Assessing policymaker and taxpayer attitudes towards public finance for urban sanitation: the case of sanitation surcharges in two Ghanaian municipalities

Figures & data

Figure 1. A framework for analysing policymakers’ and taxpayers’ attitudes towards sanitation surcharge (Source: Authors’ construct)

Figure 2. Map of Ghana showing location of Akuapem North and Ga West municipalities (Source: Authors’ construct)

Table 1. Distribution of sample size

Akuapem North		Ga West
Community	No. of Properties Sampled	Community	No. of Properties Sampled
Adawso	30	Amasaman	43
Tinkong	22	Fise	90
Akropong	78	Hebron	26
Larteh	86	Kuntunse	62
Mamfe	40	Medie	50
Amanokrom	30	Pobiman/Pobi-Asaawa	56
Mampong	68	Sarpeiman	96
Obosomase	30	-	-
Osabene	25	-	-
Total	409	Total	423

Source: Authors’ construct.

Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of property owners

Characteristic	Akuapem North (n = 409)	Ga West (n = 423)
Mean Age (years)	56.5	48.4
Sex (%):
Male	57.9	61.2
Female	42.1	38.8
Level of Education (%):
No formal education	22.2	15.4
Primary	7.1	9.5
Junior High School	23.2	26.7
Senior High/Vocational training	30.6	29.3
Tertiary	16.9	19.1
Employment Status (%):
Employed	70.6	86.3
Unemployed	6.6	3.5
Retired	20.8	8.0
Not working because of sickness, disability, etc.	2.2	2.1
Main Occupation (%):
Trading	46.5	49.4
Services*	22.9	34.8
Farming	20.1	3.0
Industrial activities**	10.5	12.9
Household Income and Expenditure (GHS***):
Mean Income	14,374.63	20,058.01
Mean Expenditure	13,192.22	17,865.43

*Includes tailoring, hairdressing/barbering, driving, etc.

**Includes manufacturing, processing, construction, mechanics/electronic repairs, etc.

***1USD ≈ 5GHS.

Source: Authors’ field survey.

Table 3. Awareness, willingness and compliance with property rate payment

Percentage of Respondents who …	Akuapem North (n = 409)	Ga West (n = 423)
Are Aware of Property Rate	95.8%	80.9%
Are Willing to Pay Property Rate	89.7%	71.9%
Pay Property Rate	91.7%	54.1%

Source: Authors’ field survey.

Table 4. Reasons for non-compliance with property rate payment

Reason	Akuapem North (%)	Ga West (%)
Revenue collectors fail to come for it/I haven’t been asked to pay	35.7	27.3
Building is uncompleted	28.5	23.2
Do not have money to pay/rate is too high	14.3	11.5
It will not benefit me/Assembly will not put it to good use	7.2	23.2
Do not know where to pay it	7.2	12.6
Do not want to pay	7.2	2.1
Total	100.0	100.0

Source: Authors’ field survey.

Table 5. Willing to pay something extra to improve sanitation by gender

	Willing to Pay
	Akuapem North			Ga West
	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total (%)	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total (%)
Female	50.0	50.0	100.0	39.7	60.3	100.0
Male	29.1	70.9	100.0	40.5	59.5	100.0
	Pearson’s Chi Square = 6.08, df = 1, Significance Level = 0.014, n = 135			Pearson’s Chi Square = 0.01, df = 1, Significance Level = 0.924, n = 162

Source: Authors’ field survey.

Table 6. Willing to pay something extra to improve sanitation by level of education

	Willing to Pay
	Akuapem North			Ga West
	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total (%)	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total (%)
No formal education	58.8	41.2	100.0	48.1	51.9	100.0
Primary	28.6	71.4	100.0	47.1	52.9	100.0
Junior High School	40.7	59.3	100.0	39.0	61.0	100.0
Senior High/Vocational Sch.	23.1	76.9	100.0	47.1	52.9	100.0
Tertiary	33.3	66.7	100.0	15.4	84.6	100.0
	Pearson’s Chi Square = 10.77, df = 4, Significance Level = 0.029, n = 135			Pearson’s Chi Square = 8.73, df = 4, Significance Level = 0.068, n = 162

Source: Authors’ field survey.

Table 7. Willingness to pay something extra to improve sanitation by income class

	Willing to Pay
	Akuapem North			Ga West
	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total (%)	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total (%)
1st Quintile	62.9	37.1	100.0	51.4	48.6	100.0
2nd Quintile	33.3	66.7	100.0	26.7	73.3	100.0
3rd Quintile	29.2	70.8	100.0	48.5	51.5	100.0
4th Quintile	36.8	63.2	100.0	40.7	59.3	100.0
5th Quintile	23.8	76.2	100.0	31.8	68.2	100.0
	Pearson’s Chi Square = 11.32, df = 4, Significance Level = 0.023, n = 111			Pearson’s Chi Square = 4.23, df = 4, Significance Level = 0.371, n = 134

Source: Authors’ field survey.

Figure 3. Respondents’ support for pro-poor spending on sanitation (Source: Authors’ construct based on field survey)

Box 1. Reasons why some respondents oppose pro-poor spending on sanitation

Because the Assembly will just spend the money anyhow It is a lie. The Assembly won’t use the money for that purpose Property rate is already expensive and I don’t know what the Assembly uses it for Property rate should be enough to cater for sanitation so the sanitation surcharge should be stopped altogether There is nothing to show that the Assembly would use it for that purpose The Assembly doesn’t do anything and so why should we pay extra They (Assembly) don’t do anything for us I will only support the idea if the Assembly starts using the taxes, we are already paying for the right things We don’t know what the Assembly uses the money for so they should account for what we have paid already Roads are more important A healthcare facility is what we need Our roads are bad so they have to solve our problems before considering others They should develop our neighbourhood first We don’t even have drains and a refuse container in our neighbourhood, so why should our money be spent on others; we have to benefit first We don’t have toilet, communal containers and water so why do you ignore us and go to other neighbourhood Because we here clean our own environment Everyone should be able to construct their own toilet Everyone is supposed to provide their own private toilet I have a toilet already All landlords are supposed to provide their own toilets They cheat us The Assembly cannot use our money to support them just because they are poor We don’t have the money We can’t afford it