Why is the Vaccination Rate Low in India? ========================================= * Pramod Kumar Sur ## Abstract India has had an established universal immunization program since 1985 and immunization services are available for free in healthcare facilities. Despite this, India has one of the lowest vaccination rates globally and contributes to the largest pool of under-vaccinated children in the world. Why is the vaccination rate low in India? This paper explores the importance of historical events in shaping India’s current vaccination practices. We examine India’s aggressive family planning program implemented during the period of emergency rule in the 1970s, under which millions of individuals were forcibly sterilized. We find that greater exposure to the forced sterilization policy has had negative effects on the current vaccination rate. We also find that institutional delivery and antenatal care are currently low in states where policy exposure is high. Together, the evidence suggests that the forced sterilization policy has had a persistent effect on current health-seeking behavior in India. **JEL Classification** N35, I15, I18, O53, Z1 Keywords * Vaccination * family planning * sterilization * institutional delivery * antenatal care * persistence ## 1. Introduction About one in three child deaths due to vaccine-preventable diseases globally occur in India alone (Black et al. 2010). India also contributes to the largest pool of under-vaccinated children in the world (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2013). Moreover, India has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the world. For example, India’s vaccination rate is even lower than that of its nearest neighbors Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal, all of which have a lower GDP than India.1 According to India’s National Family and Health Survey 2015–16 (NFHS-4), only 62% of children between 12 and 23 months of age received all basic vaccinations in 2015–16. The coverage rate for the third dose of the diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus (DPT-3) vaccine, a frequently used proxy for the success of a country’s vaccination program, is 78%, well below the global average of 86%.2 The statistics on India’s lower vaccination rate are particularly puzzling because India already has had an established Universal Immunization Program (UIP) since 1985, and immunization services are offered for free in public health facilities. So why is the vaccination rate low in India? Recent empirical studies suggest that the lower vaccination rate is explained by individual-level characteristics, including gender, age, birth order, and other household factors such as family size, number of children in the household, household wealth, place of residence, caste, religion, and maternal education (Francis et al. 2018; Ghosh and Laxminarayan 2017; Shrivastwa et al. 2015; Srivastava, Fledderjohann, and Upadhyay 2020). However, such characteristics cannot explain all the differences (see Figure A1 in the Appendix). For example, according to the NFHS-4 estimates, the vaccination rate is still relatively low among male children (62.1%), for a child with the lowest birth order (67.3%), urban residents (63.8%), mothers with 12 or more years of education (69.7%), Hindu households (63%), forward castes (64.5%), and households in the highest wealth quintile (70%). 3 Furthermore, a recent study highlighted that the demand for vaccination is low even when there is a reliable supply of free immunization services with incentives (Banerjee et al. 2010). What explains the paradox of the low vaccination rate in India? The main objective of this paper is to understand the factors behind this puzzle of India’s lower vaccination rate and provide plausible causal evidence. Addressing this question is not only fundamental from a scientific standpoint, but also essential in terms of ethical reasons and policy aspects for the following reasons. First, the cost of poor vaccination in India is high. According to India’s most recent estimates in 2015, about two-thirds of all types of deaths in children aged 1–59 months were due to vaccine-preventable diseases such as diarrhea, pertussis, measles, meningitis, and pneumonia (Liu et al. 2016). Second, there is a need to improve the uptake of routine vaccination in India. Therefore, an increasing number of efforts are being undertaken to improve India’s vaccination rate through various government programs such as Mission Indradhanush, Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI), and IMI 2.0. However, little scientific evidence exists on the causal pathways through which individual and social characteristics influence decision-making for childhood vaccinations (Francis et al. 2018). Finally, considering the current state of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the need for universal vaccination, policy-makers and practitioners need to understand the factors affecting India’s vaccination practice to carve out a pragmatic policy and maximize the uptake of a new vaccine. This paper provides the first empirical investigation of the importance of historical events in shaping current vaccination practices in India. In particular, we examine whether the aggressive family planning program, under which the forced sterilization policy was implemented during the emergency rule in India in the 1970s, could partly explain the lower vaccination rate today. India went through a brief period of autocratic rule between June 1975 and January 1977 under prime minister Indira Gandhi.4 During this period, she proclaimed a national emergency, under which the Indian constitution was suspended for a wide range of civil liberties. A distinctive feature synonymous with this period that affected the general population was the aggressive family planning policy through forced sterilization (hereafter, forced sterilization policy) in the latter part of the emergency period. After about a year of emergency rule, in April 1976, the Ministry of Health and Family Planning introduced a National Population Policy (NPP) under which a family planning program was aggressively undertaken mostly through sterilizing individuals in several parts of India. The NPP led to a sharp increase in sterilization, and about 8.3 million operations were performed between April 1976 and March 1977, more