Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Mr Avinash Y. Kumar * and Ms Sukanya Bhaumik **

*Urban Planner, CDD - Consortium for DEWATS Dissemination Society
** Program Officer, Public Affairs Centre
Abstract
From the Central Rural Sanitation Programme of 1986 to Swaccha Bharat Abhiyan of 2014, several sanitation
programs have been in place in rural India for the past three decades. As per government estimates, Rs 3 billion
has been spent on sanitation programmes in the country (Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation ),in the last 3
decades. But inspite of this the rural sanitation landscape stands far from inspiring today. This paper attempts to
evaluate the role of institutions in promoting rural sanitation in India.
This paper borrows from the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework developed within the New
Institutionalist Movement. It uses the framework to map out four elements in the strategic setting of the Indias
rural sanitation sector: (1) the institutions and their preferences, (2) the way institutions acquire, process, and use
information to serve their service delivery objectives, (3) the decision criteria of different institutions and (4) the
resources that an institution brings to a situation. Each of these aspects is studied to understand how policies affect
the action arena, the patterns of institutional interaction and the final programmatic outcomes.
The main aim of this paper is to evaluate the disbursement of sanitation services in rural India, by making a
systemic assessment of the policy (government guidelines for the sector to function) framework and legal
(prescribed statutes and rules for the sector to function) framework, in an attempt to understand the backlogs in
meeting sanitation targets. Through the process of institutional mapping, this paper examines rural institutions and
their related aspects, such as fund devolution to Panchayati Raj Institutions, reasons for differentiated standards in
service delivery, slow pace of asset creation, etc. Conclusively the paper talks about interventions required to
strengthen the present institutional setup and identify the role of new institutions to achieve the same.
Keywords: Cognition, Horizontal/vertical governance, Capacity building, Institutional Analysis and
Development (IAD) Framework, Action arena, Policy framework and Legal Framework

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Sanitation in India
Sanitation coverage in rural India is as low as 29%1.Nearly, 600 million people resort to open defecation every
single day2. Even in the 40% of households that have a working latrine at least one member defecates in the open
(Coffey, Gupta, & Spears, 2014). 10 million toilets constructed under various programs in the last 20 years are lying
unused3.
Lack of decent sanitation costs India nearly $54 billion (Rs 24,000 crore), or 6.4% of its GDP a year, mainly through
premature deaths, especially of children, treatment for hygiene-related illnesses, and lost productivity (World Bank,
2010).
It is estimated that since the first rural sanitation program in 1986 (Central Rural Sanitation Program) India has spent
over $3 billion on constructing toilets across the country (Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation ).Despite such
massive investments, Indias sanitation campaigns over the years have unfortunately yielded limited results.
The Indian government is now gearing up to spend an additional Rs.1.34 lakh crore over the next five years through
the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin). However keeping in mind the nature of the current institutional framework,
bureaucratic red tape and redundancy looms large on limiting the successful dissemination of these basic needs
services and their scaling up in rural India.
Indias rural sanitation landscape is marked not by failures in policy formulation, but by the lack of decisive
implementation through demand responsiveness and technology appropriation. Insanitation in India is largely the
consequence of development deficits and institutional failure Many reasons have been attributed to the failure of
rural sanitation in India such as lack of political will, distorted accountability, flawed monitoring and bureaucratic
inertia, all of which are characterized by a top-down approach.
The main aim of this paper is to evaluate such systemic and institutional gaps in the rural sanitation landscape in the
country. Making an assessment of policy (government guidelines for the sector to function) framework and legal
(prescribed statutes and rules for the sector to function) framework, we attempt to understand the bottlenecks in the
sector, and subsequently point out required interventions and to strengthen the present institutional setup and
identify the role of new institutions to achieve the same.

Institutions and Organizations

The words institution and organization are usually used interchangeably or inclusively and often lead to
misunderstandings and misguided interventions. The most widely used definition of institutions is the one
propounded by North (1990), who pithily described institutions as rules of the game and organizations as the
players. He (North, 1990) described institutions as the Rules of the game in a society or, more formally, are the
humanly devised constraints, rules, regulations, laws and rights that shape human interaction. In consequence they
structure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social or economical".

Census 2011
UNICEF & WHO 2012
3
R.I.C.E Institute,2014
2

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

On the other hand Uphoff (1992) define the organizations as a group or association, formal or informal, in which
there are defined and accepted roles, positions and responsibilities structured in some relationship to each other in
order to achieve a specific objective(s). Though organizations are not identical to institutions, they reciprocally
influence each other.
Consistent with the institutional literature, Saleth
and Dinar (2000) shows that sanitation institutions
are conceived in a much broader sense than mere
organization. Sanitation institutions set the rules
and define, thereby, the action sets for both
individual and collective decision-making in the
realm development and management. Since these
rules are often formalized in terms of three interrelated aspects, i.e., legal framework, policy
environment, and administrative arrangement,
Figure 1: Water and sanitation institutional structure (Saleth &
Dinar, 2000)
sanitation institutions can be conceptualized as an
entities defined interactively by its three main analytical components, i.e., sanitation law, sanitation policy, and
sanitation organizations as shown below in Figure 1. On the other hand, laws and policies form the software
component of sanitation institutions whereas organizations form as hardware component of sanitation institutions.
The three main dimensions of sanitation institutions (law, policy and organization) are affected with many factors
which have a diverse origin and varying level of impact. These factors can be grouped into endogenous factors that
are internal to sanitation sector and exogenous factors that are outside the strict confines of sanitation institution and
sector. The endogenous factors include:
Water scarcity,
Water conflicts,
Financial and
Physical deterioration of water and sanitation infrastructure, and
Operational inefficiency of institutions.
The exogenous factors include:
general legal system,
economic status (owing to development of local communities over time),
demographic growth,
technical progress,
economic policies,
political reforms,
international commitments,
Changing social values and ethos (Saleth & Dinar, 2000).
Legal Framework
The legal framework is a powerful and crucial tool to support sanitation at the local level. It also includes control
mechanisms which guarantee sanitation services to beneficiaries according to standards that take into consideration
service continuity and the socioeconomic, environmental and human dimension of sanitation as a social value and an
essential requisite for the continuity and evolution of society.
So, the core governmental role is to formulate policies, through which the government can delimit the activities of
all sanitation stakeholder groups, including itself. Appropriate policies can lead to the development of laws and rules
and regulations designed to achieve policy goals.

