**Table 5:** The effect of voice and accountability on access to sanitation

||Full|Population|Urban|Population|Rural P|opulation|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|_Panel A: Second-stage regression (Depend_|_ent variable is ac_|_cess to sanitation)_|||||
|Voice and accountability|0.323***|0.177**|0.241***|0.127*|0.423***|0.322**|
||(0.079)|(0.076)|(0.073)|(0.067)|(0.090)|(0.126)|
|**AR confdence intervals**|[0.16, 0.50]|[0.06, 0.44]|[0.09, 0.39]|[0.01, 0.34]|[0.27, 0.65]|[0.15, 0.8]|
|log real GDP per capita||0.150***<br>(0.040)||0.117***<br>(0.031)||0.103<br>(0.065)|
|log population density||-0.006<br>(0.016)||-0.017<br>(0.014)||0.004<br>(0.024)|
|_Panel B: First-stage regression (Dependen_|_t variable is voic_|_e)_|||||
|Mean years of schooling, 1900|0.826***|0.689***|0.823***|0.680***|0.823***|0.680***|
||(0.172)|(0.204)|(0.172)|(0.204)|(0.172)|(0.204)|
|Regional dummies|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|
|_R_-squared|0.412|0.750|0.520|0.780|0.105|0.410|
|Observations|73|72|72|71|72|71|
|F-stat of excl. instruments|23.01|11.36|22.84|11.17|22.84|11.17|
|Effective F-stat of excl. instruments|14.44|8.99|14.23|8.677|14.23|8.677|
|Kleibergen & Paap (2006)test(_p_-value)|0.009|0.007|0.009|0.007|0.009|0.007|

Notes:<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup> and<sup>_∗∗_</sup> indicate significance at the 1% and 5% level. Robust standard errors in parentheses. AR confidence intervals correspond to the 95% Anderson-Rubin confidence intervals robust against weak instruments and heteroscedasticity. The _p-values_ of the Kleibergen & Paap (2006) test correspond to a test in which the null hypothesis is that the equation is underidentified, and under the null, the statistic is distributed as chi-squared.

We begin by discussing the results in column 1 of Table 5, where we only include _Voice_ and regional dummies in the model. The dummies of the regions included are Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, East Asia and Pacific, Sub-Sahara Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. The omitted group is South Asia. From column 1, we see that _Voice_ has a large and positive effect on access to sanitation with a coefficient of 0.323, which is fairly precisely estimated, with standard error of 0.079. This results implies that a one unit increase in _Voice_ increases access to sanitation by 32.3 percentage points. Furthermore, Panel B of the Table shows that our instrumental variable explains a large proportion of the variation in _Voice_ and is statistically significant showing that there is a strong firststage association with _Voice_ . This suggests that our instrument passes the instrumental relevance test. The associated F-statistic and Effective F-statistic of excluded instrument are approximately 23 and 14, respectively. This is larger than the rule-of-thumb value of 10 (see Andrews et al., 2018). Furthermore, the AR confidence interval shows that the interval excludes a zero effect.

Column 2 in Table 5 reports the results from the specification that includes the control variables. The controls are the log income per capita and the log population density. Introducing these controls almost halves the coefficient of _voice_ to 0.177 implying that a unit increase in _Voice_ increases access to sanitation by 17.7 percentage points. The coefficient is also statistically significant at the 5% level and it is fairly precisely estimated, with standard errors of 0.076. Additionally, the first-stage regression in Panel B for column 2 shows that the coefficient of the instrumental variable is large and statistically significant. However, the associated F-statistic and the Effective F-statistic of excluded instrument are 11.36 and 8.99, respectively. These values are close to the Staiger and Stock (1997) rule-ofthumb value of 10 although the F-statistic is marginally greater than 10. Given the closeness of the Effective F statistic to the threshold value, we rely on the AR confidence interval for inference. The AR confidence interval clearly shows 12