[MUSIC] Is having reasons, even collectively sharing reasons efficient for change to occur? A group may discuss and come to common conclusion that it is much better to use latrines, but change to come about must be coordinated. It should not happen that one says we need latrines and the others say, yes, build it, we agree, but then they wait a year to build their own. So there is a need to coordinate change, to do it together. Often, when people take a bottom up collective decision to change their ways, they tend to be successful. Collective decision may be very effective. Let us go back to the decision to end open defecation. It is a multi-step process, people decide to build latrines, how to build them, to maintain them and of course to use them. What is apparent when we look at successful intervention is that people soon realize they are facing a social dilemma. Let us recall that the social dilemma involves a conflict between individual and collective interest. To achieve a healthy environment all have to abandon open defecation. But there is the ever present temptation when they need arises to revert to the old practice. After all, one might think if everybody is now using latrines, how can my action damage anyone? This is the thinking of a free writer. Even if people in a remote village do not think in terms of this is a collective action problem or this is a social dilemma, they have recognized that they are facing one. A commonly established community stake is to collectively decide to impose punishment on community members who go against what they decided to do together. It is important to notice that the decision to punish is typically a collective one agreed upon by the entire community and not the individual decision of a leader. For example, the village chief or legal authority. The type of monitoring and punishment will differ in different situation. In villages, sometimes children's cart around with whistles to denounce and shame open defecators. At other times it is the village elders that go around with sticks ready to beat offenders. But in every case the punishment is chosen and approved by the entire community. When the decision to punish offenders is a communal one, it is perceived as legitimate. This is an important point, if someone continues to practice open defecation this person can expect a negative reaction especially since he agreed to end the practice. Often, people refrain from punishing offenders because they fear retaliation. But if the new practice and a punishment for open defecation, were supported by the entire group, punishment will be seen as acceptable, and appropriate. It is also interesting to notice that punishment, at least in villages, was seldom needed as behavior change was taken very seriously. >> In past complaints the way this was handled. The issue of those who are non-compliant with the decision of the community on the new social norm of stopping open defecation and using a toilet. They used different mechanisms. I have been into a community where there were some young people who were members of the community. And they took it upon themselves being the young people in the community. When they look at anyone going out to carry out open defecation, they know the person is going to the bush to defecate. They will start blowing whistles. And this alerted the rest of the community. And the individual had to think twice about their plan to go and open defecate. >> In the programs I have been in, they have created both positive and negative sanctions. There are committee maps that show who has built the dream and who hasn't. Some places have foreign groups to go over our regularly and put pressure on people to build. In other places people would have rewards for those with the most beautiful toilet. And some local governments have offered upgrades to help improve the latrine quality if they achieve open defecation free status. >> Agreeing upon negative sanctions for transgressors means creating normative expectations. Remember my definition of normative expectation. They are beliefs about what we expect people in our reference network to approve of us. What they think one should do. Once a decision to end open defecation has been reached everyone expect others to believe that everyone ought to build, use and maintain latrines. These normative expectation are newly formed and the threat of punishment may initially be an important motivator, at least for some. Normative expectation will induce people to conform to the new behavior, which will be observable. Latrines are built and used, open defecation becomes uncommon and when discovered get punished. Now people reform new empirical expectations about the behavior of their reference network. Notice this order, first, people form normative expectation, and then because they are effective especially since there is a ever-present threat of punishment. They will form empirical expectation about the new behavior, dictated by the normative expectations. Now why normative expectation must come first. Remember what I said, people realize there is a temptation to free ride, to take advantage of what everybody else does. If everybody now uses latrines, one may reason, my defecating in the open is not going to create a big problem. The environment is already much cleaner and my action will not soil or pollute much, if at all. It will probably go unnoticed, and I will reap all the benefits without any cost. So there is always a temptation to free ride. And people are caught in a social dilemma. The need on inducement to change behavior even when they are convinced that using latrines is the way to go. To summarize, here are common features of norm creation. We've scene the shared reasons to change are necessary but not sufficient since people face social dilemma. This is why introducing negative sanctions is important, as they are part of the process of creating new normative expectations about acceptable behavior. It is also important that change is coordinated. Change the course in starts and stops or change that is taken up by some but not all will be less effective. If only a few change behavior, for example, if you build latrines, there will be less of an incentive for others to follow through. In this case, it is difficult to see how a normative expectation could survive. When instead, behavior change occurs in a coordinated manner, people will come to form the empirical expectation that, together with the normative ones, support the newly created norm. >> It's important that there are clear collective action plans on how to achieve open defecation free status together. It puts everyone on the same page. It helps with monitoring progress and it also creates a common vision and aspiration. This aspiration shapes people's scheme of the future and their beliefs of what they can achieve. In our programs, we've organized informal groups called Wash committees, or Wash task forces. It's called different in different places, but basically they are members of the community who are assigned to do community monitoring against their own community action plan. They hold the household accountable for the promises or the pledges that they make. In cases where they have sanctions, they hold up the sanctions. When there's a strong group like this it really fast tracks the achievement of open defecation free status.
