Ensuring Access to Water in Urban Households Author(s): Peeyush Bajpai and Laveesh Bhandari Reviewed work(s): Source: Economic

and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 39 (Sep. 29 - Oct. 5, 2001), pp. 3774-3778 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4411173 . Accessed: 08/03/2012 02:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

to Water in Ensuring Access Households

Urban

This paper deals with how urban Indian households obtain water for their daily requirements. The link between economic status and access allows the analysis of issues such as water sharing, sole access, ability to pay, need for improvements,etc. The authors also put forth a strategyfor levying user charges for different economic status households. The data reveal that poor access is accompanied with low levels of expectations of the populace. The paper stresses the need for a substantial consumer awareness campaign before embarkingon any programme. improvement
PEEYUSHBAJPAI, LAVEESHBHANDARI

tubewells and The bulk of the expenditures wouldbe dependon theirownprivate pumpsfor their daily waterneeds. As a front ended. Even if financialresources resultswatertablesarefallingat dramatic wereavailable fromexternal sources,they becomeessential that wouldtypicallyrequire Indiancities rate rates.Ithastherefore somecontribution By moststandards tap among the lowest in the world- each householdbe provided waterfor fromthelocalgovernments contribution the environment, infrastructure, its sole use. The issue thenbecomeshow that the large majorityof local governlandprices,and general 'livability'- all do the local governmentspay for these ments will not be able to ensure. Since leave muchto be desired[UWSS 1997]. expansionin access to water. water.supply benefits end consumersit Note thatmereaccessto wateris notthe maybe possibleto ask themto contribute howevervariousaspectsof Increasingly, that urban Indiaarebeingpaidmoreattention only issue - its also important it be for improvinginfrastructure avail of and - both by policy-makers academics. available24 hoursa day andits qualityin better services (on lines of the 'tatkal' and is Onesuchissue of importance relatedto terms of cleanlinessbe good. Given the scheme for telephones).However, it is India. fact that wateris a scarce-resource, is generallyconsidered sincemostIndiit that sanitation accessto waterin urban Thispaperattempts relatethe need for also importantthat it is not misused. ans are poor, they would not be able to to user charges also pay for such improvements. in investment watersupplyinfrastructure Thereforeappropriate We investigate by studying need with the requirements economic ca- need to be charged. and this the of thehouseholds. theprocess In for wateraccess, Levying usercharges,however,would of households improving pabilities it highlights policyissues,andimpedi- haveto be preceded a goodunderstand- along with their lifestyles. We find that the by ments in ensuringaccess to all. ing of Indianhouseholds'waterconnec- many householdswould be able to conacross India tivity. Thatis, amongothers,the number tribute some amount improvements for Urbanlocal governments in aregenerally considered be inextremely of sole use connectionsand sharedcon- accessto tapwater.No doubtmanywould to and Lack of haveto be subsidisedat least in the initial poorfinancialhealth[Srivastava Sen nectionsneed to be ascertained. 1999, IPFS 1998-99]. such informationmay have a negative stages. We also investigatehouseholds' 1997, Khandwalla are of Theirrevenues low andas a resulttheir impacton the successof suchactions.For perceptions qualityandsufficiencyand on block tariff(IBT) find reasonsto indicatethat they do not investmentsand expenditures urban instancethe increasing serviceshave suffered.As a resulturban model is inapplicablewhere the water expect much. Lackof expectations, believe, is the we has and India poorinfrastructure evenworse connectionis sharedamonghouseholds, that in water services. Watersupply is one such area a characteristic we show is common strongestimpediment improving IBT supplyin urbanIndia.Any watersupply where local governments have not been amongthepoor.Thetariffratesunder will only sucable to keep up with the increasein re- are directlyand positivelyrelatedto the improvement programme limit.The ceed if society desiresit, is willing to pay consumption beyondathreshold quirements. Further policies have been targetedto- joint usersenduppayinga higheraverage for it in the long run,andrewards policywardsthe provisionof subsidiesfor con- priceforwaterthanthesole users.[Boland makersfor deliveringit. Consequently a andnottowards costof access. and Whittington the thataims at 2001]. publicawareness programme sumption Themajor sufferers thepoor,forwhom are wouldhelpfaciliEnsuring good watersupplywill there- increasing expectations tate access to water. theconnection costsareunaffordable [WSP fore requirethe following: issue thatthis paper 2001]. (i) Investmentsin improvinginfrastruc- Anotherimportant to ture of obtainingand transporting water addressesis the needfor an evaluationof Somethingthatwouldbe considered in be the very basic of services- wateron (ii) Investments improvinginfrastruc- water supply requirements prior to any for 24 hoursa day has been unheard ture for watersupply to the consumer Studies have tap improvementprogramme. of fordecadesin mostIndian towns[ADB (iii) Levying and collecting appropriate shownthattheabsence suchassessment of has contributedto the failure of such 1993]. A large part of the households user charges

