Demystifying the Aquatic Paradox: The Infant Mortality in India

Abstract

It is evident that better access to improved water sources will lead to the lessening of infant mortality rate (IMR). However, for India, such inference is ambiguous. There is a strong group of academicians such as Sahu et al. (2015) , Arun et al. (2017) and Tripathy and Mishra (2017) and organizations such as UNICEF that firmly believe that if access to the improved water sources can be improved, then there would be tremendous social welfare and much betterment to the IMR. On the other hand, Banerjee et al. (2020) have refuted such claims and opined that access to improved water sources increases the IMR. The empirical validation of their claim has been flawless, but they are somewhat silent on why such a direct relationship between IMR and improved water source exists. They have made a comment based on assumptions that it might be complacency that develops with access to improved water sources that refrain the people to consider any type of water treatment before passing it to infants for drinking. Such a comment might be valid, but neither is it built upon a sound literature review nor does it stand on strong empirics. At this juncture, the present article tests the claim of Banerjee et al. (2020) based on pure empirics.

Improved Yet Unsafe: At the Light of NFHS-V

“…However, Banerjee (2020a, Journal of Health Management, 22 (1), 57–66), analysing NFHS-IV data, has vehemently criticised such findings and showed using regression with robust standard errors that improved access to better water sources leads to higher infant mortality. In another article published in the same year, Banerjee (2020b, Journal of Health Management, 22 (3), 466–471) explained this paradox. Now with NFHS-V data coming out, time is apt to test the robustness of Banerjee’s findings (2002a).…”