**Table 3:** Percentage of people using basic sanitation services

|||Access to sanitati|on (%)||||Access to sanitat|ion (%)||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Country|% Pop.|% Rural Pop.|% Urban Pop.|Gap|Country|% Pop.|% Rural Pop.|% Urban Pop.|Gap|
|Malaysia|98.7|97.3|99.4|2.10|Philippines|70.5|65.9|76.0|10.1|
|Jordan|97.8|96.7|97.9|1.30|South Africa|69.9|63.0|74.5|11.4|
|Serbia|96.7|94.9|98.1|3.20|Myanmar|69.2|64.9|79.9|14.9|
|Costa Rica|96.1|92.9|97.5|4.70|Nicaragua|67.4|54.6|77.1|22.5|
|Thailand|95.8|96.3|94.9|-1.4|Guatemala|65.4|51.7|80.0|28.3|
|Albania|95.5|92.9|98.1|5.10|Indonesia|63.9|52.1|76.1|24.0|
|Egypt, Arab Rep.|94.6|92.4|97.5|5.10|Eswatini|57.2|57.0|58.1|1.00|
|Mauritius|93.8|93.0|95.0|1.90|Pakistan|51.4|39.6|73.4|33.8|
|T ̈urkiye|93.7|83.9|98.0|14.1|Bolivia|50.3|29.0|61.0|31.9|
|Argentina<br>|91.9<br>|74.3|94.6|20.3|Yemen, Rep.<br>|50.1|34.3|83.6<br>|49.3|
|Libya|91.5|—|—|—|Senegal|48.1|34.7|65.4|30.7|
|Fiji|90.5|86.6|94.3|7.80|Gambia, The|46.5|41.0|49.7|8.70|
|Syrian Arab Republic|90.5|88.1|92.6|4.50|Nepal|46.2|44.5|55.1|10.6|
|Cuba|89.4|82.1|91.7|9.60|India|45.4|36.8|64.8|28.0|
|Tunisia|87.9|73.0|95.5|22.5|Cambodia|41.2|32.5|74.7|42.2|
|Russian Federation|87.1|66.3|94.5|28.2|Cameroon|41.0|23.3|57.2|33.9|
|Sri Lanka|86.8|87.1|85.6|-1.4|Bangladesh|40.5|37.5|48.0|10.5|
|Algeria|86.4|77.2|90.8|13.7|Zimbabwe|40.5|33.8|53.9|20.1|
|Bulgaria|85.9|83.7|86.8|3.10|Afghanistan|36.6|32.7|48.7|16.0|
|Belize|85.9|82.5|90.0|7.50|Lesotho|32.2|31.1|35.8|4.70|
|Mexico|85.8|72.0|89.9|17.9|Kenya|31.9|30.7|35.5|4.80|
|Iran, Islamic Rep.|85.6|73.2|90.9|17.7|Mali|31.2|22.8|45.9|23.1|
|Iraq|85.5|77.9|88.9|11.0|Sudan|29.3|18.3|51.2|32.9|
|Colombia|85.3|72.4|88.9|16.5|Haiti|28.3|19.2|37.9|18.7|
|Jamaica|84.9|86.7|83.5|-3.2|Cˆote d’Ivoire|27.8|13.6|43.4|29.8|
|Guyana|83.5|81.5|88.8|7.30|Zambia|27.7|17.4|43.6|26.3|
|El Salvador|83.2|72.8|88.5|15.6|Malawi|24.1|22.4|33.2|10.8|
|Paraguay|83.1|72.0|90.9|18.8|Mozambique|23.7|12.3|46.9|34.6|
|Dominican Republic|82.9|73.9|86.0|12.1|Congo, Dem. Rep.|19.3|16.9|22.5|5.60|
|<br>Brazil|82.6|51.0|88.5|37.5|<br>Uganda|18.5|16.0|28.4|12.4|
|Ecuador|81.6|72.9|86.9|13.9|Liberia|16.2|5.30|27.9|22.6|
|Romania|80.0|63.4|94.4|30.9|Ghana|15.7|10.1|21.0|10.9|
|Morocco|78.8|62.2|90.6|28.4|Togo|14.2|5.50|28.1|22.6|
|China|77.0|67.5|87.3|19.8|Sierra Leone|13.6|7.20|23.6|16.3|
|Honduras|74.8|67.3|81.9|14.6|Benin|13.2|5.30|23.4|18.1|
|Panama|74.2|55.7|83.9|28.2|Niger|10.7|5.40|37.9|32.5|
|Peru|72.1|46.4|80.1|33.7||||||

Notes: Access to sanitation is People using at least basic sanitation services (% of population). Gap is the difference between People using at least basic sanitation services, urban (% of urban population) and People using at least basic sanitation services, rural (% of rural population). _Source_ : Authors’ illustration from the World Development Indicators World Bank (2021).

Rica have low rural-urban gaps because access to sanitation in both areas is high.

4.2 INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE A difficulty in estimating the effect of _Voice_ on access to and use of sanitation is the possible endogeneity of _Voice_ . While _Voice_ may have a positive effect on access to sanitation, sanitation could also improve human capital and economic and institutional development of which _Voice_ is a part. It is also possible that both _Voice_ and access to sanitation are being driven by an unobserved common factor. In addition to these factors, institutional variables, such as _Voice_ are measured with substantial errors (Rodrik et al., 2004). All these factors could introduce endogeneity when _Voice_ is used in a regression analysis, making it difficult to infer causal effects.

Given the possible endogeneity of our independent variable, OLS estimates are likely to be biased. To address this endogeneity issue, we use primary school enrollment rate in 1900 as an instrument to achieving identification. The core argument is that historical levels of education plays an important role in teaching civic education and highlighting the role of governments while raising awareness of basic individual rights in civil society (Glaeser et al., 2007). This means that countries with historically higher levels of education will likely have societies with active civic 9