Abstract
In this paper we make a comparative analysis of water and sanitation facilities across Indian states. We also analyse the trend and pattern of state expenditure in the water and sanitation sector and relate the expenditure with the nature of the existing facilities. Furthermore, we assess whether the state governments are adequately financing the sector in accordance to their GDP. Using data from the state statistical reports during 2001–2012, we find that the sanitation facilities are alarmingly low, particularly in the states Assam, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. There are high interstate disparities in drainage facilities and latrine usage, with no sign of convergence during the study period. However, in terms of the provision of sanitation facilities, Haryana has showed significant progress over the years, whereas the progress in Assam, Rajasthan and Maharashtra does not seem promising. Along with the poor facilities, state spending for the provision of such facilities is also limited. We find that the correlation between expenditure and the facilities is also not direct and strong. Lastly, we notice the extent of expenditure in accordance with their gross state domestic product is astonishingly low for most of the states except Haryana.
Background
The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets that seek to achieve holistic development (Stiglitz et al., 2017) are more extensive than the Millennium Development Goals and seek to fulfil the agenda of ‘Leaving no one behind’. The sixth SDG is to ‘Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all’. This SDG has evoked considerable discussion in India (Kumar & Anand, 2019), as fulfilling this SDG is demanding, because it must reach the entire population across the country. The Indian government has extended its stress on sanitation since 2014 to also managing the quantity and quality of water.
Access to clean water and adequate sanitation is vital, as it has potential health benefits for all citizens and positive health spillovers (Gunther & Fink, 2010). The inadequacy of such services in India has led to many waterborne diseases, school dropouts and loss of productivity (Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, 2012). These have resulted in not only premature mortality, healthcare costs and health-related productivity losses but also GDP losses; furthermore, the unavailability of these vital services hurts the poor population the worst through wage loss, high mortality rates and other water-related diseases (Water & Sanitation Program of The World Bank, 2007). Thus, effective financing for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) is essential to sustain services that could ultimately save 2 million lives a year (Tremolet & Rama, 2012). Government intervention through public spending has the potential to significantly increase access to improved drinking water and sanitation (Sbrana, 2009). Water and sanitation not only is an SDG goal to be accomplished by 2030 but also has immense potential to improve a country’s growth rate and enhance people’s well-being. Since the role of the government is important in developing countries for the provision of these services (Stiglitz, 1996), it is crucial to understand the trend and pattern of state financing in this regard and the contribution the expenditure could make to improve the states’ facilities. It is also important to know whether the states have used their full potential in financing water and sanitation, that is, whether the spending is in accordance with their GDP, since public expenditure is affected by state per capita income. Furthermore, an increase in the per capita income is supposed to be reflected in the growth of the expenditure on social sectors (Singh & Sahni, 1984).
This article examines state-wise water and sanitation facilities, stressing the variation and convergence of the facilities across states between two time points. It also measures the relative progress of each state in terms of providing these facilities. In particular:
We analyse the trend and pattern of state expenditure in this sector and relate the expenditure with the nature of the existing facilities; and We assess whether state governments are adequately financing the sector in accordance to their GDP.
Data and Methodology
The first objective uses information regarding water and sanitation indicators for two time points about a decade apart. The indicators considered are drainage facility, that is, the percentage of population who do not have access to any kind of drainage system, latrine facility, that is, the percentage of population who do not use any kind of latrine, and lastly drinking water facility, that is, the percentage of population having access to safe drinking water. This information is collected from state statistical reports that give information about these indicators for the states over the years. For this study, we use the information on drainage facility for the years 2002 and 2012, that on latrine facilities for 1998 and 2012 and that on drinking services for 2001 and 2011. A gap of at least 10 years is taken, since a considerable period is needed to improve such facilities. The initial year is referred to as the base period and the later year as the final year throughout the article. To undertake a comparative analysis of the facilities across Indian states, we examine the variation across the states at these two time points to see whether there was a decrease or increase in the variation. We also study the relative progress over time by ranking the states according to the progress and examine whether there was convergence.