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

The role of laws for sanitation is to implement and enforce policy, and provide effective administrative and
regulatory mechanisms at appropriate levels. Peters (2011) says that "good laws for sustainable sanitation and water
management recognize and acknowledge existing uses and rights, including international norms".
A point worthy of mention is that in India is that with the burgeoning urbanization, rural areas on the brink of
urbanization have a tricky situation. A growing share of India's urban population that live in rural areas that have
been declared Census Towns are governed under the rural administrative framework, despite very different
demographic and economic characteristics, which may affect their future growth (Pradhan, September 07, 2013).
Institutional Framework
The term institutional framework refers to a set of formal organizational structures, rules and informal norms for
service provision. In the field of water and sanitation management, Peters (2011) says that the institutional
framework involves outlining the responsibilities of services institutions for various aspects of the sector.
Institutional structures vary from country to country, but whatever the specific structure is like, it is essential to have
mechanisms for dialogue and co-ordination.
An institutional framework for sanitation should show integrity, comprehensiveness and a sound division of roles
and responsibilities. Suzuki (2010) shows that the institutional framework consists of a range of different key
institutional entities that are in place (or need to be in place) to develop, manages and deliver sanitation services at
different levels of society as shown in Figure 2. This includes: policy makers, regulators, service providers, and
customers (civil society) as following:
1.
2.

3.

4.

Policy maker: The policy-making function resides mainly at the central level, and national policies are
normally imposed on lower tiers of the government.
Regulator: The regulatory system is responsible for enforcing rules to guarantee compliance with service
standards and other sector policies to ensure sustainability. This requires providing adequate services at
affordable prices. However, it is important to ensure separation between regulators and service providers to
avoid conflicts of interest. The regulator ensures that citizens receive services up to agreed standards to
mitigate the risk that service providers underperform. Both bodies should not be under the jurisdiction of
the same entity. It is equally important that the policy-making body and regulator be separate institutions.
Service provider: Service providers are responsible for providing sanitation services and at the same time
provide wastewater collection and treatment. Consolidation of these services will help improve the control
of services and overall and promote accountability and more efficient operations.
Civil Society: Civil society should be institutionalized by users through appropriate participation channels.
This helps ensure public participation in development and decision making. Policy makers and regulators
often consult user associations to assess and ensure the adequacy of policies, legislations, regulations, and
service levels.

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Policy Makers

Regulators

Utilities

Customers/Citizens

Civil Society Organizations

Figure 2: Ideal institutional setup in sanitation sector

(Suzuki, Dastur, Moffat, Yabuki, & Maruyama, 2010)
Organizational Structure Definition
The structure of the organization describes the functions, tasks and authorities of the departments, divisions and
individual employees and the relationships between them (line of command, communication and procedures). It also
describes the number of employees in each division, unit and department. On the one hand the structure divides
departments, divisions and individuals on basis of tasks, functions and authorities. Also, the structure coordinates
these units through lines of communication and command. Only when the different units work in conjunction, the
organization is able to function as a whole (Rijn, 2004).
Underdown (2003) says organizational structure "is the formal system of task and reporting relationships that
controls, coordinates, and motivates employees so that they cooperate to achieve an organization's goals".
Organizational structure is the formal and informal policies and procedures the organization uses to manage jobs,
employees and to facilitate the different processes. A general rule of the thumb is that the organization structure
should enhance the progress of the processes.
Causes:
Causes:
1. Strategy
2. Environment
3. Technology
4. Size

Determines

Organizations

Leads to

and

Structure Type

Satisfaction

Moderate by
individual differences

Figure 3: Organizational structure determinants and outputs

Source: (Robbins & Judge, 2007)

Performance

and cultural norms

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Sanitation a Public Good

Services such as sanitation may be understood variously as basic services, essential public services, and services of
general interest or public utilities. Their existence is not explicable by the fact that they are necessary or particularly
useful especially since most poor societies suffer from a lack of them. The key characteristic of these goods and
services is that, to a large degree, their benefits are difficult to internalize privately. For example, when a family
installs a latrine, it not only protects them from their own excreta; it also helps to protect their neighbors. Indeed,
there is an impact on the health of the community as a whole from the overall level of sanitation. Thus, sanitation is
not only a private good, but also a public good, and that there is therefore a case for public measures (subsidy or
regulation) to promote it. Individuals cannot be expected to pay voluntarily for a benefit which others will enjoy.