Introduction

3774

Economicand PoliticalWeekly September 2001 29,

for theirdaily needs - more than70 per than 33.4 million urban households who centdependon tapwaterandan insignifi- have access to tap water. cantnumber tankers. on Access to underBarely 15.1 million (12.9 plus 2.2) groundwateris the next most important households have sole access within the - wells, tube wells, and handpumps,toTable 1: MainSources of Water getheraccountfor morethan27 per cent Numberof Households Per Cent of the households'mainwatersupply.As (Millions) would be expected, other sources that - Access to drinking water 70.1 33.3 include tanks,ponds, springs,rivers,ca- Tap 21.4 10.2 - Access to bathing water in nals, etc, are insignificant urbanareas. Tube wells 3.2 6.7 Wells - Access to bathroom/toilet About 30 per cent of the urbanhouse- Tank/pond reserved - Latrine and drainage holds do not obtain water from their fordrinking 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 - Garbage removal However, Othertanks/ponds municipality/local government. 0.2 0.1 who do havesome River,canal, lake In additiontherewas also some house- even thosehouseholds 0.1 0.0 Spring other accessto waterfromthegovernment, have Tanker hold level information on their 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 lifestyle habits such as on commuting, to shareit with theirneighbours almost Others 0.1 Notavailable 0.1 eithershare Total accessto media,etc. Thisallowsus to link 59 percent of the households 47.6 100.0 or issues such as industry,occupation,reli- waterwith theirneighbours the supply etc, gion,geography, with the availability is for the community. Table 2: Right of Use of Water In other words, only 41 per cent have of theseurban services.Eachissue in itself Numberof Households Per Cent wouldthrowlighton the presentsituation exclusive access to their main source of (Millions) in of sanitation urbanIndiaandthe scope water.Exclusivityin supplyis important, Sole 41.3 19.6 because that is a necessaryprecondition Shared for improvements. 12.7 26.6 Forthe purposesof this paper,we lim- for imposing any user charges/taxeson Community 13.6 28.6 1.6 3.5 households. water.Many of the 70 per cent 'tapped' Others itedourselves 31,323urban to 0.0 0.0 haveto sharewaterfromtheir Notavailable waterbecausein households We focusedon drinking Total 47.6 100.0 our opinion it is most indicativeof the main source. Of the 33.4 million houseissues relatedto waterin general.More- holds who have access to tapwaterabout Table 3: Right of Use of Tap Water over, the type of queries asked about 54 per cent or 18 million requiresome Numberof Households Per Cent waterhad a wider scope. sharing. drinking (Millions) This as Sharingis not the only issue. The mapaperproceeds follows.SectionII the sources water jority of the householdsdoes not have Sole studies various of 15.2 45.6 primary 8.7 26.1 their within dwellings households,how far they water (approximately Shared supplyto urban 8.4 25.2 Community it fromthedwellingandwhether 61 per cent) andhave to transport from Others arelocated 3.1 1.0 III the main source. these sources are shared. Section 0.0 0.0 Missing 100.0 33.3 It wouldonly be natural those who Total that categoriseshouseholds on the basis of theireconomicstatus.While Section IV accesswaterfromwells, tanks,tubewells, Table 4: Distance from Principal Source puts forthsome policy issues in light of etc, would not obtain water within the of DrinkingWater a But moreimportantly, majorthe evidenceobtained. dwelling. (AllUrbanHouseholds) ity of those who have access to tap water Numberof Households Per Cent do nothaveit withinthedwellingbuthave II (Millions) it to transport fromthesourceoutsidetheir Water Adequacy Drinking 18.4 38.6 Dwelling place of stay (about54 per cent). in Urban India Premises* 12.9 27.1 In sum, not only is the penetration of <0.2 Km 15.0 31.5 watersupplylow (about70 per 0.2-0.5 This section reportsthe urbanhouse- municipal 0.8 1.7 0.4 0.7 holds' access to water.In the process it cent of total households),it is also quite 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.6 0.1 0.3 attemptsto determinethose households poorin termsof access. Most households >1.6 Km 0.0 0.1 whoseaccessis poor.Thesearethehouse- that dependon tap waterhave to either Notavailable 0.0 0.1 47.6 100.0 holds who would requiresignificantin- share it with their neighbours,or them- Total it in vestments watersupply infrastructure. selves transport to their dwelling, or The term'premises'means outside the dwelling butwithinthe dwelling'scompound. The NSSO (1999) has publishedthe re- both. We argue that properaccess requires Table 5: Distance from sults for the sanitationpart of the 54th Principal Source The round survey. report,thoughdetailed, two conditionsto be fulfilled. One, the of DrinkingWater lacksinrevealing relationship the between householdshould have the right to sole (HouseholdswithTaps) the present state of sanitation and the use. Only in such conditionswould it be Numberof Households Per Cent economicstatusof the households. on possibleto levy anyusercharges house(Millions) holds.Two,thepoint water of should supply 15.3 45.8 Dwelling be ideally withinthe dwelling.In general Premises Sources of Water Principal 8.4 25.3 9.6 28.8 the closer water can be suppliedto the Others Notavailable 0.0 0.0 The bulk of the households in urban dwelling,the betterit wouldbe. The table Total 33.3 100.0 the of India on water supply belowpresents distribution themore depend themunicipal
Economic and Political Weekly September 29, 2001

