UBI: The Global Antipoverty Experiment

By Tenzin Chomphel
Editor in Chief

The back and forth of the best way to resolve extreme poverty, wealth inequality, and just taxation, may often appear endless to most. While global poverty is lowering at a rate of roughly sixty-eight million people per year, that still leaves an unacceptably high level of poverty around the world. Domestically, the United States experiences an estimated thirty-eight million still in poverty, and inequality has additionally been on the rise, with the bottom ninety percent of households accounting for less than a quarter of the total wealth.

Arguably one of the most controversial, yet blossoming proposed solutions to come out of this sphere, is a system where the government theoretically transfers payments directly into the hands of the individual citizen, commonly dubbed Universal Basic Income.

Universal basic income has taken on other monikers such as Guaranteed Income and Basic Pension, and differed in the exact schematics. The only core principles necessary to define a program as UBI, is that it serves as a periodic money payment, unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, with all receiving the same amount. Hence the universal aspect. Additionally, the amount provided is generally intended to skew towards the necessary amount to purchase only critical needs such as food and rent costs. Hence the basic aspect.

Discussion of a basic income can be dated back as far as the early 16th century. However concrete proposals that are often cited as the first hints can be drawn more so from the late 18th century, the most notable of these brought up by American founding father Thomas Paine. In his “groundrent” proposal, every citizen would receive fifteen pounds from the government after turning the age of twenty-one. Since then, accounts of politicians, CEO’s, activists, and academics pushing for their various iterations of wealth redistribution have popped up throughout modern history.

The primary motivations for a UBI foremost are poverty alleviation and combating wealth inequality. This applies particularly to developing countries with large populations still living in harsh socioeconomic conditions. In the hands of an individual living marginal to the poverty line, implementing such a systematic approach would theoretically allow for certain disposable income, which they could then use to reinvest into their human capital, health or education for example. Applying the theory of influential economist John Meynard Keynes, this would also provide additional money being injected back into these local economies through the multiplier effect. The resulting increased consumption would spur economic activity, and thus growth. 

For developed economies, an argument for UBI also stems from advancements in automation and technology. As machinery becomes more sophisticated and able to do the work of more individuals at a much cheaper rate, the resulting effect is job loss from largely low skill workers. This is interpreted from projections that automation will displace twenty million jobs globally in the manufacturing sector alone by 2030. Proposals for UBI however, contrary to popular belief are not meant to be interpreted as a replacement to these jobs. Similar to welfare programs such as subsidies, they are meant to provide a safety net to support a person’s main source income. Individuals would not be incentivized to quit their jobs based off of a basic income placed marginal to their country’s poverty line. In the words of social entrepreneur Hillary Cottam, “Welfare systems are designed to manage needs, but not designed to manage capabilities so that families can stand on their own.” 

If UBI can indeed theoretically serve as an effective panacea for wealth inequality, the question then is why the idea has struggled for centuries now to gain traction. One of the main reasons is how difficult it is to sell the idea of a basic income politically. With such minimal evidence on the long-term effects of UBI on a population, particularly one scaled to the size and diversity of a country, it is no surprise why it may be a political risk. Other common criticisms include the real impact on labor force participation, inflation, and of course the large price tag of such a program. These concerns also emphasize the need for additional real-world evidence to provide more conclusive answers to.

We have established that UBI faces a serious barrier to progress without more concrete evidence of its effects. Only within the 21st century has any actual progress in this sense been made. One notable success is Brazil’s conditional cash transfer scheme Bolsa Familia, which has helped half the amount of Brazilians living in extreme poverty, and lowered income inequality as well. India is another country where Basic Income is already in the mainstream political discussion. Numerous Indian economic advisors argue that it should be considered to help the country’s mass chronic poverty, especially in light of weak local administration and apathetic public officials. Variants are currently being trial run, such as in 2019 when the government began doling out a minimum income to small and marginal farmers. 

A young girl’s Bolsa Familia registrant card.