Along with previous information, we need additional information on state expenditure on the water and sanitation sector for the second objective. This information is collected from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) handbook. Since expenditure does not translate immediately into facilities, we consider the previous 10 years’ value of expenditure to observe the effect on facilities at the later time. For this, we use the average of per capita expenditure and observe the distribution of states over the grand mean. We also examine the gap among the states in financing by studying the position of each state with respect to the highest spending states and variation of the expenditure over the 14 years from 2001 to 2014. For finding the relation between the facilities and expenditures incurred, the study uses correlation coefficient and position analysis.
We collect information on state finances and state gross domestic product (SGDP) from the RBI handbook for third objective. We divided the states into three groups according to their income level, high-income, middle-income and low-income groups, and observe their path of financing over the years. To find the trend of expenditure, we use the trend growth rate of the per capita expenditure of each state over the 14 years. This helps us understand whether states with similar incomes spend similarly, and we use position analysis to check the relationship between expenditure and SGDP. We use rank analysis to check the relationship between the outcome, expenditure and SGDP rank
The analysis is based on only 15 major states in India, which together contain 90% of the population, for the period 1998–2014.
Section 1: Water Sanitation in India and Other Countries
Providing necessary sanitation and hygiene facilities for the 1 billion–plus people living in India is very challenging, especially when 21% of communicable diseases are directly or indirectly linked with unsafe water and unhygienic practices and more than 500 children under 5 years of age die due to diarrhoea (Water & Sanitation Program of The World Bank, 2007). In comparison with countries in defined groups, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), G20 (Group of Twenty) and South Asian countries for 2001 and 2011, India has the worst performance where the performance indicator is the percentage of people using at least basic sanitation services, that is, improved sanitation facilities that are not shared with other households. This indicator encompasses both people using basic sanitation services and those using safely managed sanitation services. Improved sanitation facilities include flush/pour flush to piped sewer systems, septic tanks or pit latrines, ventilated, improved pit latrines, compositing toilets and pit latrines with slabs.
Only 18% of India’s population accessed adequate sanitation facilities in 2001, and even in 2011, more than half of its population lacked adequate services (World Bank Data). It was the worst performer among BRICS countries in 2001 and remained so after 10 years, that is, in 2011. Among G20 countries, India is the only country that does not provide adequate sanitation to more than half of its population, whereas most of the G20 countries provided in 2011 such facilities to 80% of their population. Although among South Asian countries India shows better progress between 2001 and 2011 compared to Afghanistan and Bangladesh, India (44.03%) in 2011 still had very low access of these vital facilities in comparison with Sri Lanka (91.71%), Maldives (92.76%), Bhutan (63.03%) and Pakistan (50.66%). India’s remarkably low performance over the years needs to be addressed urgently (World Bank Data).
Section 2: Do All the States Have Adequate Facilities?
The performance of all the states across all the indicators of this sector has improved over the years, though the extent of progress has varied (Table 1). Haryana performs well in the final year, that is, 2011–2012, for all the three indicators, but Assam and Kerala are doing better with the latrine facility. All the states have drinking water facility above 75%, except Assam at about 70%, whereas Kerala has the lowest level at 33.5%. 1 Orissa, Assam and West Bengal have an alarming drainage problem, as in Orissa almost 80% of the population have no drainage facility, while in Haryana only 2% do not have the facility. Again, in Orissa, around 50% of the population have no latrine facilities, followed by Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, but in Kerala it is only 2%. Thus, there is large variation in the facilities across states, though there is less variation in the provision of drinking water facility. Thus, it is important to study the variation of facilities.
Water and Sanitation Across 15 Major Indian States
To measure the disparities in facilities across states, we calculate the coefficient of variation for each indicator. We find that over time, the drainage and latrine facilities became more dispersed across the states, whereas the disparity in drinking water facility fell (Table 2). The variation of the first two facilities, which was already high to begin with, increased drastically over the years to 50%. Although the facilities of each state improved over the years and in the final year every state was better off compared to the base period, the rising coefficients of variation are alarming, as they reflect increasing differences. Since improved facilities accompanied with less variation are more desirable outcomes, we examine whether states can converge in the near future.