in programmes other countries [Hardoy and Schusterman 2000]. The paperis based on a data set from asurvey conducted theNational by Sample in Survey Organisation 1998 (the 54th Morethan1,10,300rural urban and round). werequeried thefollowing on households aspects:

3775

Thesearethehousedwellingorpremises. holdswhere is easiesttolevyusercharges. it all 'tapped'18.2 Arguably, the remaining million odd householdsrequireat least in some improvements access to water. But that is not all. Another14.3 million householdsdo not have any access to municipalwater.These also need to be providedadequateaccess. Thus of the total 47.6 million urban households least32 millionhouseholds at in requiresome or majorimprovements access to waterwithin their dwellings. accessis likelytorequire Providing major investmentsin water supply infrastructure. the we Consequently term 15.1million householdsthat have sole access within theirdwellingsor premises,as those who havea low requirement suchinfrastrucfor tureimprovements. rest 32.5 million The householdsare termed as high requirement households,in that their adequate accessrequires infrastructure investment. In sum,thelargemajority the houseof holds requiresome investmentin water to supply infrastructure satisfy their reThesehouseholds to have tend quirements. a lower economicstatusas latersections will reveal. As apparent from the table above, the that of requirement tapwateris a problem acrossalltypesof townsandcities, spreads of irrespective thesize. Howeverfromour whatis moreimportant the is perspective economicstatusof the households,since thatwould have a greaterimpacton the abilityand willingnessto pay. In the next section we investigatethe economic statusof householdsto determine their ability to contributefor such investments.
Ill

Numberof (2) Newspapersubscription: newspaperssubscribedby a household. Individual (3) Modeof regular commuting; level information daily commutefor on workor education foot, cycle, animal by: drawn transport,public transport,taxi, autos, two- and four-wheelers. Basedonthisinformation categorised we households on their economic status. This involved a two step methodology. First,each householdwas given a value ratingof 1, 2 or 3, for each of the three each Therefore, houselifestylecategories. hold now hada rating eachof thethree for categories. Inthesecondstagea consolidated rating was given to each urbanhouseholdby thesevalueratings. instance For summing a householdthat does not have a television, but where commutingoccurs by a two-wheeler,and subscribesto a single a obtains consolidated of newspaper rating 5. These consolidated value ratingswere then used to classify householdsas high mediumand low economic status. The finaleconomicstatuswas therefore assigned on the basis listed in the table above.Forinstance,low economicstatus households considered be thosewho are to do not have a TV, do not subscribeto a newspaper,and commuteon foot or bicycle. Though,to accountfor certainidiosyncrasies,we also includein this class the householdswho performbetterthan the minimumin any one of these characteristics. Similarconsiderations made were for other categories.

Cross-checking the Results Phone Ownership

As mentioned earlier,thereareno standardmeasuresfor assessingthe income/ of expenditure capability the households. The methodology the thusascertains economic status,which in a manner reflects Table8: Step 1 - RatingEachHousehold for EachCategory
LifestyleCategory TV No television Blackand White ColourTV Modeof commuting Foot or bicycle Publictransport, rickshawand animaltransport Ownedcar, two-wheelers,taxiand auto Newspaperssubscribed 0 1 >=2 Rating 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Table 9: Step 2 - Final Rating for Each Household Consolidated Numberof Per Cent Economic Households of Total Status Rating (Millions 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unavailable Total 9.0 10.3 6.3 4.3 4.0 2.3 0.4 11.0 47.6 19.0 21.6 13.2 9.0 8.4 4.8 0.9 23.1 100.0 Low Medium High

Table 6: Distribution of Households Across Right to Use and Distance from Source (HouseholdswithTaps (Millions)) Right/ Distance Sole Shared Community Others Missing Tappedhouseholds Untappedhouseholds Totalurbanhouseholds Dwell 12.9 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 15.3 3.1 18.4 Premises 2.2 5.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 8.4 4.4 12.9 Others 0.1 1.4 7.2 0.9 0.0 9.6 6.7 16.3 Missing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 15.2 8.7 8.4 1.0 0.0 33.3 14.3 47.6

Economic StatusandAbility to Pay

Thedata-set does notcontainany information on aspects such as per capita of monthly expenditures households the standardmeasure of economic status. Neitherdoes it provide any information on the households' expenditureon any products.However,some householdand individual level informationis present that allow us to extractthe following information: The data providede(1) TV ownership: tails as to the type of television owned; thereforewe have informationwhether each householdhas no television, black and white, or colour television.

Table 7: Distribution of Households Across Towns and Requirement for Water Infrastructure Improvement (Percent) Class of Town as (Population per 1991 Census) Less than 50,000 50,000-2 Lakhs 2 Lakhs-10Lakhs Morethan 10 Lakhs Morethan 10 Lakhs Total Total(Millions) LowRequirement HighRequirement Total 23.3 29.2 37.5 40.5 28.6 31.7 15.1 76.7 70.8 62.5 59.5 71.4 68.1 32.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 47.6 Total(Millions) 13.3 12.0 10.4 11.1 0.7 47.6

3776

Economicand PoliticalWeekly September 2001 29,

the capability of the households [Bhandari and Dubey 2001]. The economic status as obtained after the aggregated rating was compared with the ownership of phones. As expected, a majority of those having telephones fell in the high economic status category. While majority of those not having a phone connection belonged to the low and medium economic status. This result indicates that the variables used in classification do relate with other independent variables that highlight the economic status. We have therefore been able to stratify 37 of the 47 million urban households on the basis of theireconomic status. The bulk of the households, as expected, are in the economic strata who would have a low capabilityto pay for any capital investment for improvement of water supply at their end. The next section attempts to develop a policy strategy for ensuring good water supply to all. In doing that it takes into considerationvarious factors - the requirement and the capability of the households as well as many other factors.

IV PolicyImplications
On the basis of the capability of the various households for investment as reflected from their economic status and the need for water, the crucial decision of the type of improvement has to be made. On one extreme we have a set of households who have a high need but their economic statusdoes not reflect theirability to make investment for improvements. Such households account for almost onethirdof the total urbanhouseholds. On the other extreme there is a set of high economic status households that already have adequateaccess - they are unlikely to pay though they have the ability to pay. Specific strategies have to be drawn to cover all these sets of households. (1) Low need - Low economic status: These are less than 10 per cent of all the urban households. These households have their need nearly satisfied at present. They are also not in a position to pay for improvements. Status quo needs to be maintained for these households. It would require operation and maintenance expenditure on the part of the government. However, if any across the board rate increases are made, these households are likely to be the most vociferous protestors.