One of the world’s largest experiment in cash transfers however, is not being performed by any government at all, but through the nonprofit GiveDirectly. GiveDirectly aims to transfer cash directly into the hands of populations living in extreme poverty, such as over ten  million dollars specifically to rural residents in Siaya county, Kenya. The experiment was meant to examine its effect on the overall region, testing the “general equilibrium”, and it found that estimated a “fiscal multiplier” of 2.6 for this area, implying that every one dollar invested in fiscal stimulus grew the local economy by more than double. A breakthrough for the credibility of cash transfers, and by extension UBIIt is worth noting that the United States also recently began to consider the idea of a UBI more seriously, again mostly based on arguments of inequality and job displacement due to automation. Public advocates of these efforts include tech entrepreneur Chris Hughes in Stockton California, Newark mayor Ras Baraka, and democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang‘s Freedom Dividend of one thousand dollars a month for every American citizen. Within the context of the 21st century milestones, UBI’s notoriety has gained a second wind that may be unprecedented for its proponents. The question we are now presented with is whether governments, and the people they represent, will view it as an undeserved handout, a costly and outlandish dream, or a decisive investment into the individual.

Photos courtesy of:
Scott Santens
Senado Federal

Pakistani Hindus: Hopeless, Homeless, Stateless

By Raafiya Ali Khan
Staff Writer

The rise of Hindu nationalism in India has not failed to create headlines in the global community. Presently, the largest political proponent of Hindu nationalism is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP was founded in 1951 by a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a far-right Hindu supremacist organization. As the principal political wing of the RSS, the BJP acts in accordance with its principles, striving toward the RSS’s ultimate goal: the recreation of India as a strictly Hindu nation. With the BJP currently in power, the rise of Hindu nationalism has become a source of much contention between Hindus and other religious minorities in India. The BJP’s divisive rhetoric has led to increased Hindu nationalism in the country, which has sparked violence against the country’s minorities. Mob lynchings of minorities, particularly Muslims, for consuming or even transporting beef—sacred to Hindus—has skyrocketed since the BJP has gained power. Instead of quelling citizens’ fears and denouncing these horrendous acts, the BJP has welcomed these violent symbols of support, throwing celebrations and garlanding those committing these acts of terror. Bolstered by acts such as these, the BJP has continued its efforts to homogenize India, framing the country as a haven and homeland for Hinduism and its followers, strikingly similar to Israel’s self-proclamation as a Jewish homeland.

Continue reading “Pakistani Hindus: Hopeless, Homeless, Stateless”

REVAMPING THE TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN AND NGP

screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-12-24-52-am
By Daniel Firoozi
Contributing Writer
Reducing Open Defecation in Rural, Northern India

Executive Summary:
Open defecation poses one of the single most significant health and safety challenges to the people of the provinces of rural, Northern India. Eliminating the practice could save thousands of lives per year through reduced infant mortality, improve early childhood development and curb both malnutrition and the spread of disease. Existing policy options have succeeded at expanding access to improved sanitation, but have failed at making comparable reductions in the rate of open defecation, due largely to individual preferences. Policymakers must overhaul the Total Sanitation Campaign and Nirmal Gram Puraskar to focus on latrine usage, local leadership, long-term goals and accountability to build on the progress made in latrine access.

Statement of Problem
As India continues along its path of long-run economic growth, it grapples with an array of health crises ranging from malnutrition, to elevated rates of infant mortality and widespread instances of diarrheal disease, even when compared to countries with lower per capita incomes, because of open defecation. Despite representing only one sixth of the world’s population, at 597 million people, Indians are the majority of the world’s remaining practitioners of open defecation (Progress 2014, p 21-22). Although 291 million Indians have gained access to improved sanitation since 1990, 792 million continue to lack access to latrines and other forms of improved sanitation facilities, concentrated largely in Northern and rural provinces (Progress, 19-20 & 60). For key demographic groups, particularly Hindus, Dalits, the rural poor, women, children and the elderly, open defecation contributes to a broad degree of disparities in outcomes for healthcare, education, economic opportunity and even personal safety. In the enclosed report, we will (1) explore the origins of the continuing open defecation crisis in India, (2) analyze and critique the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), a recently implemented broad-based program aimed at expanding access to latrines and the Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP), a financial incentive to promote latrine use, (3) issue a revised plan for phase two of the Total Sanitation Campaign built on demand stimulation, more funding for NGPs and a set of local sanitation divisions administered at the Gram Panchayat (GP) level which will compete for long term financial awards for latrine use and maintenance and (4) conclude with a summary of these findings and rationale for renewal of the TSC with amendments.