Type of Goods

Exclusive

Non-Exclusive

Rival

Private Cars, House

Clean Air, Grazing Land

Non-Rival

Bridges, Swimming Pool, Movie

Theatre

National Defence, Public Health

(Sanitation)

Table 1: Private Goods and Public Goods

The more non-depletable and non-excludable a good or service is, the greater the justification for state involvement.
Hence, sanitation is a public good and needs to be seen as an integral component of the health structure and the
Public Health Goods.
However, even if a community or the government provides a public good, it may be destroyed or degraded,
essentially restoring the status quo in which the good was not provided. This distinct type of public goods problem is
frequent in both developing and developed countries, for example, newly constructed toilets are rendered unusable
by deteriorated infrastructure, theft or vandalism.
The inability of communities to maintain public goods has been problem that has surrounded public choice theory
for long. The question as to how in some localities, public goods are degraded, damaged, or destroyed shortly after
they are provided, while in other cases, their integrity and viability are maintained for a much longer period of time
is a matter of deliberation. In order to fully understand the dynamics of public goods problems, it is necessary to
understand how communities solve two distinct collective action problems: inducing individuals to contribute to a
public good and preventing individual from producing public bads (Hardin, 1982).
In order to develop a explanation for variations in the ability of communities and governments to provide and
maintain local public goods, one can draw a conceptual distinction between horizontal and vertical governance
institutions and show how the joint operation of these two types of institution contributes to the provision and
maintenance of public goods and social order.
Horizontal governance refers to norm enforcement through decentralized networks of social sanctions, whereas
vertical governance refers to institutions in which social rules are monitored and enforced in part by specially
designated third party, which could either be a community-based governance institution or a central government
(Boone, 2003). Horizontal governance institutions have been identified by a wide range of economists, sociologists,
and political scientists as being vital to overcoming collective action problems and motivating the provision of
public goods (Coleman, 1988).

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Thus, horizontal and vertical governance institutions each solve a different kind of social dilemma, it follows that
different configurations of these types of institutions will lead to different patterns of public goods provision and
public bads prevention. If horizontal governance primarily works to motivate public goods provision and vertical
governance primarily serves to prevent public bads, we should observe high-levels of public goods availability in
social settings in which both types of institution exist, are utilized, and are compatible with one another. In contrast,
when only one type of institution or neither type exist or operate in a given social space, public goods will tend to be
less available, either as a result of under provision of public goods, frequent production of public bads, or both.

Scenarios

Nonexistent,
Inactive,
or
Incompatible Vertical Governance
Institutions

Existent, Active, or Compatible

Vertical Governance Institutions

Nonexistent,
Inactive,
or
Incompatible
Horizontal
Governance Institutions

No Provision of Public Goods, No

Prevention of Public Bads

Limited Provision of Public

Goods, Prevention of Public Bads

Existent, Active, or Compatible

Horizontal Governance Institutions

Provision of Public Goods, Limited,

Prevention of Public Bads

Provision of Public Goods,

Limited, Prevention of Public
Bads

Table 2: Predictions of the Effect of Horizontal and Vertical Governance Institutions on the Provision of Public
Goods and Prevention of Public Bads
Variation in the existence and operation of horizontal governance between localities is driven by differences in the
density and strength of social relationships (Ostrom E. , 1990). If the individuals in a given area have very few social
interactions or shared beliefs, low levels of public goods provision are expected relative to areas that are
characterized by high levels of social capital and social cohesion (Putnam, 1993). If a community has no designated
third party enforcement institution, or the individual(s) assigned these role do not exercise those responsibilities, we
would say that vertical governance does not exist in any meaningful way and would expect high incidence of
behavior that reduce overall social welfare (P.Englebert, 2000).
The coexistence of functioning horizontal and vertical institutions in a given locality is not sufficient to ensure
the joint production of public goods and prevention of public bads; if horizontal and vertical institutions exist in
an area, but they are not compatible, public goods problems will persist. If horizontal governance institutions
exist but diverge from vertical institutions substantively or procedurally, local public goods may be provided on a
sporadic and uneven basis, and third-party institutions will exhibit only limited effectiveness with respect to
preventing public bads.

Institutional and Stakeholder Mapping: Frameworks for Policy Analysis

Mapping is a basic tool for achieving an understanding of potential roles of the stakeholders and institutions
involved, for identifying potential coalitions of support for the project, for scenario and strategy building and for
assessing the relative risks entailed. If carried out with the participation of stakeholders, the procedure can also be
essential for building legitimacy and policy ownership.

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

For any social change initiative any policy project it is important to get an inventory of institutions involved and
identify the key players, assess potential support or opposition among them and highlight the relevant institutions
roles and the inter institutional linkages.
Stakeholders are defined as persons or groups whose interests and activities strongly affect and are affected by the
issues concerned. Stakeholder analysis identifies the stakeholders and maps out their relative power, influence and
interests in a certain domain or in regard to a specific initiative, identifies the role and action arena of each
stakeholder (Morgan & Taschereau, 1996).
This paper borrows from the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework developed within the New
Institutionalist Movement. It uses the framework to map out four elements in the strategic setting of the Indias rural
sanitation sector: (1) the institutions and their preferences, (2) the way institutions acquire, process, and use
information to serve their service delivery objectives, (3) the decision criteria of different institutions and (4) the
resources that an institution brings to a situation.
The IAD approach is built around a three step mapping procedure in a predefined framework:

Identifying and mapping the action arena (action situation and actors)
Identification of factors determining the action arena (the rules, the attributes of a physical world, and
the nature of the community)
Patterns of interaction in multiple action arenas

The IAD framework uses several key parameters: (1) participants: the actors who are involved in a situation. (2)
positions: place holders that associate participants with a set of authorized actions (employee, voter, judge, monitor),
(3) actions: nodes in a decision tree, particular positions taken at different stages of a process identify actions that
make an essential difference for the entire process in their consequences,(4) potential outcomes: the results of
individuals interacting with one another in a regularized setting (quantities of output, interpersonal relations,
changes in rules, externalities etc.), (5) a function that links inputs to outputin the case of voting for instance, the
transformation function takes the symbolic actions of individuals and produces a collective decision, (6)
information: the data about an action situation and its implications, and finally (7) payoffs, positive and negative
weights assigned to the outcomes and the actions leading to outcomes. These parameters are used to map out four
key elements: (1) actors preferences regarding certain actions and outcomes, (2) the way actors acquire, process,
and use information, (3) the decision criteria actors use regarding a particular course of action, and (4) the resources
that an actor brings to a situation (Ostrom, Gardner, & Walker, 1994).
This approach of institutional mapping not only satisfies the contextual and temporal parameters but also creates a
link between that and the standard analytical paradigms and economics models. It represents one of the most
developed and sophisticated attempts to use institutional and stakeholder assessment in order to link theory and
practice, analysis and policy. Institutional mapping entails not only very complex field methodologies and
techniques but also has very profound epistemological foundations. Hence, institutional mapping is one of the most
important tools in the tool bag of the policy practitioner (Aligica, 2006).

