1 / 24

Fetching Water in Rural India

Fetching Water in Rural India. Sripad Motiram Lars Osberg Department of Economics Dalhousie University. Fetching Water: So What?. Illustrates two linked issues in development: Problem of organizing collective action. Distribution of the benefits of collective action.

alair
Download Presentation

Fetching Water in Rural India

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Fetching Water in Rural India Sripad Motiram Lars Osberg Department of Economics Dalhousie University

  2. Fetching Water: So What? • Illustrates two linked issues in development: • Problem of organizing collective action. • Distribution of the benefits of collective action. • Development Debates – Relative Importance of Social Capital versus “Traditional” cleavages. • Interesting problem in its own right • Water is a basic physiological necessity. • Minimum for survival – 5 liters/day/person+cooking, washing and sanitation. • Fetching water is physically demanding (UNDP (2005) - 20 litres per-capita, per day). • Time – Scarce Resource – Collecting water takes time away from other activities, including human capital formation.

  3. Main Findings • 18.6 % of rural households fetch water. • On the average 47 minutes per day. • Which communities have tap water and who can connect to it? • Household Wealth. • Community Characteristics: Land Inequality, % of SC/ST, Social Interaction time (Social Capital) • Impact of Land Inequality, % of SC/ST much higher than that of Social Capital.

  4. Main Findings • Gendered Task: Women do 87% of it. • Household water collection time adversely affects school attendance • Boys (Ages 6-14) and girls (Ages 15-18). • Decrease of 20% in attendance of girls. • Intergenerational implications, since female education affects the next generation.

  5. Indian Time Use Survey,1998-99 • Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Orissa, Tamil Nadu. • Stratified Random Sampling (NSS). • Density of Population, Density of ST’s • 18,592 Households. • 12,751 rural, 5,841 urban. • 77,593 persons. • 53,981 rural, 23,612 urban. • Interview Method. • Dairy of day’s activities for persons aged 6+.

  6. Indian Time Use Survey,1998-99

  7. Time Spent Fetching Water

  8. Water Collection by Gender, Age

  9. Water Collection by Gender, Age

  10. Which HHolds fetch water? • 2 issues, • Locality has supply. • Individuals can connect. • Individual Household Characteristics • e.g. Wealth and Caste. • Why do community characteristics matter? • Organization of public infrastructure provision. • Why difficulty in organizing? - mistrust, divergence of interests. • Novelty of this paper – Direct measures of social interaction can be compared to cleavages of wealth and caste.

  11. A Simple Model

  12. A Simple Model • TC = FC+ MC+ Negotiation Cost (Mistrust, Divergent Interests)

  13. A Simple Model • Probability of supporting infrastructure:

  14. Which HHolds Fetch Water?

  15. Magnitudes of Impact

  16. Household: Summary • Statistically Significant- Wealth Status, Land Inequality, Caste Status, Percent of SC/ST, Social Capital. • The Impact of Land Inequality is much higher than that of Social Capital. • The Impact of SC/ST Percent is much higher than that of Social Capital.

  17. Who in the HH fetches water?

  18. Who Fetches: Summary • Gender, Disability and Age. • Deeply Gendered Task. • men have a 76 percentage point lower probability than women of fetching water. • A disabled female is 39 percentage points more likely to fetch water than an otherwise similar non-disabled male. • Literacy & Unemployment not significant

  19. Implications: School Attendance

  20. Magnitudes of Impact

  21. School Attendance: Summary • Statistically Significant: Presence of Literate Adult Females, Household Water Collection time. • Move from Average to No Water Collection implies increase in school attendance probability • 19.8% (Girls 15-18) • 8.9% (Boys 6-14).

  22. Conclusions & Implications • Barriers of Wealth, Caste, and Class are the most important determinants of access to water. • Social Capital matters, but has relatively small impact. • Inequality in wealth, intra-family inequality, and intergenerational inequality are all linked through time implications. • Redistributive policies (e.g. Land Reform) can make a huge difference.

More Related