Syndicate content


Pricing water when the poor share: evidence from Manila: Guest post by William Violette

This is the ninth in this years' job market series
Despite large investments in piped water throughout the developing world, the share of urban households without piped water has remained stable at 5% for middle-income countries and at 20% for low-income countries over the past decade.  Given health, time-savings, and other benefits from piped water, how can water utilities set prices in order to close gaps in access while still covering costs?  Conventional wisdom is that subsidizing fixed connection fees with high marginal prices can improve access especially for the poor, but this policy can have the opposite effect when households share water connections, which is common in the developing world.  I observe that over 23% of households in Manila access piped water through a neighbor's connection.  In this context, high marginal prices weaken incentives for households to extend water access to their neighbors through sharing.  Similarly, connection fee subsidies may have limited impacts on access because sharing households already split any fixed costs with their neighbors.

What’s the latest in development economics research? A round-up of 140+ papers from NEUDC 2017

David Evans's picture

Did you miss this year’s Northeast Universities Development Consortium conference, or NEUDC? I did, unfortunately!

NEUDC is a large development economics conference, with more than 160 papers on the program, so it’s a nice way to get a sense of new research in the field.
Thankfully, since NEUDC posts submitted papers, I was able to mostly catch up. I went through 147 of the papers and summarized them below, by topic. If a paper you loved or presented isn’t in the rundown, feel free to add a brief summary in the comments. (Why 147 instead of 160? I skipped a few macro papers and the papers that weren’t posted.)

These links should take you to your topic of interest: Agriculture, cash transfers and asset transfers, credit and insurance, crime, conflict, violence, and war, culture, norms, and corruption, education, elections and political economy, firms, governance, bureaucracy, and social capital, health (including WASH), jobs (including public works), marriage, methodology, migration, mobile phones and mobile money, poverty, inequality, and shocks, psychology, taxes, and traffic.

CCTs for Pees: Cash Transfers Halloween Edition

Berk Ozler's picture

Subsidies to increase utilization are used in all sorts of fields and I have read more than my fair share of CCT papers. However, until last week, I had not come across a scheme that paid people to purchase their urine. Given that I am traveling and the fact that I am missing Halloween, I thought I’d share (I hope it’s not TMI)…
Here is the abstract of an article by Tilley and Günther (2016), published in Sustainability:
In the developing world, having access to a toilet does not necessarily imply use: infrequent or non-use limits the desired health outcomes of improved sanitation. We examine the sanitation situation in a rural part of South Africa where recipients of novel, waterless “urine-diverting dry toilets” are not regularly using them. In order to determine if small, conditional cash transfers (CCT) could motivate families to use their toilets more, we paid for urine via different incentive-based interventions: two were based on volumetric pricing and the third was a flat-rate payment (irrespective of volume). A flat-rate payment (approx. €1) resulted in the highest rates of regular (weekly) participation at 59%. The low volumetric payment (approx. €0.05/L) led to regular participation rates of only 12% and no increase in toilet use. The high volumetric payment (approx. €0.1/L) resulted in lower rates of regular participation (35%), but increased the average urine production per household per day by 74%. As a first example of conditional cash transfers being used in the sanitation sector, we show that they are an accepted and effective tool for increasing toilet use, while putting small cash payments in the hands of poor, largely unemployed populations in rural South Africa.”