Can Property Rights Improve Access to Toilets for the Urban Poor? Evidence from India

Summary:

Approximately one in six urban residents in India lives in a slum, according to the Census of India (2011). The residents of slums are not only economically deprived, they fare worse on both mortality and morbidity indicators as compared to their non-slum neighbours as well as their rural counterparts (Mberu et al, 2016). They are therefore highly vulnerable to both communicable and non-communicable diseases. This vulnerability comes from both poverty as well as the lack of infrastructure like drainage, sanitation, and access to potable water (Sclar et al, 2005).

However, in India, not all slums are equally deprived. The statutory recognition of a slum happens through a process called ‘slum notification’, through which a state or local body formally acknowledges its existence. There exist many variations in how states notify slums and the impact of their notification policy. Generally, notification is a source of security for slum dwellers, since eviction from a notified slum must follow procedures laid down in the law. Notified slums are also the only slums eligible to be beneficiaries of public schemes and amenities (Subbaraman et al, 2012).

Therefore, non-notified slums are doubly deprived. In this paper we provide evidence of these deprivations and suggest how policy changes can lead to more equitable access to amenities.

Non-notified slums are doubly deprived. In this paper we provide evidence of these deprivations and suggest how policy changes can lead to more equitable access to amenities.

Initially, the slum policy in India focused on clearance of slums, dating back to 1956 when the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act was passed. However, over the past 20 years, it has evolved to focus on upgradation and then in-situ redevelopment (Hindman et al, 2015). This change has been for the better — policies that focused on clearance often displaced slum dwellers entirely without compensation or relief. However, even as slum policy in India has evolved, why do some slums have better access to water, kitchens and toilets than others?

A frequently cited reason why slum households have fewer private amenities is the lack of property rights over their dwelling unit. Turner (1976) argues that housing in squatter settlements is an incremental process. The risk of eviction and demolition (due to ‘illegality’) discourages slum dwellers from investing in their properties. De Soto (2000) noted that insufficient property rights stifle property owners’ incentives to invest in their holdings and reduce formal credit access. There is growing empirical evidence of the link between the improvement of dwellings and secure property rights (see Field, 2005; Galiani and Schargrodsky, 2010; Nakamura 2014, 2017). Thus, property rights form a significant pathway to access better amenities.

Some other factors found to impact access to amenities in Indian slums are the slum-dwellers’ political contacts (Edelman and Mitra, 2006) and better human capital levels (Rains et al, 2019).

This paper begins with a survey of literature on property rights, amenities in slums and their effects on health outcomes. We detail our methodology and take note of the legal context of notification. The next section notes the impact of notification on access to amenities. Finally, we present case studies of slum policy from three states in India and conclude with actionable policy recommendations.