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Mapping Rural Sanitation in India

Year wise developments in Rural Sanitation in India
1985

Ministry Of Rural Development took over rural sanitation in the Department Of Drinking Water Supply.

1986

CRSP (Central Rural Sanitation Programme) launched with a target to achieve 25% rural sanitation by the
end of the decade. Other ministry programs IAY (Indira Awaz Yojana), NREP (National Rural
Employment Programme), RLEGP (Rural-Landless Employment Guarantee Programme) were used as
channels to build toilets.

1992

CRSP revised, beneficiary contribution included, funds allocated for marts, awareness programs etc.

1998

National KAP (Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices) survey was conducted, and it was revealed that subsidy
was not the key motivational factor among villagers to build toilets.

1999

CRSP revised, TSC (Total Sanitation Campaign) was launched with 7 objectives

2003

NGP (Nirmal Gram Puraskar) was launched - encouraged PRIs (Panchayati Raj Institutions) to attain NGP
status. Tourist areas are also included in TSC

2004

CCDU's (Communication and Capacity Development Unit) were approved by state governments.

2010

Department Of Drinking Water Supply changed to Department Of Water Supply And Sanitation

2011

Ministry of drinking water and sanitation formed

2012

TSC (Total Sanitation Campaign) changed to Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan with Gram Panchayat as the base unit

2014

Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) launched

Table 3: Year wise developments in Rural Sanitation in India

The 1981 Census revealed rural sanitation coverage was only 1%. The International Decade for Drinking water and
Sanitation during 1981-90, began giving emphasis on rural sanitation. Government of India introduced the Central
Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) in 1986 primarily with the objective of improving the quality of life of the
rural people by providing for 80% subsidy for construction of individual sanitary latrines for BPL households on
demand basis.4 From 1999, the demand driven approach under the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC)
emphasized more on Information, Education and Communication (IEC), Human Resource Development (HRD),
Capacity Development activities to increase awareness among the rural people and generation of demand for
sanitary facilities. Financial incentives were provided to Below Poverty Line (BPL) households for construction and
usage of individual household latrines (IHHL) in recognition of their achievements. To generate awareness on
sanitation, the first Nirmal Gram Puraskars (NGP) were awarded to recognize the achievements and efforts made at
the GP level in ensuring full sanitation coverage and achieving other indicators of open defecation free GPs. The
Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) the successor programme of the TSC, was launched in April 2012. The objective
was to accelerate the sanitation coverage in the rural areas so as to comprehensively cover the rural community
through renewed strategies and saturation approach. NBA envisaged covering the entire community for saturated
4

CRSP Guidelines, 1986

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

outcomes with a view to create Nirmal Gram Panchayats. Under NBA, the incentives for IHHLs were enhanced and
further focused support was obtained from MNREGA. However there were several implementation difficulties in
convergence of NBA with MNREGA as funding from different sources created delays at the implementation
mechanism. To accelerate the efforts to achieve universal sanitation coverage and to put focus on sanitation, the
Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) on 2nd October, 2014. SBM has two Sub-Missions, the SBM (Gramin) and the
SBM (Urban), which aims to achieve Swachh Bharat by 2019.

TSC

NBA

SBM (Gramin)

Central
Government
Institutions

Ministry of Rural
Development

Ministry of Drinking
Water And Sanitation

Ministry of Drinking Water And Sanitation

(Secretary DWS will be the Mission
Director)

Capacity
Development

CCDU
(Communication and
Capacity Development)

WSSO (Water
&Sanitation Support
Organisation)

State Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin)

District Swachh Bharat Mission
Block Programme Management Unit

Awareness And
Social
Mobilization

PRI, NGO, SHG, co

operatives

PRI, NGO, corporate

houses

Communication Cell

State selects TSC

districts

GP-blockdistrict(DWSM/DWSC)SWSM-SSSC-Ministry
of drinking water and
sanitation

National Resource Centre (NRC) technical

assistance unit of SBM (Gramin)

SWSM- fund earmarked

for districts given
through DWSM

Funding for SLWM project under SBM (G)

is provided by the Central and State
Government in the ratio of 75:25.Any
additional cost requirement is to be met with
funds from the State/GP, and from other
sources like Finance Commission funding,
CSR, Swachh Bharat Kosh and through the
PPP model.

Planning For
Assets

Finance

Fund to the state, state

adds its share and is
released to the district.

Asset Creation

GOI, State, Beneficiary

Panchayats/Voluntary
Organizations/Charitable Trusts for
public facilities
Beneficiary and PRI

Maintaining The
Asset

Beneficiary and PRI

Monitoring

Central CRSP office,

DDWS

State Review Mission

Monitoring and Evaluation Cell

Other Ministries

Public health

MGNREGA

Ministry of Rural Development

Beneficiary and PRI

Table 4: Institutions involved in rural sanitation

10

State Government

Central Government

MoDW
S

Sanitation Cell,
MoDWS for
construction
standards, targets for
NGP, guidelines for
IEC, Swachchata
doot.