Disparities Across States with Respect to Water Sanitation Indicators Over Time
To determine whether the states are converging with respect to the water and sanitation indicators, we regress (xt – x(t–1))/x(t–1) on x(t–1), where xt is the facility for the recent year and x(t–1) is the value of the past year, and t in this expression denotes the final time point. To test beta convergence, the basic equation that needs to be estimated is ‘(xt – x(t–1))/x(t–1) = a + bx(t–1)’. If b is significantly negative, it means that the states are converging, but if we find the b value to be significantly positive, then the states are diverging. Drainage facility and latrine use have no significant convergence coefficient, whereas the drinking water facilities of the states show weak convergence, with a low coefficient of convergence (Table 3).
State Convergence with Respect to Water and Sanitation Outcome
Since there is no strong sign of convergence, we analyse the relative progress in terms of ranks of the states over this time period (Table 4).
Relative Progress of States in the Water and Sanitation Sector
For measuring progress, we used the following formula:
Progress value = (value of final year – value of base year)/(100 – value of base year)
The numerator will give us the direction and the value of progress, whereas the denominator is introduced so that it can adjust the initial point of the states such that for similar amounts of progress, states that already have good facilities are being weighed more compared to states having poor facilities. 2 Overall, the progress value gives us the extent of progress, taking into account the differences in starting points.
Then we rank the states according to the progress value, that is, the state having the highest progress value is ranked first, etc. This exercise is repeated for all three indicators, and we average the ranks of the three indicators for the overall rank of water and sanitation facilities and then rank the states according to that average value. Overall, Haryana shows the greatest progress and Punjab the least (Table 4). This may be because Punjab, already a good performer in the initial year, remains a high performer in the final year, though showing less progress than some other Indian states. Haryana, being a mediocre performer in the base period, progressed enough to become a high performer in the final year.
In drainage facility, Kerala has progressed the most, whereas Punjab the least. But Kerala progressed less in the other two indicators compared to the other states; Haryana progressed well in drinking water and latrine facilities. Water and sanitation being a basic need, and given the existing disparities in the facilities, state government intervention through expenditure is essential. Furthermore, public social spending has a significant positive impact on provision of the basic facilities and the development outcome (Fan et al., 2000; Hong & Ahmed, 2009; Jha et al., 2001). Thus, in the next section, we investigate the water and sanitation expenditure pattern of the states over the years and its effectiveness.
Section 3: Did States Finance Facilities Efficiently?
To analyse the pattern of expenditure and differential in spending across states, we calculate the average per capita expenditure of each state over the 14 years and then plot these values around the overall grand mean. The grand mean is the mean of the sanitation expenditures of all the states over the 14 years. Table 5 and Figure 1 show the average per capita state expenditure in water and sanitation over the 14 years. Figure 1 in addition shows the deviation of states’ average per capita expenditure with respect to the grand average of the sector, and this is denoted by the red line. Haryana on average spent the most and Rajasthan the second most, whereas Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal spent the least on this sector (Figure 1). Most of the states are clustered below the grand mean. Gujarat and Karnataka are situated just above the mean. Haryana spent on average as much as ₹536 per head, whereas Uttar Pradesh spent less than 10% of this, that is, only ₹51 (Table 5). Even two high-spending states may show a remarkable difference; Gujarat spent half as much as Rajasthan spent.
Average Per Capita Expenditure of Indian States for 2001–2014 (in current ₹)
Apart from the overall view, it is important to measure the spending pattern of states with respect to the highest-spending states over the years. Here we consider the initial and final years, that is, 2001 and 2014. We divide the per capita expenditure of each of the states by the highest per capita expenditure, so that the highest-spending state will get the value 1 and others less than 1. Then we plot these values to find the position of each state with respect to the highest-spending state to give the relative position of the states in terms of expenditure and shift in those positions over the years. The values are arranged in descending order, the first bar corresponding to the highest-spending state (Figure 2).
Haryana and Rajasthan persistently over the 14 years remained among the top-five states in terms of spending, whereas Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal consistently spent less on this sector. Thus, we detect that the two high-spending states and three low-spending states maintained their position throughout the period. We find considerable disparity in the spending pattern of the states, with Bihar spending only 20% of the expenditure of the highest-spending state.