than three times the number in the previous year. The majority of the sterilizations performed during this period involved men undergoing a vasectomy—a surgical procedure for male sterilization. These sterilizations were performed by government doctors in public healthcare facilities or temporary sterilization camps established by the government. Historical records, court rulings, and anecdotal evidence suggest that incentives and disincentives were provided, coercion was enforced, and misinformation was delivered by public healthcare staff to motivate individuals to undergo sterilization during this period (Shah Commission of Inquiry 1978; Panandiker, Bishnoi, and Sharma 1978). We hypothesize that the forced sterilization policy undertaken during the emergency rule period may have had an unintended effect on India’s vaccination practice. There are reasons to expect that the policy could have had unintended consequences on vaccination practice in India. First, the same organization that implemented the forced sterilization policy a year earlier introduced the immunization program in 1978, which about a decade later, in 1985, become the UIP, which currently promotes the vaccination of children. 5 Second, the public healthcare staff (e.g., community health workers, auxiliary nurse midwives) that provided misinformation to motivate individuals to get sterilized during the emergency period are the ones that primarily engage in motivating parents to vaccinate their children. Finally, anecdotal evidence suggests that one of the main challenges for the recent vaccination campaign through IMI in 2017 was concern about the circulation of misinformation about vaccines, rumors about adverse events, and conspiracy theories, including vaccines causing sterilization (Gurnani et al. 2018). Therefore, we examine the unintended consequences of the forced sterilization policy during the emergency period on India’s current vaccination practice. To measure exposure to the forced sterilization policy, we digitized the historical yearbooks published by the Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Department of Family Planning, Government of India. These yearbooks report statistics on family planning programs performed between April and March every year at the state and union territory (UT) levels.6 Our primary measure of exposure to the forced sterilization policy is the number of excess sterilizations performed between April 1976 and March 1977 (after the introduction of the NPP), normalized by its performance in the previous year.7 We also support our primary measure of exposure to the forced sterilization policy with different sterilization measures, including the total number of sterilizations performed in 1976–77, the excess number of sterilizations performed in 1976–77, total and excess sterilizations in a natural logarithm scale, and an alternative measure of exposure to sterilization measured by vasectomies, which constituted the majority of the sterilizations performed during this period. Our primary outcome is vaccination completion rates. We examine vaccination completion rates using data from India’s national representative NFHS-4. The NFHS-4 reports a total of 13 vaccines for children under the age of 5 years.8 It categorizes these 13 vaccines into three groups: basic vaccinations (Bacillus Calmette–Guérin [BCG], Measles, DPT 1–3, and Polio 1–3), age-appropriate vaccinations (basic vaccinations + Hepatitis-B 0–3), and other (Polio 0). We construct three vaccination indexes that measure the share of completed vaccinations in each category for children under the age of 5 years.9 We find that higher exposure to the forced sterilization policy is associated with lower current vaccination completion rates on all vaccination index measures. Our results are robust to a variety of controls, consideration of specific cohorts of children, and a number of alternative measures of exposure to the forced sterilization policy. After establishing that the forced sterilization policy has a negative association with India’s current vaccination completion rate, we next turn to the task of addressing concerns over reverse causality and omitted variable bias using an instrumental variable (IV) approach. Reverse causality will arise if the forced sterilization policy is strategically targeted towards places or regions where the propensity to vaccinate is low. Our second concern is the issue of omitted variable bias, which would arise if some other variable were jointly determining exposure to the forced sterilization policy and the vaccination rate that we do not account for in our estimation. We construct an instrument based on the well-known insight from the emergency period that the forced sterilization policy was aggressively undertaken because of the active role played by Sanjay Gandhi, the son of the prime minister Indira Gandhi (Gwatkin 1979; Vicziany 1982; Chandra 2017; Indian National Congress 2011; Nayar 2013; Williams 2014). Family planning was a key element of his self-declared five-point program, and became the central theme of public address during this period. Although Mr. Gandhi did not hold any formal position in government, he and his colleagues in Delhi were at the center of the action and continuously influenced regional political leaders, particularly in the states adjacent to the national capital Delhi over which they had an influence (Shah Commission of Inquiry 1978). Consequently, northern parts of India, especially adjacent states such as Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, were later popularly known as the “vasectomy belt” because of the large number of (male) sterilizations performed during this period. Gwatkin (1979) further found that distance from New Delhi (as a proxy for Mr. Gandhi’s influence), which was *previously irrelevant*, emerged as an important determinant of excess sterilization performance and was itself capable of explaining two-thirds of the variation in performance among the states. Considering these insights, we use the distance of state capitals from New Delhi as an instrument to capture the variation in exposure to the forced sterilization policy. The IV estimates suggest that the forced sterilization policy has had a large significant negative effect on the vaccination completion rate in India. We find that an average increase in excess