Supervise the
standards in
implementation,
coordinate the
departments, setting
up of institutional
arrangements

National
communication
strategy
framework

Conduct the
training to the
functionaries at
all levels by
engaging
NGO's/ CBO's
of repute

WSSO to deal
with IEC, HRD
monitoring and
evaluation

11

Central
Government
(MoDWS)
finalizes AIPs
(Annual
Implementati
on Plan) and
PIPs (Project
Implementati
on Plan)

Based
on AIP,
funds
shall be
released
to the
states

SWSM makes
AIP and PIP
of the state by
compiling
DWSM
reports

State
share is
added
accordin
g to the
PIP and
is
released
to
DWSM
within
15 days

Monitoring

Maintaining
Asset

Asset
Creation

Finance

Planning

IEC And
Social
Mobilization

Capacity
Building

Setting
Standards

Institutional
Function

Policy

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Online
monitoring
Beneficiary
with PRI's
help
and
MNREGS
as per the
standards set
by
the
authorities.

Funds to be
made
available for
IEC that
facilitates
maintenance
training

field
inspection by
state level
officers, fill
the online
data

Gram Panchayat

District

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

DWSM is to ensure
that standards are
communicated to the
GPs through
appropriate IEC
strategy

Ensure that the

standards are met

Conduct the
training to the
functionaries at
all levels by
engaging
NGO's/ CBO's
of repute

Prepare annual
IEC plan and
ensure its
implementation

Implement the
IEC and generate
demand for
sanitation
facilities

Table 5: Responsibilities of stakeholders SBM

12

DWSM
makes PIP of
that district

Gram
Panchayat
conducts a
survey to
establish
number and
the survey
result go to
the block
panchayat and
village is
identified for
NBA.

DWSM
transfers
it to
GPs and
DWS
should
plan and
implem
ent the
NBA
works
of the
GP

GPs
open a
bank
account
for
NBA
funds
and
utilize
them for
the
projects

Beneficiary
with PRI's
help and
MNREGS
as per the
standards set
by the
authorities.

Fund
allocation for
the
maintenance
of public
toilets

DWSM to
ensure
meeting of
standards
and
conducting
of social
audits as per
MNREGS,
review of
GP's
progress in
work.

Generate
mechanisms
to maintain
the public
facilities by
user fee and
others. The
gap is to be
filled by the
funds made
available.

Take part in
monitoring
activities,
conduct
social audits
through gram
sabhas.

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Table 4 (Institutions involved in rural sanitation) and Table 5 (Responsibilities of stakeholders) examine the role
of rural sanitation institutions and stakeholders in India. In rural areas this sanitation implementation means
improving the levels of cleanliness in through Solid and Liquid Waste Management activities and making GPs
Open Defecation Free (ODF).
There are 3 main phases of sanitation implementation, the planning phase, the implementation phase and the
sustainability phase.
In the planning phase the actors chalk out the various stages of implementation and identify resources for each of
them. In SBM the planning stage involves creation of the Annual Implementation Plan, OD elimination plans
and identifying human and financial resources to execute these plans.
The implementation phase involves undertaking the main activities of the sanitation program i.e IEC, Financing
and Toilet construction. SBM identifies implementing institutions/agencies as National Swachh Bharat Mission
(G), State Swachh Bharat Mission (G), District Swachh Bharat Mission, Block Programme Management Unit,
Gram Panchayat/ Village Water and Sanitation Committee and Swachhata Doot/Sena. Each institution has an
important role to play in executing various aspects of sanitation program such as mass awareness raising,
community mobilization, IEC activities, fund release and construction of toilets. Capacity building of
stakeholders and sanitation workers, the Swachhata Doots/Sena, members of PRIs, VWSCs, functionaries of
BPMU, DWSM, ASHA, Anganwadi workers, SHG members, masons, CSOs/NGOs etc is identified as an
important part of SBM implementation. The training needs to be on various approaches of IEC, promoting
Behavioural change including Triggering (CLTS) house to house communication etc., masonry work, plumbing,
as well as for construction and maintenance of toilets and for Solid and Liquid Waste Management works.
The sustainability phase of sanitation implementiaon is very important as this ensures the end users do not slip
backwards in the sanitation value chain. Following up through community hand holding; Monitoring and
Evaluation by spot checks/audits and third party evaluation are two important ways to ensure sanitation
sustainability.
When mapping the institutions in the rural sanitation landscape in India it is important first to identify the actors.
Four main actors: top-level officers in the DDWS, mid-level government officers, GP leaders and rural
communities. These actor groups and their roles are summarized in these tables.

13

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

S.No.

Activities

Village
Study
Status

Start-Up Activities, which includes

Institutes / People Involved

i. Conducting of preliminary survey to assess sanitation

status practices.

Yes

GP

ii. Base-line survey

Yes

GP

iii. Orientation of key personnel at district/GP level

DWSM

iv. Preparation of the State Plan.

SWSM

Information, Education and Communication (IEC)

Activities. Production Centers

WSSO, DWSM

Capacity Building

WSSO, DWSM

Construction of Individual Household Latrines (IHHLs)

Setting up Rural Sanitation Marts and

Provision of Revolving Fund in the District

Community sanitation complex of total district project

outlay

Institutional toilets

Solid and Liquid Waste Management (SLWM)

Maintenance of facilities created under NBA

Administrative charges up to 4% of the total district

project outlay

PRI, district MNREGS cell

and beneficiaries
DWSM, SHGs, NGOs
DWSM
DWSM, NSSC

GP
GP, SSCC
PRI, state government funds

Table 6: Activity Mapping

Staff Category

Functional responsibilities

Top level officers in the

DDWS

Formulate/ Update policies and inform states

Delegate responsibilities to states
Monitor Progress
Distribute funds

14

DWSM

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Mid-level officers at state,
district and block level

State Level
Attend National trainings
Develop state polices based on policy guidelines
Co-ordinate implementation with districts
Distribute funds to districts
Report Sanitation coverage to national level
District Level
Attend state meetings
Prepare and implement district projects
Distribute funds to blocks
Report sanitation coverage to state
Block Level
Attend district trainings
Support implementation
Provide training to GP leaders
Organize IEC or motivational activities in villages
Distribute funds to GPs
Report sanitation coverage to districts

