areas favoured. The Hindu. Downloaded from: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/user-charge-on-water-in-rural-areas-favoured/article3456712.ece. Accessed June 7, 2018.
  56. Vanaja, S. (2018). Access to piped water, time savings and absenteeism in school: Evidence from India (No. 2058-2018-5267). Downloaded from: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/275954/files/2393.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2019.
  57. Wilde, P. E., & Ranney, C. K. (2000). The monthly food stamp cycle: Shopping frequency and food intake decisions in an endogenous switching regression framework. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(1), 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. World Bank India. (2008, June). Review of effectiveness of rural water supply schemes in India. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of KalyaniKalyaniIndia
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsAnandamohan CollegeKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations