Skip to Main Content

We employ a probit model to estimate the service reliability and drinking water tangibles, respectively18. The main regression results are shown in Table 4 with several interesting findings19. First, in the estimation of service reliability (Column 1), the coefficients of subsidized households are negative and statistically different from zero and the coefficients of surcharged households are not significant. This suggests that compared to standard households (the base group), subsidized households receive more interruptions of service, while surcharged households receive a similar frequency service. The difference between subsidized users and surcharged users in perceived service quality is presented in Table 5. The result of a t-test suggests that the effect of receiving a subsidy on service reliability is significantly different from the effect of paying surcharges. We also find that the coefficient of community providers is insignificant (Table 4)20, suggesting that service continuity is similar between community providers and public providers. Therefore, service reliability differs based on user type, but not on provider type. Second, in the estimation of drinking water tangibles (Column 2), we find the opposite results: drinking water tangibles differ based on provider type, but not on user type. The coefficients of subsidized households and surcharged households are not significant, suggesting that tangibles reported by subsidized households or surcharged users are not significantly different from tangibles reported by standard households. The comparison of coefficients (Table 5) shows that in the estimation of tangibles, the coefficient of surcharged households is not significantly different from the coefficient of subsidized households, so under the subsidy policy, drinking water tangibles are similar for these two user types. The coefficient of community water provider (Table 4), however, is significantly negative, suggesting that community providers deliver poorer tangibles of drinking water than public providers do, which is based on households' observation of sediment, bad taste, bad smell, and bad color in drinking water21.

Table 4.

Regression results on two-dimensional service quality.

VariablesService reliabilityDrinking water tangibles
Subsidized −0.3918** 0.1085 
(−0.1593) (0.1126) 
Surcharged 0.3039 0.2070 
(0.2794) (0.1385) 
Community Water Provider −0.2222 −0.4116*** 
(0.1512) (0.1026) 
Transfer/Municipality Income −0.0031 0.0016 
(0.0054) (0.0041) 
Population Density 0.0001 0.0001** 
(0.0000) (0.0000) 
Municipal Socioeconomic Index 0.0236*** 0.0092** 
(0.0089) (0.0047) 
Female Family Head 0.0080 0.0695* 
(0.0386) (0.0400) 
Can Read or Write 0.0748 −0.0382 
(0.0953) (0.1028) 
Family Size −0.0291*** 0.0073 
(0.0096) (0.0089) 
Age 0.0016 −0.0017 
(0.0018) (0.0014) 
Urban −0.2459 −0.0407 
(0.1993) (0.1224) 
Rural −0.5928*** −0.2768** 
(0.1932) (0.1169) 
Own −0.0664 −0.0305 
(0.0558) (0.0483) 
Rent 0.0349 −0.0110 
(0.0589) (0.0589) 
Education Level Dummies Yes Yes 
Observations 9086 9093 
R-squared 0.1069 0.0487 
VariablesService reliabilityDrinking water tangibles
Subsidized −0.3918** 0.1085 
(−0.1593) (0.1126) 
Surcharged 0.3039 0.2070 
(0.2794) (0.1385) 
Community Water Provider −0.2222 −0.4116*** 
(0.1512) (0.1026) 
Transfer/Municipality Income −0.0031 0.0016 
(0.0054) (0.0041) 
Population Density 0.0001 0.0001** 
(0.0000) (0.0000) 
Municipal Socioeconomic Index 0.0236*** 0.0092** 
(0.0089) (0.0047) 
Female Family Head 0.0080 0.0695* 
(0.0386) (0.0400) 
Can Read or Write 0.0748 −0.0382 
(0.0953) (0.1028) 
Family Size −0.0291*** 0.0073 
(0.0096) (0.0089) 
Age 0.0016 −0.0017 
(0.0018) (0.0014) 
Urban −0.2459 −0.0407 
(0.1993) (0.1224) 
Rural −0.5928*** −0.2768** 
(0.1932) (0.1169) 
Own −0.0664 −0.0305 
(0.0558) (0.0483) 
Rent 0.0349 −0.0110 
(0.0589) (0.0589) 
Education Level Dummies Yes Yes 
Observations 9086 9093 
R-squared 0.1069 0.0487 

Note: The regressions are run based on the probit model. One dependent variable, ‘service reliability’, is based on answers to the questions, ‘Is water provided seven days a week?’ and ‘On the days that water does arrive, is it continuous for 24 hours?’ (1 = Answer Yes to both questions; 0 = Answer No to either one). The other dependent variable, ‘drinking water tangibles’, is based on answers to the question, ‘Does the water present the following characteristics? Sediment, bad taste, bad smell, bad color, or none of the above?’ (1 = None is observed in the drinking water; 0 = Some is observed). The regressions include 9 dummies for education levels. All variables are defined in Appendix Table 1 (available with the online version of this paper). *Significant at 10 percent level; **significant at 5 percent level; ***significant at 1 percent level.

Table 5.

t-test of coefficients ‘Subsidized’ and ‘Surcharged’.

Service reliabilityDrinking water tangibles
Subsidized = Surcharged 12.19*** 0.81 
Service reliabilityDrinking water tangibles
Subsidized = Surcharged 12.19*** 0.81 

Note: This table shows the estimates based on the probit model (1) in Table 4. All the variables are defined in Appendix Table 1 (available with the online version of this paper). *Significant at 10 percent level; **significant at 5 percent level; ***significant at 1 percent level.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal