To use financial incentives or not? Insights from experiments in encouraging sanitation investments in four countries.

Sanghmitra Gautam, Michael Gechter, Raymond P Guiteras, Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak
Author Information
  1. Sanghmitra Gautam: Department of Economics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy.
  2. Michael Gechter: Sloan School of Business, MIT, United States of America.
  3. Raymond P Guiteras: North Carolina State University, United States of America.
  4. Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak: Yale University, United States of America.

Abstract

We conduct a systematic re-analysis of intervention-based studies that promote hygienic latrines and evaluate via experimental methods. We impose systematic inclusion criteria to identify such studies and compile their microdata to harmonize outcome measures, covariates, and estimands across studies. We then re-analyze their data to report metrics that are consistently defined and measured across studies. We compare the relative effectiveness of different classes of interventions implemented in overlapping ways across four countries: community-level demand encouragement, sanitation subsidies, product information campaigns, and microcredit to finance product purchases. In the sample of studies meeting our inclusion criteria, interventions that offer financial benefits generally outperform information and education campaigns in increasing adoption of improved sanitation. Contrary to a policy concern about sustainability, financial incentives do not undermine usage of adopted latrines. Effects vary by share of women in the household, in both positive and negative directions, and differ little by poverty status.

Keywords

References

  1. Am Econ Rev. 2014 Jul;104(7):1909-41 [PMID: 29533566]
  2. J Dev Econ. 2023 Jun;163:103092 [PMID: 37334279]
  3. Environ Health Perspect. 2018 Feb 02;126(2):026001 [PMID: 29398655]
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 3;109(27):10815-20 [PMID: 22689941]
  5. J Dev Econ. 2019 May;138:1-16 [PMID: 31057208]
  6. Environ Sci Technol. 2021 Mar 16;55(6):4064-4076 [PMID: 33635639]
  7. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2022 Aug;245:114031 [PMID: 36058111]
  8. Lancet. 2023 Jun 17;401(10393):2060-2071 [PMID: 37290458]
  9. PLoS Med. 2014 Aug 26;11(8):e1001709 [PMID: 25157929]
  10. Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Apr;45(2):460-9 [PMID: 26936912]
  11. Water Sci Technol. 2011;63(5):1037-43 [PMID: 21411956]
  12. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Apr;220(2 Pt B):329-340 [PMID: 27825597]
  13. Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Nov;3(11):e701-11 [PMID: 26475017]
  14. J Dev Econ. 2022 Nov;159:102990 [PMID: 39583182]
  15. J Dev Econ. 2023 May;162:103072 [PMID: 37139484]
  16. Science. 2015 May 22;348(6237):903-6 [PMID: 25883316]
  17. Demography. 2017 Feb;54(1):337-360 [PMID: 28070855]
  18. J Environ Econ Manage. 2017 Nov;86:121-140 [PMID: 29129947]
  19. Environ Health Perspect. 2022 Jun;130(6):67004 [PMID: 35674667]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0studiesacrosssanitationfinancialsystematiclatrinesinclusioncriteriainterventionsfourproductinformationcampaignsincentivesconductre-analysisintervention-basedpromotehygienicevaluateviaexperimentalmethodsimposeidentifycompilemicrodataharmonizeoutcomemeasurescovariatesestimandsre-analyzedatareportmetricsconsistentlydefinedmeasuredcomparerelativeeffectivenessdifferentclassesimplementedoverlappingwayscountries:community-leveldemandencouragementsubsidiesmicrocreditfinancepurchasessamplemeetingofferbenefitsgenerallyoutperformeducationincreasingadoptionimprovedContrarypolicyconcernsustainabilityundermineusageadoptedEffectsvarysharewomenhouseholdpositivenegativedirectionsdifferlittlepovertystatususenot?InsightsexperimentsencouraginginvestmentscountriesImpactevaluationSanitation

Similar Articles

Cited By