Neighbourhoods that contain large proportion of such households would need to be insulated from such increases. (2) Low Need - Medium Economic Status: About 2.3 million (5 per cent of the total) urbanhouseholds belong to this set. Having medium capability with a low need for improvement, they can pay nominal user charges. They arealso less likely to support price increases to finance better supply. Though they may not be as stringent protestors. (3)' Low Need - High Economic Status: These comprise about 6.6 million (14 per cent of the total). These have the capability to pay for the provision of the present service and also for little improvements, such as availability of tap water within dwelling from premises.They arenot likely to support improvements in access. However, as is true for higher economic status groups elsewhere, they have a high inclination to pay premiums for better quality. In the case of water supply this would include cleanerwaterwith low levels of dirt, minerals, and biological matter, as well as 24-hour water supply. These groups would not support improvements in simple access (though they may not be vociferous protestors either). However, they are likely to be strong supporters if better quality is assured. (4) High Need - Low Economic Status: The major chunk of the total urbanhouseholds, about 15.9 million, fall under this category. Their low economic statusstands in the way of improvements without government subsidy. For this set of households, budgetaryprovisions towards infrastructure investment are essential. These households, a third of the total urban households, may have some ability to pay user charges. However, our data is limited and we cannot make an unambiguous judgment on that front. For that purpose a study that analyses their expenditure and income patterns would be required. This segment of the population has the most to gain by government support and would be the most vociferous supporters of water supply refdrm. However care would have to be taken in designing the fee structure. Some non-price constraints may have to be considered if charges are extremely low. (5) High Need - Medium Economic Status: Slightly more thanfour million households (8 per cent of the total) fall in this category. Though they have a high need they are limited by their capability to

generate funds. These households would be less likely to have the ability to pay for improvements but more likely to be able to pay the user fees. Charges for infrastructure improvements if imposed would need to be spread over a period of time. These households would be willing supportersfor improvements,providedthat the burden on them is not too high. (6) High Need High Capability: There are about4.4 million such households in urban India. These households can make one time capital investment for the required improvement and also pay any recurring charges towards maintenance of the necessary services. These households would also be supporters of government initiative on water Table 10: Economic Status and Phone Ownership
EconomicStatus Low Medium High Missing Total No Telephon Total Telephone 46.6 14.1 14.8 24.5 100.0 2.8 7.7 75.3 14.3 100.0 40.6 13.2 23.0 23.1 100.0

Table 11: Urban Households and Water Supply: Economic Capability and Requirement
(EconomicStatus) Low High UnavailableTotal 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 19.3 6.3 11.0 11.0 47.6

Infrastructure Requirement Low 3.3 16.0 Medium 2.3 4.0 4.4 6.6 High Unavailable 3.0 8.0 Total 32.4 15.1

Table.12: Willingness to Contributefor Improvements in Sanitation

(Neighbourhood) Contribution Numberof Households Per Cent (Millions) Money Labour Both Neither Missing Total 10.2 14.6 8.6 14.0 0.1 47.6 21.34 30.69 18.18 29.5 0.3 100

Table 13: Perceptions of Sufficiency of Water Supply

Sufficiency Requirement Low Yes No Missing Total 13.4
.1.7

High 27.0 5.4 0.0 32.4

of (Number Householdsin Millions) Missing Total 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 40.5 7.1 0.0 47.6

0.0 15.1

Economicand PoliticalWeekly September29, 2001

3777

Strategy Chartfor Various Categories

Requirement. Low Z Low StatusQuo(3.3) Go MediumNominal Charges .o (2.3) E RevisedCharges C High o (6.6) High (16.0) Support ChargesSpread over a period(4.0) and Investment Charges(4.4)

the consumers' benchmarking. In other words, for improving access consumer support is essential. For that, urban consumers have to believe that 24-hour supply, universal access, and clean water, arenot inconceivable but a likelihood. This we believe should be the firstfocus of water infrastructure improvement initiatives.

of Thefiguresinbracket indicatethe number households in each category in millions.