sterilization (from zero to 3.45 times) decreases the completion of all vaccinations by about 8.1 percentage points. This is relative to a baseline completion rate of 32.1% for our sample as a whole. Our results are also robust to clustering standard errors at different levels. A potential concern could be that our instrument is not exogenous. To address this concern, we perform two falsification exercises. In our first falsification exercise, we formally test Gwatkin’s (1979) insight. Because Mr. Gandhi had no personal influence over sterilization before 1976, our instrumental variable should have no predictive power on sterilization performance before 1976; that is exactly what we find. We perform a placebo IV test and find that the distance to state capitals from New Delhi has no predictive power for excess sterilization performed in 1975–76 in the first stage or the vaccination rate in the second. In the second falsification exercise, we consider female sterilization, or tubectomy, which was not the main focus during India’s forced sterilization period. The main reason was that tubectomy constituted major abdominal surgery, whereas vasectomy is a relatively quick procedure, and recipients can be discharged on the same day of the operation. Because sterilization was mostly performed in temporary camps, and existing infrastructure struggled to cope with a large number of operations because of the increased pressure and intentions to meet the target, vasectomy was preferred over tubectomy (Gwatkin 1979; Shah Commission of Inquiry 1978; Scott 2017). We test this narrative and find that our instrumental variable has no predictive power for excess female sterilizations performed during 1976–77 in the first stage and the vaccination rate in the second. These falsification exercises suggest that our instrumental variable is plausibly exogenous. We then turn to examine the heterogeneous effect of the forced sterilization policy on the current vaccination rate. To do this, we explore each vaccine separately to obtain some insights into whether the lower vaccination rate we observe differs for some specific vaccine. We find that higher exposure to the forced sterilization policy has the largest negative and statistically significant effect on vaccines given at birth (i.e., Polio 0 and Hepatitis 0). Second, although not robust, the vaccination rate declines with higher doses for vaccines administered multiple times, such as hepatitis, DPT, and polio. Finally, we examine the plausible channels through which the forced sterilization policy affects India’s current vaccination rate. First, considering the results from our heterogeneous analysis, we explore whether the place of delivery is a possible channel. Place of delivery (i.e., at home or a healthcare facility) is an important determinant for vaccination because some vaccines are given immediately after birth, and vaccines are mostly administered at healthcare facilities. In our sample, about 20% of children are born at home (noninstitutional delivery). We test whether exposure to the forced sterilization policy has any effect on the place of delivery. We find that exposure to the forced sterilization policy has a large, positive, and significant effect on noninstitutional delivery. Digging a little further, we also check the reasons for noninstitutional delivery. The NFHS-4 asks mothers for reasons for not delivering in a healthcare facility. The average effect size and coefficients of individual answers suggest that exposure to the forced sterilization policy on supply-side constraints—higher cost, the facility not being open, the facility being far away with no transportation, and no female provider—are minimum, sometimes negative, and statistically insignificant. However, the effects on demand-side constraints—no trust in healthcare facilities/poor service quality, not allowed by husband or family, not necessary, not customary— are large, positive, and statistically significant. These results suggest that demand-side constraints, including trust in the healthcare facility, are important mechanisms. We also test the effect of a plausible indirect channel of information provision on vaccination behavior. Several studies have shown that information provision is essential to generate take-up rates in health-seeking behavior (for a review, see Dupas and Miguel, 2017). We test this channel because one of the main challenges of India’s recent vaccination campaign was concern about the circulation of misinformation, rumors, and conspiracy theories, including vaccines causing sterilizations (Gurnani et al. 2018). In such an environment, the provision of reliable and accurate information can help increase the vaccination rate. We study one such platform: antenatal care (ANC). ANC not only is essential to reduce the health risks for mothers and their babies during pregnancy, but also can be an important source of reliable and accurate information regarding a child’s future health-seeking behavior, such as vaccination practice. We find that exposure to the forced sterilization policy has a large, negative, and significant effect on visiting a healthcare center for ANC and the number of visits conditional on receiving ANC. These results suggest that a lack of reliable and accurate information provision may also be an important channel. This paper contributes to several diverse literatures. First, it contributes to the literature on understanding the factors associated with India’s lower vaccination rate. Several papers, particularly those in the field of medical science, have focused on exploring the association between individual and household factors and non-vaccination and under-vaccination rates in India (Francis et al. 2018; Ghosh and Laxminarayan 2017; Shrivastwa et al. 2015; Srivastava, Fledderjohann, and Upadhyay 2020). Other works have tried to understand the state- and district-level differences in vaccination (Shrivastwa, Wagner, and Boulton 2019; Panda, Kumar, and Mishra 2020). Additionally, recent papers have examined the economic and social factors associated with lower vaccination practice in India through randomized experiments (Banerjee et al. 2010; Pramanik et al. 2018). We build on this literature in two ways. First, we compile novel historical data and provide the first empirical investigation of the importance of historical events in