We next examine the variation in public spending by using coefficient of variation (CV) of per capita expenditure over time. CV, after minor fluctuations from 2001 to 2003 and a slight decrease during 2004 and 2005, increased during 2006–2011, reaching its peak of 92.29% in 2011 (Table 6). Interestingly, we observe a simultaneous rise in the disparity level of the outcome variable in 2012 compared to the base period. One reason for such dispersion in facilities is likely to be the dispersion in spending; since there is a lag between spending and facilities, the disparities in financing over the years might have caused the disparity in the facilities in the latest period.
Year-wise Coefficient of Variation in Water and Sanitation Expenditure across Indian States
To identify the relation between financing and facilities, we measure the correlation coefficient between the two variables. The extent of availability of facility indicators is weakly related with the spending variable, as the correlation coefficient is small (Table 7). Although higher expenditure will result in improved facilities, the effect is small, that is, less than 30% for drainage and latrine facilities, while for drinking water facility it is less than 10%.
Coefficient of Correlation of the Water and Sanitation Indicator with State Expenditure
We used position analysis to further analyse the relation between expenditure and facilities’ quality. For either of the two variables, state expenditure and facilities, we identified the best state and positioned other states relative to the best state. For example, the highest-spending state is the best state according to the expenditure variable, and all other states’ expenditures are considered relative to it. A similar exercise is done for each of the three facilities, and we calculated the average of the position values of these three facilities. The combination of those two points for each state is plotted in the quadratic diagram. The position of average spending over the years is plotted on the x-axis and the position of the states according to the last year’s outcome is plotted on the y-axis. Haryana is by far the ideal state, having the highest level of facilities and also spending the most (Figure 3), whereas Rajasthan, despite its high spending, has inadequate sanitation facilities. All states in the first quadrant spend less and have fewer facilities compared to Haryana. The states over the diagonal of the first quadrant, such as Kerala, Punjab, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, are spending their resources more efficiently compared to those states below the diagonal, since they are spending less but have higher provision of facilities than the states below the diagonal.
In the next section, we examine whether the states’ low spending is because of their low capability or despite having the capability, that is, we study whether their spending is in accordance with their PCGSDP (per capita gross state domestic product).
Section 4: Is State Expenditure According to States’ Capability?
As the previous exercises show that many states are spending little on the water and sanitation sector, we now examine whether their GDP constrains states. First, we observe the pattern of states’ spending given their income level. We divide the states into three groups, that is, high-income, middle-income and low-income states, with each group having five members. We measure the trend growth of per capita water and sanitation expenditure for each group and display the results in Figures 4–6. For finding the trend, 2001 is considered as the base year, with its per capita expenditure (PCEXP) taken as 100, and the values of subsequent years are given as:
Value for year t = (value for tth year/value for base year [2001]) ×100.
The low-income group has low spending growth until 2010, subsequently picking up substantially during 2011–2014 (Figure 4). Also, expenditures do not always increase; there are fluctuations. The middle-income states exhibited high growth after 2005, though growth of expenditure dropped after 2007 in Karnataka, Rajasthan and West Bengal and started growing only after 2012 (Figure 5). The high-income group show consistent growth in expenditure over the years, with slight fluctuations (Figure 6). Thus, we can say that the income of a state influences its spending pattern, as noted in the literature (Singh & Sahni, 1984).
We use position analysis, as described in Section 3, for more detailed analysis of the spending of each state. We find the relative position of each state relative to the highest-spending states and also for PCGSDP and display the combination of the two variables in a scatter plot. The X-axis plots the position of the PCGSDP of each state, and the Y-axis plots the PCEXP of each state. This exercise is done for two time points, 2001 and 2014, to get the pattern over the initial and final points.