GP Leaders

Attend district and block trainings

Lead implementation in villages
Motivate households to adopt improved sanitation
Distribute funds to households
Report sanitation coverage to blocks

Rural Communities

Attend village sanitation meetings and activities

Construct latrines independent of external support (BPL, households with
incentive)
Adopt improved sanitation practices

Table 7: Actors in Sanitation Programs

15

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Motivation

Cognition

Power

Low priority in initial years

Infrastructure -focused technocrats

Decentralized governing system

Misdirected accountability

Lack of training

Technocratic governing
machinery

Competing personal interests

Flawed monitoring system

Paternalistic inertia

Corruption

Inaccurate poverty classification

Table 8: Sanitation actor characteristics

The poor outcomes of the sanitation programs in India are related to the fact that the principles upon which
policies were based were not translated to practice. Several elements and processes related to the characteristics
of the actors involved in the implementation process, shed light on this theorypractice gap, some of them are
discussed below:
Motivations
Motivations drive the behaviors and actions of actors. Four motivations contributed to the theorypractice gap:
low priority for rural sanitation, misdirected accountability, competing personal interests and corruption.
Low priority for rural sanitation: It is only very recently that rural sanitation has gained attention with the NBA
and SBM (Gramin). Previously, government officers and engineers, tasked with leading water and sanitation
projects, neglected sanitation in favor of more stimulating and costly water projects. Even where officers were
motivated to facilitate real sanitation change, lack of training in participatory development methods remained an
obstacle for implementing.
Misdirected accountability: Accountability in the administration was focused mainly on subsidy expenditure, to
some extent on coverage achievement, and minimally on latrine usage. Government officers were evaluated
based on funds distributed and toilet numbers accrued. Hence, they focused on spending and construction, which
resulted in subsidy-driven, infrastructure-centered and supply-led implementation.
Competing personal interests: Sanitation, a challenging area to confront that takes a long time to show progress.
Hence, District and Block level officers had personal incentives that deterred sanitation progress. Alternatively,
some officers haphazardly implemented these programs and over-reported coverage progress.
Corruption: Self-guided distribution of hardware subsidies and lack of oversight during project procurement and
construction promoted misuse of subsidy funds. Consequently, community distrust of leaders and officers grew,
hindering future efforts.
Cognitions
Cognitions are the information and knowledge that inform actors interpretation of a situation. Four cognition
components contributed to the implementation gap: infrastructure-focused bureaucracy, lack of personnel and
abilities (capacity), flawed monitoring system, and inaccurate poverty classification.
Infrastructure-focused technocrats: Officers from the central to local levels viewed rural sanitation as a dilemma
of technology and poverty, not as a social and institutional issue requiring focus on the people. According to
India WASH Forum the district and state level coordination is geared towards construction and hardware, since
these are the strengths of the implementing agency. Hence at the institutional level there is a structural gap in
planning and delivery effective BCC [Behavior Change Communication] for sanitation.
Lack of officer training: Local government officers tasked with leading the sanitation programs were generally
under-trained. They were also simultaneously responsible for many other rural programmes. Districts and blocks
did not rely on social workers or community development experts to implement the campaign, but on engineers.

16

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Without experience and adequate training, many local government officers lacked the skills needed for a
community-led campaign.

Flawed monitoring system: As proven by the 2011 census, the monitoring systems in sanitation programs were
highly inaccurate. Examples abound at the local level, too. The flawed monitoring system reflects and reinforces
the infrastructure-centered and target-driven implementation of the sanitation programs. Inaccurate poverty
classification: Because of an unreliable poverty classification system, hardware subsidies provided to households
with BPL cards failed to promote inclusion of the poorest.
Power:
Power refers to an actors capacity to implement a policy. It includes the regulatory or formal dispositions, along
with relevant informal rules or hierarchies. The three determining aspects include a decentralized system,
technocratic governing machinery and paternalistic inertia.
Decentralized system: The Indian governing system is widely decentralized, involving many actors across
different levels. Coherently for sanitation, the central government issued guidelines and the states developed
policies and delegated campaign implementation to districts, which in turn facilitated blocks and villages to take
responsibilities over the campaign. Decentralized systems are considered to be positive for encouraging
innovation and customizing programs to the local situations. However in the case of sanitation programs it made
it difficult to achieve skilled facilitation or to make policy changes happen locally.
Technocratic governing machinery: India has a hierarchical and technocratic bureaucracy that is well suited to
send down technical designs and subsidies for physical infrastructure projects. As a consequence, sanitation
programs focused on subsidized hardware, instead of facilitating behavior change and sustainable latrine usage.
As a result, sanitation was implemented in a supply-led mode despite guidelines that described a demand-driven,
participatory program.
Paternalistic inertia: For many decades the Indian government has been attempting to meet the basic needs of its
most vulnerable citizens through various welfare schemes. This paternalistic inertia resulted in raising the
expectations from the state and rural program beneficiaries.
Recent planning frameworks for sustainable sanitation systems suggest the utilization of a number of steps: (i)
recognizing the existence of different domains, (ii) analysis of the interests driving desire for the sanitation
system and services for the stakeholders across the domains, (iii) analysis of external drivers and context that
impact behavior in each domain (iv) analysis of technical options, in relation to findings on context and criteria,
(v) analysis of management requirements for proposed technical options, (vi) critical assessment whether the
proposed system is fit for the purpose (Huesoa & Bellb, 2013).