On balance, the evidence suggests that while traditional approaches to moving toward an open defecation free (ODF) India have emphasized and been successful in boosting construction of and access to latrines, they have not succeeded at achieving corresponding gains in the reduction of open defecation due to engrained group preferences for the practice. While expanding access to improved sanitation facilities continues to be of great importance, a substantially larger degree of focus should be placed on stimulating demand for latrine use via educational campaigns and future policy approaches must factor in long-term GP, district and block oriented sanitation strategies to build a culture of use and maintenance for existing latrines. By taking large strides towards ODF communities, India may dramatically reduce incidence of diarrheal disease, malnutrition, sexual assault, parasitic infection and infant mortality, as well as promote better outcomes for early childhood development and educational attainment in the long run.

Origin of Problem and Current Context
Open defecation has been a longstanding problem on the Indian subcontinent, tracing its historical roots to a period long before British colonization and has been engrained in the lifestyles of most rural Indians. Many households display a strong preference for open defecation over latrine use, often citing pleasurability and a belief in the health benefits of the practice as primary motivators (Coffey 2014, p 1). However, the data from healthcare outcomes robustly suggest that the ubiquity of open defecation in rural, Northern India poses strains on the indigenous population and entails severe negative consequences. One half of all Indians regularly practice open defecation (Lamba 2013, p 1593), including nearly two thirds of rural households and a majority ofpeople living in households with a government provided toilet (Coffey, p 1). Open defecation is more common in India than many countries with lower indicators for per capita income and approximately one third of the global population of open defecators live in just five Indian provinces: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana (Coffey, p 5). For key demographic groups rates of open defecation can be even higher and pose additional risks to individual health and safety. Indians from scheduled castes (Lamba, p 1593), men (Coffey, p 13), children (Child Feces 2015, p 1) and Hindus (Geruso 2015, p 2) are more likely to engage in open defecation than their demographic counterparts. Often the subgroups most in need of latrines, women with safety concerns, the disabled and the elderly, are precisely the groups with the least amount of economic clout within their household (Coffey, p 13).

Because of the extraordinarily low rates of access to and use of latrines and improved sanitation, the population of India faces severe negative health effects. India alone accounts for approximately one third of all deaths from diarrheal disease (Patil 2014, p 3), driven largely by the relatively high population density of Northern villages which can often multiply the negative externalities of open defecation (Coffey, p 24). The outlook is particularly bleak for children. Poor sanitation access among children in rural, Northern India has been linked to the prevalence of enteropathy, stunted growth, malnutrition and intestinal worm infections, which can cost on average three and three quarters IQ points worth of brain development during every infestation (Child Feces, p 3). The long term consequences caused by repeated fecal-oral transmission of parasites have even been traced to poor cognitive development, lower school attendance, reduced educational attainment, reduced literacy and higher risk of chronic disease in adulthood (Andres 2014, p 6) (Spears 2013, p 3,17-18, & 28). The gaps between ODF and non-ODF communities come into full clarity when one considers that the children of Muslim Indians, despite lower household incomes, lower consumption levels, worse educational attainment and worse access to piped water, have a lower overall infant mortality rate than their Hindu counterparts primarily because of resistance to latrine use among Hindu fundamentalists (Geruso, p 3).

Local governments, organized into districts, blocks and Gram Panchayats (GPs) led by Sarpanches, local elected leaders, are the most critical stakeholders in sanitation policy. Since villages are the core political unit across the rural region of Northern India, they are primary stakeholders in the struggle to construct more latrines and combat the prevalence of open defecation (Lamba, p 1594). Traditionally, administration of sanitation policy has been conducted at the local level, because of the need for political autonomy and flexibility to address the wide variation in climate, water access and cultural differences across the subcontinent. Both rural families and government institutions have a vested interest in improving sanitation access, but the federal government has been slow to act and unresponsive to the unique challenges facing the GPs. Local administrators are also on the frontline of contacting and working with individual households, which often have latrines but may have individual family members who refuse to use them, giving them a unique opportunity to educate and motivate on a personal level.

