

@article {6863,
	title = {Shame or subsidy revisited: social mobilization for sanitation in {Orissa}, {India}},
	journal = {Bulletin of the World Health Organization},
	volume = {87},
	number = {8},
	year = {2009},
	month = {aug},
	pages = {580{\textendash}587},
	abstract = {OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a sanitation campaign that combines {\textquoteright}shaming{\textquoteright} (i.e. emotional motivators) with subsidies for poor households in rural Orissa, an Indian state with a disproportionately high share of India{\textquoteright}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.},
	keywords = {Adult, Data Collection, Female, Financing, Government, Health promotion, Humans, India, Male, Poverty, sanitation, Shame},
	issn = {1564-0604},
	author = {Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. and Yang, Jui-Chen and Dickinson, Katherine L. and Poulos, Christine and Patil, Sumeet R. and Mallick, Ranjan K. and Blitstein, Jonathan L. and Praharaj, Purujit}
}