17

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Conclusion
Having attempted the theoretical framing of the rural sanitation sector in the earlier section, an assessment of the
actors motivations, and the way they function (acquire, process and use information) are analyzed.
Sanitation Preference Analysis
The end users of sanitation services in rural areas are the most important stakeholders and its very important
to understand their perspective about the services provided and what their preferences are in this regard.
Sanitation Programs have traditionally been perceptive to the end users preferences only to the minimal extent of
addressing access to toilets, (even though leaving a lot to be wanted in this regard). However the additional
requirements of convenience and user preferences, for sanitation services are a largely less understood domain,
even in a country as worried about its sanitation as India.
Most of the operation and maintenance considerations for sanitation services are designed by service providers
(government or private service providers) based on few general assumptions without reflecting on user
preferences. For example the assumption that the end user may value a particular kind of service may not always
be valid. It needs to be evaluated based on their socio-economic profile, the nature of the regions physiography
and most importantly how people value different attributes (feature, function, benefits) that make up an
individual product or service.
The disbursement of sanitation services need to utilize the benefits of perception studies. A bottoms-up approach
can only help in this regard to understand the perceived gap in the services being provided to the end users and
their preferences and willingness to pay, the service packages could be designed based on the outputs received
from this study. This would help understand how different aspects of O&M services are perceived as valuable,
purely from an un-informed approach for different end-user groups.
Weak local Institutions
An observation stands out while conducting the mapping of these institutions and their relative roles and
responsibilities. The general case with sanitation programmes is that, they are all driven from ministerial
platforms, with sophisticated planning and implementation criteria but weakly anchored within the seats of local
government. From the hierarchy of the local government onwards (in this case the Gram Panchayat), the
government functionaries are largely limited in terms of staffing as well as capacity building.
Most government programs focus towards disbursing funds for asset creation. However, endogenous factors like
the sanitation markets have to be understood well by the functionaries administering any sanitation program, in
order to scale up efforts or even provide sustainable sanitation solutions. And in this regard, the gram panchayat
institutions need to be strengthened (especially in terms of their exposure to sanitation technologies). Apart from
asset creation, the local governing framework needs to address the other aspects of regulation and monitor
service delivery.
Excessive Functional Fragmentation
Another point of observation is the excessive fragmentation of the institutional functions which reduces the
efficacy and autonomy of individual institutions. Each of the institutional functions of asset creation, regulation,
monitoring and service delivery are all distributed across various organizations which creates further hurdles in
service delivery. This problem is only worsened by the limited linkages between the government institutional
interface with the non-governmental institutional interface like CBOs/NGOs/SHGs.
Though reduced functional fragmentation may not be realistic, the function of rural sanitation policy makers
should be to atleast reduce the gap between the non-governmental and governmental institutions, by allowing
more participatory policy making.

18

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Gaps in the value chain
Ever since the first generation of sanitation reforms in India, sanitation planners and policy analysts have
developed agreements on what a comprehensive sanitation solution should be like and then reflect on the
governments role in that framework. The widely accepted understanding is that sanitation solutions must
address all components along the sanitation value chain alongside reviewing cross cutting issues on institutional
and private sector capacity.

Figure 4: Sanitation Value Chain

The primary motive of the central government (Ministry of Drinking Water & Sanitation) is to facilitate access
to toilet (by asset creation) for 100% of the population, and regulate the process. In addition, it also carries the
additional mantle of mobilizing public awareness by administering the National Communication Strategy
Framework (NCSF), much the same way as asset creation. This means, that the NCSF sets the framework for
the Information, Education, Communication approach (similar to a policy guideline) of the government. The
actual process of conducting the campaign is to be driven by the Water Supply and Support Organization
(WSSO) in tandem with the district functionaries (who Prepare annual IEC plan and ensure its implementation).
Between preparing the plan and implementing it, lays the major gap of inherent capacities within these arms of
the government. Inadequate filling of staff positions and their limited technical capacities is a major impediment
in executing awareness campaigns among the population. The IEC programs would require design of the
pedagogic approach which needs to be thought through by professionals with the appropriate skill sets (which as
stated earlier is a major cognitive component of these institutions to function efficiently). The WSSO in this
regard is a major bridge between the central governments objectives - to create awareness and thus incentivize
taking up interest in sanitation - and the Panchayati Raj Institutions mandate to facilitate public health through
provision of sanitation amenities in its jurisdiction.
As understood from Figure 4 we have most of the functional responsibilities taken care of, the degree of focus
on each stage of the value chain is majorly focused on the user interface and that too, in terms of asset creation.
The asset, which in this case is the toilet (which could be an individual, shared or community toilet) construction
is provided with minimal evaluation of user preferences of sanitation habits and hygiene. Thus close to 50% of
the toilets constructed under NBA in rural Odisha stand unused5. Several lessons can be learnt from a Citizen
Report Card (CRC) exercise carried in rural Odisha thus ensuring toilet construction only after due consideration
of user preferences; demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the population.

Implementation of a Citizen Report Card (CRC-1),Improving Consumer Voices and Accountability

in the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan , Public Affairs Centre (Bangalore)
5

19

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Lessons from Rural Odisha
(Citizen Report Card: Public Affairs Centre, October 2014)
A total of 2680 NBA beneficiaries were interviewed in the districts of Angul, Baleshwar, Cuttack,
Dhenkanal, Ganjam, and Sambalpur.
Main sources of information on NBA:
The main sources of information on the toilet construction process under NBA were NGOs according
to 34% respondents followed by GP officials (33%) and GP members (21%). Swachchata Doots,
health workers, SHG members reached a very small proportion of people.
Impact of exposure to NBA (IEC):
32% of the respondents reported having started construction and an equal number stated that they had
completed the constructing a toilet. While 30% of the respondents did not take any action based on
the information they received.
Status of toilets:
52% of the respondents stated that their toilet was completed and was in usable condition. Of those
(32% respondents) who said the toilet was not usable, 63% cited the lack of a wall and 76% said
there were no roof. Two other prime reasons cited by respondents was the pit being blocked and full.
Construction of the toilet by self/mason
37% of respondents reported that the toilet was constructed by a contractor, 21% had hired a mason
for construction purposes, whereas 32% said that they themselves built the toilet. 29% of respondents
said that NGOs helped in construction of a toilet. Interesting results emerge when the condition of the
toilet is related with who built the toilet. The probability of a toilet being in a complete and in a
usable condition is higher when it is built by the HH on its own or by a mason who has been hired by
them as compared to toilets built by the NGOs/Contractors without involving HHs.
Design of the toilets and ease of use
53% of respondents said that the design of the toilet built was easy to use and maintain; 47% said it
was not so. 76% of respondents (N=1271) who were not happy with the design cited the lack of a
roof as the reason whereas 48% cited absence of walls as another reason.