The states are mostly scattered in the lower part of the graph at both time points (Figure 7). In general, irrespective of their income, states’ spending in this sector is low compared to the best state, which is spending at par with its income and is situated at the corner of the third quadrant. 3 In 2014, Assam and Orissa can be spotted in the fourth quadrant, that is, these states, even with low income, are spending more on water and sanitation compared to other states. Thus, the states in general are not spending according to their capability as compared to the best state. One of the reasons for such low spending could be non-requirement for such expenditure. For example, even if a state has a high PCGSDP, it can very well spend less on this sector if it already has all the water and sanitation facilities and needs finances only to maintain the existing facilities. However, special attention is required for states that despite having poor facilities are spending little, though having high incomes.
To identify such states we compare the ranks of outcome variable, per capita gross domestic product and per capita expenditure of each state. We find the ranks of the states according to their outcome in the latest year i.e. 2011–2012, to recognize the spending requirement of the state and the ranks according to PCGSDP of 2010 to understand the capability of the states. Lastly, we find the rank of the states according to the expenditure in 2014 to detect whether the states with capability and spending requirement, had spent accordingly. The time points are chosen with appropriate lags; for a state, first the situation of its facilities in 2011–2012 is identified, which determines its expenditure in 2014, which is based on its PCGSDP in 2010.
As mentioned earlier, the states that have low spending and low facilities are Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, West Bengal and Bihar. Madhya Pradesh and Kerala are two states with poor facilities and the capability to spend but are spending less relative to the other states. On the other hand, West Bengal and Bihar, given their PCGSDP rank, have low capability to spend, compared to the other states. We observe that Orissa, Assam and Rajasthan are spending more, despite having low capability, but could not provide more facilities, whereas Gujarat’s spending is at par with its PCGSDP; but again, Gujarat has poor facilities (Table 8).
State Ranking with Respect to Facility, Income and Expenditure
Conclusions
Water and sanitation are crucial components for a citizen’s well-being, which must be provided by the government. The study considers provision of facilities of drinking water and drainage facilities, which are entirely provided by the government. Although latrine use may depend on socio-economic characteristics, it is the government’s responsibility to build citizen awareness. India, being a member country of the United Nations, is supposed to achieve this sixth SDG goal by 2030. Given the present availability of facilities in Indian states, it seems difficult to achieve the goal. For example, 80% of the population in Orissa do not have drainage facility, and nearly half of them do not use a toilet. The situation is aggravated by the increasing variation in the provision of these facilities across states such that facilities are not increasing faster in states with poorer facilities. CV has increased by about 50% over the last decade, with no sign of convergence.
Among the 15 major states, only Haryana has progressed significantly over the years; the progress in Assam, Rajasthan and Maharashtra does not seem promising. Punjab shows the lowest progress over the years, perhaps because it already had better facilities compared to the others in the initial period. Even with the SDG timeline and the dire situation of the facilities, the states do not seem to spend enough on the water and sanitation sector. Haryana and Rajasthan are high-spending states, whereas the others are spending comparatively less, and this pattern has persisted over the years. The problem becomes more complex when we find low correlation between expenditure and availability of facilities, which means that finances could not be translated into facilities. Despite spending high amounts, some states have poor facilities compared to others; the failure is most prominent in Rajasthan. Thus, it is important to follow a model where the state could successfully provide facilities with its finances; for water and sanitation, we detect that state to be Haryana. But unfortunately, the other states are definitely lagging behind.
The other category of states that are a matter of concern are those having poor facilities and also spending less. Regarding these, it is important to understand whether the state income is enough to finance the facilities. However, in comparison with Haryana, the extent of expenditure in accordance with their income is astonishingly less for the other states. Although spending being less given the high income is acceptable for those that already have adequate facilities, the states such as Madhya Pradesh and Kerala, 4 despite a high PCGSDP, seem reluctant to spend money on this sector even when it is required. West Bengal and Bihar require external financing, as they are struggling to finance the facilities from their own income. The states having insufficient facilities seem to have unique problems and need unique policies to address their issues, so it is hard to frame a general policy that would be appropriate for all states. However, given the time limit to achieve the SDG and the necessity of clean water, the government needs to urgently frame the required policies for each state, so that all states can achieve the goals and converge to a level of better facilities.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Prof Udaya S. Mishra, CDS, Trivandrum, for his valuable suggestions on this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.