. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 8.

Published in final edited form as: Econ Dev Cult Change. 2019 Jul;67(4):725–755. doi: 10.1086/698852

TABLE 7.

DISCUSSION: THE PRACTICE OF OPEN DEFECATION AND UNTOUCHABILITY ACROSS INDIAN STATES

	Fraction of Rural Households That Defecate in the Open
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Practice untouchability B	1.123^†	.628^***	.554^***	.549^**
	(.192)	(.182)	(.197)	(.200)
Practice untouchability A					.628**
					(.242)
Literacy		−1.717^†	−1.778^†	−1.718^***	−1.769^***
		(.323)	(.376)	(.505)	(.526)
Poverty			.784	.982	1.055
			(.674)	(.829)	(.799)
Average consumption			.169	.167	.181
			(.199)	(.253)	(.254)
Much confidence in politicians				−.254	−.262
				(.416)	(.392)
Some confidence in politicians				−.133	−.119
				(.226)	(.243)
NREGA work				−.186	−.175
				(.158)	(.160)
In women’s group				.198	.187
				(.165)	(.169)
Test addition			F_{2, 27} = .74	F_{4, 23} = 1.51
			p = .49	p = .23
n (states)	32	32	32	32	32
R ²	.480	.712	.726	.768	.764

Note. The dependent variable open defecation and independent variables literacy, poverty, confidence in political leaders, household participation in National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) work, and household participation in a women’s group are all computed as a fraction of rural households in a state. Robust standard errors are in parentheses (data are collapsed to state averages).

^**

p < .05.

^***

p < .01.

^†

p < .001.