Sanitation policy in India – designed to fail?

Figures & data

Table 2. Expenditure and number of toilets built under Swachh Bharat Mission.

Financial year	Amount spent on Swachh Bharat Mission		Number of household toilets built (rural)
	Rural (in INR)	Urban (in INR)
2014–2015	28 billion	16 billion	4,851,153
2015–2016	67 billion	10 billion	12,448,886
2016–2017	104 billion	23 billion	21,632,580
2017–2018	168 billion	23 billion	29,601,619
2018–2019	129 billion	25 billion	22,449,812
2019–2020	83 billion	13 billion	11,883,221

Source: (PRS 2021).

Table 1. Policy tools under the SBM.

Information tools	Regulatory tools^a
Technical support to state governments for their Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) policy Nationwide public awareness campaign (Darwaza Band Campaign) National Annual Rural Sanitation Survey (NARSS) by an independent agency Village Swachhta Index which contains real-time information on construction and maintenance of toilets	State-level laws requiring local bodies to maintain sanitation. Environmental and public health laws dealing with sanitation (e.g. prevention of pollution under the Water Act 1974). Court orders regarding sanitation (e.g. the recent Supreme Court judgment on manual scavenging). Monitoring and evaluation systems (e.g. progress reports, management information systems (MIS), etc.)
Financial tools	Organizational tools
Joint subsidy from center and state to households for building toilets World Bank funding to incentivize ODF sustainability Swachh Bharat Kosh (Clean India Fund) for renovation and repair of defunct toilets Priority funding for piped water supply in ODF villages	SBM is implemented by state governments, with districts as main unit of implementation 600 Swachh Bharat Preraks (Clean India Motivators) selected by Tata Trust for assisting the district collectors 150,000 Swachhagrahis (sanitation volunteers) for every village to create momentum for the policy

^a Regulatory Tools adopted from Cullet and Bhullar (2015).

Table 3. The policy content of SBM as implemented.

		Policy content
		High-level abstraction	Program level operationalization	Specific on-the-ground measures
Policy focus	Policy ends or aims	Goals Cleanliness, individual responsibility, and awareness	Objectives To get rid of open defecation for whole of India in five years	Settings Type of latrine technology which is cheap, easy to use, and maintain on-site
	Policy means or tools	Instrument logic Preference to provide monetary support for private toilet construction and use suasion and coercion for compliance	Mechanism A one-off subsidy of 12,000 INR for toilet construction A public awareness campaign to persuade target population to build toilets Use of non- legal coercion.	Calibrations Cash transfer on a reimbursement basis with suggested use of pour-flush twin-pit latrines. No law to restrict open defecation but use of awareness campaigns, administrative orders and verbal threats to force compliance.

Source: Adopted from Howlett and Rayner (2013).

PRS. 2021. “Demand for grants 2020–21 analysis: Jal Shakti.” PRS Legislative Research. https://prsindia.org/budgets/parliament/demand-for-grants-2020-21-analysis-jal-shakti

 Google Scholar

Cullet, Philippe, and Lovleen. Bhullar. 2015. Sanitation Law and Policy in India: An Introduction to Basic Instruments. Sanitation Law and Policy in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199456703.001.0001

 Google Scholar

Howlett, Michael, and Jeremy Rayner. 2013. “Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design.” Politics and Governance 1 (2): 170–182. doi:10.17645/pag.v1i2.95.

 Google Scholar