Hypothesis 2

Out of the six indicators, four of them (asset ownership, bathroom facility, fuel for cooking, and condition of household) are likely to be governed by choices made by households of where to invest their disposable income : Should we invest in purchasing assets, or improve sanitation facilities at our home, or use a better fuel for cooking? We call these discretionary variables because they seem to be more about household preferences than limited by government investments in social infrastructure. Although the choice of bathroom facility and fuel for cooking can be influenced by government assistance, such as by providing sewer connections for bathrooms or distributing LPG for cooking fuel, but irrespective of this government support an individual household can still upgrade itself if needed. For example, pit latrines, covered slabs, or septic tanks can be used instead of piped sewers, or instead of an LPG connection healthier alternatives for fuel for cooking can be used such as coal, or kerosene. We find that asset ownership seems to be changing the fastest irrespective of the type of the district. This remains consistent even when disaggregated based on the current status of the variables. People seem to invest more readily for assets than for other amenities that would lead to a healthier lifestyle for the household. This choice can be influenced by many factors. Consumer behaviour research shows that personal, interpersonal, and cultural effects can shape asset acquisition and usage, and in particular assets are often seen as status symbols. Alternately, assets such as mobile phones could be economically useful as well, as reported in the context of fishermen and wholesalers in South India. Further, the amount of disposable income may also play a role: A cheap mobile phone would cost much less than installing a simple water filter, for example.