Conclusion
In almost all cities and towns in India many households do not have access to water on tap. Of those that do, most have to share it with others. Of those who do not have to shareit, manyhave to transportit fromoutside theirdwelling. It is well known that even those who have water on tap for their sole consumption within their dwelling, the supplyis erraticandthequality poor. This paper first brings out the number of households involved and theireconomic characteristics. then links theabilityto pay It with the need for water access improvement at the consumer's end. In the process it provides a framework for developing strategies that would ensure the following: - Political supportofthecarious segments and sub-segments of the end consumers - Chargingfor the infrastructure improvements - Levying user fees The paper is a step in a direction where clean, 24-hour, and universal access to water is present for all. Though much more needs to be done before an all India comprehensive strategy is put in place. For instance greater details on the consumption and expenditure habits are required before levels user charges can be decided upon. Similarly a better understanding of how population growth is occurring also

infrastructureinvestment, provided credible initiatives are taken.

has to be studied. Moreover, this paper addresses only one end of the water supply process. Infrastructure improvements in obtaining and transporting water also require serious study. We argue that improvement programmes require serious strategy building prior to investments. This strategy building would have to take into consideration public support. And our results indicate that building public support would require extensive public awareness 113 programmes.

Involving Households - Views

on Contribution

References
ADB (1993): 'Service Levels and the UrbanPoor, ManagingWaterResourcesto Meet Megacity of Needs', Theme paper,Proceedings Regional Consultations, Manila. Bhandari, L and Amaresh Dubey (2001): 'The Affluent in India 2000', NCAER. Boland, John J and Dale Whittington (2001): 'WaterTariffDesign in DevelopingCountries: Disadvantages of IBTs and Advantages of UPR Designs', Draft. GoI (1999): Indian Public Finance Statistics, 1998-99, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, GoI, New Delhi. Hardoy, Ana and Ricardo Schusterman(2000): 'New Models for Privatisationand Sanitation for the Urban Poor', Environment and Urbanisation, Vol 12, No 2, October. Khandwalla, Pradip N (1999): Revitalising the State, Sage, New Delhi. NSSO (1999): 'Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in India', Report449(54/31/1), Gol, New Delhi, July. Srivastava, D K and Tapas K Sen et al (1997): Government Subsidies in India, National Institute of Pfblic Finance and Policy, New Delhi. on UWSS (1997): Workshop Urban WaterSupply and Sanitation, Consultants Report, May. WSP (2001): 'The Buenos Aries Concession The Private Sector Serving the Poor', Water and Sanitation Programme, South Asia, January.

The data also contains responses to queries on households' perceptions on improving sanitation in general. This also to some extent reflects their views on water supply in particular.Note that about 40 per cent of the households are willing to contribute financially in some way. Another 30 per cent are willing to put in their own labour for the purpose. Thus in total about 70 per cent of the households are stating that they have some interest in improving their conditions However queries on the 'sufficiency' of waterreveal a different picture - more than 80 per cent of the households across different segments, consider that they have sufficient supply. However, the bulk of these households do not have even sufficient access as the data reveal. We argue that this is because the bulk of the population benchmarkssufficiency at very low levels. Therefore, it is conceivable that improvementprogrammesdo not get much public support. The approach paper to the Ninth Plan estimates that 85 per cent of India's Urban population has access to water supplies. However, adequate details on quality of service delivered are not generally available. While many schemes are designed for a 24-hour supply using 150/200 liters per capita per day demand, consumers experience regularshortages with only few hours supply each day [UWSS 1997]. Take for example, Delhi. Only 20 per cent of the capital's population receive 24 hours water supply; 60 per cent obtain it for between 4-12 hrs; and the rest less than four hours. A small survey indicated that the majority of consumers in Delhi would be satisfied with a daily supply of 5-6 hrs/ day [ADB 1993]. any improvement Consequently programme would first have to improve

Just

Published

in India

MARX'S

ECOLOGY

materialism and nature By John Bellamy Foster CONTENTS * Preface * Introduction * The Materialist Question of ? Conception Nature The ReallyEarthly * Parson Naturalists TheMaterialist of ? Conception * Metabolism Nature Society* The of and History The Basis in NaturalHistoryfor OurView ? Epilogue * Notes0 Index Paymentsby MO/DD only, payableto CORNERSTONE PUBLICATIONS W.B. P.O.HIJLI KHARAGPUR-721306, CO-OPERATIVE,

3778

Economic and Political Weekly

September 29, 2001