20

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Apart from the concerns at the user interface, the later stages of the sanitation value chain have long been
completely unaddressed by the sanitation programs in rural India till the recent SBM (G) guidelines.
The concerns of handling the fecal sludge that is collected in the pits and septic tank chambers of the toilets
which constitute the subject matter of an upcoming domain of septage management had long been unaddressed
in rural areas in particular. Post the user interface6, there are the several stages of sanitation planning that need to
be addressed by the institutions. The SBM (G) guidelines talks about solid and liquid waste management for
rural India and prescribes technologies identifies actors and institution as well as funding sources to undertake
the same. However it is important that for each of the above stages, the institutional positions (with their set of
authorized statutory roles) and their actions must be aligned.
Asset creation in the NBM has been done in convergence with the MNREGS (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme) administered by the local Panchayati Raj Institutions. Several issues have been
faced in aligning two separate state departments for executing the convergence. Though the convergence was
meant encourage users to construct toilets it has so far been major impediment in several states.

The User Interface describes the type of toilet, pedestal, pan, or urinal with which the user comes in contact;
it is the way by which the user accesses the sanitation system. In many cases, the choice of User Interface will
depend on the availability of water

21

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Way Forward
It is recommended that the following steps be taken to ensure the goals of SBM are met:

Reviving the Gram Sabhas role in both generating awareness regarding improved toilet options among
stakeholder groups and thereby creating demand
After collecting user preferences, helping stakeholder groups identify latrines according to their needs
and ability. As this remains the major backlog of the Indias sanitation story wherein user preferences
are taken into account only in terms of creating access but not in terms of monitoring the nature of
access. A user preference evaluation would also help understand how resource intensive (i.e.,
economic, material and human) sanitation provisions and technologies are compared to the other
technologies, and thereby make informed choices for the population.
Facilitating the progress of the population, the
sanitation ladder from no access to a shared
toilet and finally an individual toilet must also
take into account the aspect of behaviour change
(as illustrated in the image here), through raising
awareness across all rural stakeholders.
Building capacities of actors and institutions will
be very vital to ensure implementation and
sustainability. Capacity building of stakeholders
and sanitation workers, the Swachhata
Doots/Sena, members of PRIs, VWSCs,
Figure 5: Behavioural change ladder
functionaries of BPMU, DWSM, ASHA,
Anganwadi workers, SHG members, masons,
CSOs/NGOs etc. through indentified institutions on various approaches of IEC, promoting behavioural
change, masonry work, plumbing, as well as for construction and maintenance of toilets will ensure the
community moves up the sanitation value chain. Awareness generation among communities will trigger
demand among the village community on various aspects of sanitation. It will also help the GPs in
achieving ODF status, sustaining and building on it with effective motivation and low cost management
of solid and liquid wastes.
Strengthening horizontal governance institutions in rural India: The social interactions among the
villagers and the respective Gram Panchayat institution as stated by Putnam shows a strong bearing on
the low level of public good provision (in this case being sanitation). As earlier stated, if horizontal
governance institutions exist but diverge from vertical institutions substantively or procedurally, local
public goods may be provided on a sporadic and uneven basis, and third-party institutions will exhibit
only limited effectiveness with respect to preventing public bads.

22

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Bibliography
Aligica, P. D. (2006). Institutional and Stakeholder Mapping: Frameworks for Policy Analysis and
Institutional Change. Springer Science.
Boone, C. (2003). Political topographies of the African state : territorial authority and institutional
choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coffey, D., Gupta, A., & Spears, D. (2014). Revealed Preference for Open Defecation. Economic and
Political WEEKLY , 43-55.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology.
Hardin, R. (1982). Collective Action. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Huesoa, A., & Bellb, B. (2013). An untold story of policy failure: the Total Sanitation Campaign in
India. IWA.
Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation . (n.d.).
Morgan, P., & Taschereau, S. (1996). Capacity and institutional assessment: frameworks, methods
and tools for analysis. CIDA Policy Branch.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge
University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of
Michigan Press.
P.Englebert. (2000). Pre-Colonial Institutions, Post-Colonial States, and Economic Development in
Tropical Africa. Political Research Quarterly .
Peters, D. (2011). Building an Institutional Framework. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from
http://www.sswm.info/category/implementation-tools/wastewater collection/software /building an
institutional framework
Pradhan, K. C. (September 07, 2013). Unacknowledged Urbanisation - New Census Towns of India.
Economic and Political Weekly , Vol - XLVIII No. 36.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, N.J:
Princeton University Press.
Rijn, J. (2004). Designing Organization Strutures. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from
www.indevelopment.nl/PDFfiles/organisationStructure.pdf
Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2007). Organizational Behavior. Prarson/Prrnticr Hall.
Saleth, M., & Dinar, A. (2000). Institutional Changes in global water sector: trends, patterns and
implications. Elsevier Science , 176-178.
23

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Suzuki, H., Dastur, A., Moffat, S., Yabuki, N., & Maruyama, H. (2010). Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities as
Economic Cities. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Underdown, R. (2003). Organization Structure. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
http://dept.lamar.edu/industrial/Underdown/org_mana/Org_Structure_George
Uphoff, N. (1992). Local institutions and participation for sustainable development. London: IIED.
(2010). World Bank.

24