Critique of Policy Options
In 1999, the federal government of India launched the Total Sanitation Campaign, with the stated goal of achieving universal latrine use and the elimination of open defecation by 2012, but the project failed to achieve a dramatic reduction of open defecation despite contributing to a 19% increase in the availability of improved sanitation (Patil, p 1). An accompanying program, the Nirmal Gram Puraskar, was established to provide funding to Gram Panchayats and households, particularly those below the poverty level, upon the construction and verification of the use of latrines (Lamba, p 1594). Taken in total, the Indian government allocated the equivalent of $1.4 billion for the Total Sanitation Campaign and $1.5 billion for the NGP, providing approximately Rs 820 per household for the construction of a latrine, Rs 30 Lakh for the NGP grant to each Gram Panchayat achieving ODF status and Rs 8,000 for NGP grants to each household in Gram Panchayats that successfully achieved ODF status (Robinson 2008, p 20 & 38-40). While these policies were effective in contributing to a nineteen percentage point increase in latrine coverage in participating villages relative to control villages, the evidence seems to suggest that the policy intervention resulted in latrine construction but fell well short of achieving total sanitation due to the low rates of latrine use (Patil, p 5). According to one analysis, if the Total Sanitation Campaign and NGP awards were extended to cover every village in the rural, Northern provinces, open defecation in the region would only fall from sixty four percent to forty six percent, because the marginal rate of latrine use among latrine owners remains low (Coffey, p 18).

The wedge between latrine ownership and latrine use, which proves the biggest obstacle to the elimination of open defecation, can be traced to social, political, economic and religious factors. Among households with a government constructed latrine, one third of such latrines are not used by anyone at all and rates of open defecation were twice as high as rates for households that constructed latrines without government assistance (Coffey, p 3 & 14). Likewise for Gram Panchayats with Sarpanches from scheduled castes, like Dalits, figures point to high rates of toilet construction on par with that of other participating Gram Panchayats, but the frequency of receiving the NGP proved far lower because of lower rates of latrine use conditional on latrine construction (Lamba, p 1602-1604). In fact, a contributor to both the dearth of households constructing affordable latrines and the use of affordable government sponsored latrines seems to be that many rural Indians in the Northern provinces have an expensive concept of what an acceptable latrine looks like and thus are less likely to build or use facilities that do not meet their personal standards (Coffey, p 7-8). The TSC and NGP programs have both neglected to consider reaching out to local religious institutions and leaders who often give guidance to their worshippers regarding the practice of open defecation (Geruso, p 5-7). Finally, it seems that in spite of the companion programs’ noticeable impact on latrine construction household surveys reflect similar rates of awareness of the programs between villages receiving the policy intervention and control villages (Patil, p 14).

Policy Recommendations
The Indian Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation should recommit itself to a substantial reduction of open defecation in the rural, Northern provinces and launch a second phase of the Total Sanitation Campaign and Nirmal Gram Puraskar by (1) setting up latrine demand stimulation campaigns and triggers, (2) increasing NGP awards by 25% across the board and (3) setting up a system of local sanitation organizations, administered at the Gram Panchayat level, which will compete for new long-term NGP block grants awarded for latrine use, reduction of open defecation and latrine maintenance. As the TSC and NGP have already demonstrated, the larger the financial incentive for latrine construction, the greater the rate of expanded access to improved sanitation, but such plans alone are insufficient for guaranteed latrine use and curtailing open defecation (Patil, p 21).

The policy intervention outlined in this report will tackle current problems and context by challenging existing notions surrounding open defecation, promoting demand for latrine use, targeting relief and demand stimulation to key groups and engaging local policymakers as stakeholders in the process. With fifty one percent of people without latrines believing that open defecation is at least as beneficial to health as latrine use, any proposal geared at curbing open defecation must begin with latrine demand stimulation and program triggers (Coffey, p 21). A revamped TSC must tout not only the health benefits of ODF communities, but must recognize existing social roles and make targeted appeals to personal safety of children and adolescents, personal privacy for women and low costs for men (What Works 2014, p 5). Local leaders and households should indicate a desire for behavioral change prior to the disbursement of funds for latrine construction and the allotment of construction grants should be tied to a participatory rural appraisal process that would gauge the fraction of people in a Gram Panchayat interested in pursuing to an ODF community, ask for a reasonable target date for ODF status and target funds at the GPs with the strongest commitments (What Works, p 6 & 9). Rather than emphasizing disgust and shame in the context of open defecation, the initial educational campaign should rely on the pride, dignity and security associated with latrine use as well as the most effective messaging surrounding convenience, children’s safety from insects and animals, reductions of sexual assault and safety from the rains to appeal to middle age fathers, the holders of most economic clout in the rural provinces (What Works, p 10-11). Lastly, the educational program must be administered at the local level, with Sarpanches indicating a firm commitment to participation, setting up a sub-GP governing structure and drafting a time table for policy implementation, before a village is deemed eligible for participation in the renewed TSC and NGP programs.

