Search

Guaranteeing tenure security to the households living in informal settlements (slums) has not seen any progress in urban India. This is because the policymakers have failed to see land tenure status as a continuum from insecure tenure to a legal status. In general, the poor in the cities move from informal to quasi-legal ( de facto) tenure through various processes, and then to legal tenure ( de jure) in cases of a public policy intervention that confers property title on them. In the absence of such a policy, the urban poor and low-income migrants can seek to consolidate their urban citizenship through political citizenship in an electoral democracy, through welfare interventions by the state and above all, through their own subversions of urban legalities. This article first illustrates the existence of a continuum of tenure status in informal settlements in Ahmedabad City. It explains the factors that give a slum settlement a particular level of tenure status; and then through quantitative data, links the level of tenure security to social protection outcomes. The article shows that through small public actions, it is possible to improve access of the urban poor to social protection measures and that it is not necessary to leapfrog to extending property rights to the dwellers of these informal settlements. It is essential to realise that if land titles are given in a society where other rights are not present, the poor will not be able to retain them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine the effectiveness of a sanitation campaign that combines "shaming" (i.e. emotional motivators) with subsidies for poor households in rural Orissa, an Indian state with a disproportionately high share of India's child mortality. Methods Using a cluster-randomized design, we selected 20 treatment and 20 control villages in the coastal district of Bhadrak, rural Orissa, for a total sample of 1050 households. We collected sanitation and health data before and after a community-led sanitation project, and we used a difference-in-difference estimator to determine the extent to which the campaign influenced the number of households building and using a latrine. Findings Latrine ownership did not increase in control villages, but in treatment villages it rose from 6% to 32% in the overall sample, from 5% to 36% in households below the poverty line (eligible for a government subsidy) and from 7% to 26% in households above the poverty line (not eligible for a government subsidy). Conclusion Subsidies can overcome serious budget constraints but are not necessary to spur action, for shaming can be very effective by harnessing the power of social pressure and peer monitoring. Through a combination of shaming and subsidies, social marketing can improve sanitation worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]