[MUSIC] There have been successful programs to eliminate open defecation that did not use monetary incentive. Let us look at some of their characteristics to understand how a norm may emerge to provide a public good in this case, sanitation and therefore eliminate a negative externality. Open defecation and its negative health consequences. Community led total sanitation, otherwise known as CLTS, is one such program. In this picture, we see a facilitator in a village who has collected feces and put them in a public place where everyone can see what is being done. They also put food close by and people who sit and observe what is happening can see that flies go from feces to food back and forth. In this way people start realizing that there is contamination. That they eat filthy food. Instead of getting information about abstract concepts, such as this is causing bacteria, there is an immediate, vivid understanding of their practice, and some of its unsanitary consequences. This elicited disgust, a powerful emotion, and shame too because people realize they make other people eat the feces. This is called a triggering phase. Now let us listen to to some interviews about sanitation programs. Especially programs that aim to eliminate open defecation. >> Let me explain how CATS works. In preparation for an activity we call triggering, we find out who are open defecators and non open defecators. We make sure that we invite and get most of the people in the village present during the triggering. At the event itself, using a set of triggering tools, the objective of the facilitators is to make people realize that open defecation results in people eating each other's shit. It's a bit disgusting and shocking, really. Many times this starts with the community mapping exercise. People are asked to say where they live on the map, identify structures that are on the map. Where they have a household toilet, whether they have a household toilet or not, and where they go to defecate. They're asked to compute the amount of shit that they produce on a yearly basis and the cost of being sick of diarrhea. >> Main quality, the intervention a must facilitating the process. For people to make the realization, what we call the ha ha moment is collectively, all together, we're going to realize certain fact like, and what we want them to realize is that they're eating their own shit. This is the basic fact and when you go through the different tools at some point someone in the community is going to my God, we are actually eating our own shit. And then you do repeat this fact over and over again so that it really appear to everybody but you don't come in and tell them. You wait until someone in the community make the statement and then reinforce the statement and then you become clear. And no human being want to continue to have such disgusting behavior when they really realize it. Community-led sanitation has certainly been successful in terms of making dramatic reductions in the open defication across the globe. I think it's one intervention. And one feature of that intervention is the fact that they introduce shame. They have. They move around the villages, they look at places where they are openly defecating and they come with something that attracts flies and then they show flies moving from the feces onto the food and then people eating them. And then that disgust alone has been a very big motivating factor for people. >> I want to stress here that people change behavior if they have reasons for change. They must come to believe that a particular behavior is harmful, that there are better ways to fulfill their needs. In the case of open defecation, instead of immediately providing people with medical and scientific reasons to abandon open defecation, or induce fear of disease that requires understanding the causal link between certain bacteria and diarrhea diseases. Eliciting the strong emotion of disgust has enabled people to find good reasons for abandoning open defecation. Disgust, in other words, lead people to look for remedies. Indeed, after triggering a disgust reaction, participants were collectively informed of the merits of using latrines, and the problems associated with open defecation. They had collective discussions that were motivated by a common sense of disgust and provided people with reason for changing their customary practice. An advantage of group discussion is that individuals can realize that others are changing their beliefs too. That one is not alone in wanting a change. In this way the new beliefs, the newly acquired reasons for change are shared within a community. Reference networks play an important role here, since the reasons for change must be shared with people that matter to one's decision. As the practice is a common, collective one, so must be the change. The reasons for change I want to stress much be shared. There are some common features of norm creation that I've listed up to now, and others I shall present next. We have seen the top ten norms emerge to provide public good and solve conflict between individual and collective interest. Having shared reasons for change is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. In what follows, I will highlight the role of sanctions and how social expectations are created.