Phase two of the Total Sanitation Campaign and Nirmal Gram Puraskar should strike at the heart of past policy failures by emphasizing latrine use rather than construction, creating safeguards against caste-based discrimination, challenging perceptions about latrines and raising awareness about the program itself. Apart from the financial incentives to build latrines, the bulk of the NGPs for ODF Gram Panchayats and households in ODF GPs should be disbursed only after independent auditors evaluate a GP for latrine use in one, two, three, five and eight year intervals after a GP enters the program (Robinson, p 49). Moreover, a financial incentive for workers in the locally-administered sanitation organizations should be tied to these evaluations as a means of incentivizing community engagement and education in the period between evaluations. This will shift the incentive away from construction and toward fostering a culture that makes ODF communities a priority, while improving baseline statistics, allowing for decentralized management and providing independent accountability (Monitoring Systems 2010, p 4 & 12). Independent auditors will schedule evaluations without proactive warnings for GPs, will be randomized among the GPs and will meet with the members of the local sanitation organizations and Sarpanch only after submitting an initial report, to curtail possibilities for corruption and eliminate the potential for biased reporting linked to the caste of a Sarpanch. Coupled with this new focus on external verification, local sanitation organizations must work hard to relay the message that the low-cost latrines funded by the TSC are a transitory step along the path to the high quality latrines many Indians envision and underscore that successful achievement and maintenance of ODF status in a GP will lead to financial grants that may be used to upgrade latrine quality (Patil, p 9). By framing the move to latrine use as a step in a process yielding larger and larger payoffs over time and by incorporating local sanitation organizations, the new TSC and NGP will foster a culture of latrine use over the long-run and become more familiar to targeted villages than their predecessor programs.

In keeping with the overall plan of taking a bold step toward eliminating open defecation, the policy goal will be to cut open defecation in half by the eighth year of the revised programs and will be evaluated through a series of benchmark checks with accompanying performance grants for post-NGP outcomes (Robinson, p 49). While local sanitation organizations governed by Gram Panchayats can effectively act to provide timely monitoring at block, district and GP levels they will be financially compensated for providing regular updates on sanitation information and for successful implementation of strategies to promote latrine use after one year, two years, three years, five years and eight years (What Works, p 5). Financial incentives from the NGP will be broken up to reward communities at each time interval for retaining ODF status and reimbursements will be provided to cover the recurrent costs of maintenance of latrines to sustain sanitation outcomes, extending the effectiveness of the plan well into the time horizon (Robinson, p 49).

Conclusion

To achieve dramatic improvement in health, educational and life outcomes India’s federal government must overhaul its rural sanitation policies to prioritize latrine use, rather than latrine access as a means of combating open defecation. Despite measurable progress in latrine construction in rural, Northern India, the country has not achieved parity declines in open defecation, making it a laggard among its non- industrialized peers on a variety of health indicators. Without substantial reform of the TSC and NGP, India will continue to subsidize construction of improved sanitation facilities rather than stimulate their demand, fail to address systemic inequalities on the basis of gender, caste, religion and age and will continue to face stubbornly high rates of preventable illness and infant mortality. With the population burgeoning and growing increasingly mobile, the federal government must prioritize slashing rates of open defecation to hedge against the growing threat of communicable disease. Local governments and families should commit themselves to better sanitation practices to not only raise their standards of living, but improve childhood development and save young lives.

The most achievable and pragmatic approach to curbing open defecation involves launching a second phase of both the TSC and NGP programs, while making a clear break with their previous top-down, near term, construction-focused approach. By allocating funds for the establishment of a network locally administered sanitation organizations, shifting focus to latrine demand stimulation and providing a new set of

long term grants for achieving non-construction goals, policymakers may best address the factors which limited the success of past initiatives. These clean breaks with the structure of past policies prove necessary because of the high rates of disuse of existing sanitation infrastructure, the disparities between demographic groupings and the political realities of rural village life in each of the provinces. The revamped proposal for the implementation the Total Sanitation Campaign and Nirmal Gram Puraskar ought to receive the full support of the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation to improve the efficiency of the existing programs and the Minister Chaudhry Birender Singh should propose an increase in the allocation for these programs in the annual federal budget to cover the higher expenditures associated with a restructured grant system and new public worker salaries.

Bibliography

1) Sneha Lamba & Dean Spears (2013) Caste, ‘Cleanliness’ and Cash: Effects of Caste-Based Political Reservations in Rajasthan on a Sanitation Prize, The Journal of Development Studies, 49:11, 1592-1606, DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2013.828835

2a) Patil SR, Arnold BF, Salvatore AL, Briceno B, Ganguly S, et al. (2014) The Effect of India’s Total Sanitation Campaign on Defecation Behaviors and Child Health in Rural Madhya Pradesh: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS Med 11(8): e1001709. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001709. <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/ handle/10986/23197/journal.pmed.1001709.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>.

2b) Patil, Sumeet R., Benjamin F. Arnold, Alicia Salvatore, Bertha Briceno, John M. Colford, and Paul J. Gertler. “A Randomized, Controlled Study of a Rural Sanitation Behavior Change Program in Madhya Pradesh, India.” Policy Research Working Papers (2013): n. pag. Worldbank.org. The World Bank, Nov. 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2016. <http:// www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/ 2013/11/14/000158349_20131114094224/Rendered/PDF/WPS6702.pdf>.

3) Progress on Drinking-water and Sanitation 2014 Update. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014. searo.who.int. World Health Organization, 2014. Web. 20 Jan. 2016. <http://www.searo.who.int/indonesia/documents/progress-on-drinking- water-2014(9789241507240_eng).pdf>

4) Coffey, Diane, Aashish Gupta, Payal Hathi, Nidhi Khurana, Dean Spears, Nikhil Srivastav, and Sangita Vyas. Revealed Preference for Open Defecation: Evidence from a New Survey in Rural North India. Working paper no. 1. Research Institute for Compassionate Economics, 26 June 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. <http://squatreport.in/ wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SQUAT-research-paper.pdf>.

5) Child Feces Disposal in INDIA. Issue brief. UNICEF, Mar. 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. <http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/WSP-India-CFD-Profile.pdf&gt;.

6) Andres, Luis A., Bertha Briceno, Claire Chase, and Juan A. Echenique. Sanitation and Externalities: Evidence from Early Childhood Health in Rural India: Policy Research Working Papers. Working paper no. 6737. World Bank, Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. <http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-6737&gt;.

7) Geruso, Michael, and Dean Spears. NEIGHBORHOOD SANITATION AND INFANT MORTALITY. Working paper no. 21184. National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. <http://www.nber.org/papers/w21184.pdf&gt;.

8) Spears, Dean, and Sneha Lamba. E Ects of Early-Life Exposure to Sanitation on Childhood Cognitive Skills. Working paper no. 6659. The World Bank, Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16872/ WPS6659.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>.

9) Monitoring Systems for Incentive Programs: Learning from Large-Scale Rural Sanitation Initiatives in India. Guidance Notice. World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Nov. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ bitstream/handle/10986/17275/593350WP0WSP1m10Box358367B01PUBLIC1.pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y>.

10) What Works at Scale? Distilling the Critical Success Factors for Scaling up Rural Sanitation. Working paper no. ACS8929. The World Bank, 27 May 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/18947/ ACS89290WP0P1319160Box385252B00PUBLIC0.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>.

11) Robinson, Andy, and Rajiv Raman. Enabling Environment Assessment for Scaling Up Sanitation Programs: Himachal Pradesh, India. Working paper no. 72176. Water and Sanitation Program, Jan. 2008. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. <https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/ 10986/17390/721760WSP0Box370108B00PUBLIC00EEHP0TSSM.pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y>.

Photo by Meena Kadri