shaping India’s current vaccination practices. Second, we provide a causal pathway and the mechanisms through which historical characteristics influence decision-making about childhood vaccinations. This paper is also related to the broader literature on understanding the barriers associated with health-seeking behavior in developing countries (Dupas 2011). Recently, randomized experiments have been extensively used to examine both demand- and supply-side barriers to healthcare utilization (for a review, see Dupas and Miguel, 2017). We contribute to this literature on understanding the demand-side barriers to health-seeking behavior by considering historical intervention as a natural experiment. India is a typical case where the demand for health-seeking behavior such as vaccination is low, even if the burden is exceedingly high. For example, as recently as 2015, more than 300,000 children aged 1–59 months died from vaccine-preventable diseases (Liu et al. 2016). We present evidence suggesting that medical intervention in the past could have a long-term and persistent effect on adverse demand for health-seeking behavior. This work is also related to the literature on the unintended consequences of health interventions. For example, Alsan and Wanamaker (2018) show that the revelation of the Tuskegee study in the United States has had persistent negative effects on medical mistrust, mortality, and a decrease in healthcare use among older Black men. Relatedly, Lowes and Montero (2018) find that historical medical campaigns during the colonial period have had a long-term impact on health outcomes and trust in medicine in Africa. We build on this work by presenting evidence on how a population control policy implemented by the Indian government could have a long-term spillover effect on the vaccination use, institutional delivery, and ANC in India. Finally, this paper also contributes to the literature on understanding the importance of historical events on current development (Nunn 2009). This field has been studied extensively, beginning with the seminal work by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001) (for a review, see Nunn, 2014). We build on this literature in two ways. First, we demonstrate that a short-term policy that lasted for less than a year has had a large, negative, and significant long-term impact on later development outcomes measured by healthcare indicators. 10 Second, we present evidence showing that historical events can affect subsequent policies implemented by the same organization or government agencies, even when the policies were well-intentioned. This has important implications for public policy since several countries currently pursue evidence-based policy-making through experimentation. We empirically show that a policy failure (or success) could have spillover effects and could affect subsequent policies in the long-run. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a brief background to the emergency rule and the forced sterilization policy in India. Section 3 describes the historical and contemporary data used in the empirical analysis. Section 4 presents the OLS and IV results. Section 5 examines the heterogeneous effect of the forced sterilization policy on vaccination. Section 6 presents a direct and an indirect mechanism, and section 7 concludes. ## 2. Emergency Rule and Forced Sterilization in India On June 25, 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi proclaimed a national emergency in India. The exact reason for the proclamation of emergency is controversial. However, historians, sociologists, and political scientists agree that a combination of political and economic problems facing her and India could be the most likely factor. 11 In 1971, Mrs. Gandhi won a major national election under a radical slogan of ending poverty (*garibi hatao*). However, food production was decreased in the succeeding years because of poor rainfall. Furthermore, the balance of payments was in turmoil because of a sharp rise in oil prices and the subsequent slump in export demand. Things became more complicated in June 1975, when Allahabad High Court found Mrs. Gandhi guilty of various corrupt election practices in the 1971 national election, jeopardizing her continuation as the prime minister. The court decision led to opposition protests and demands that Mrs. Gandhi resign. Instead of resigning, she seized the moment and proclaimed a national emergency, justifying the situation as a threat to India’s internal stability (Hewitt 2007). The emergency rule allowed Mrs. Gandhi to suspend a wide range of civil liberties under the Indian constitution. Her government used this period to repress the opposition and institute censorship in the name of law and order. Thousands, including leading opposition leaders, were arrested, the press was censored, and public gatherings and strikes were declared illegal. With all the power in her hand, she undertook a series of new legislative and constitutional amendments to govern the country and extend the emergency period. Furthermore, she delayed parliamentary elections several times, indicating her intent to remain in power, an impression strengthened by (unofficially) elevating her younger son Sanjay to the position of apparent heir (Gwatkin 1979). However, in January 1977, Mrs. Gandhi unexpectedly called an election and released opposition leaders from jail, lifted press censorship, and permitted public meetings once again. The emergency period officially ended in March after the Indian National Congress party’s defeat in the Lok Sabha election (lower house of the Indian parliament). A distinguishing characteristic synonymous with this period was the aggressive family planning drive through forced sterilization.12 It started in April 1976, just over a year after the start of emergency rule. It began with the NPP for India introduced by the Ministry of Health and Family Planning to the parliament on April 17. The policy’s principal aim was to reduce the population growth rate by boosting the family planning program. The new policy incorporated a series of fundamental changes to reduce population growth. The legislation primarily included a substantial increase in monetary compensation for sterilization acceptors, encouragement for state-level incentives for family planning, disenfranchisement of states that failed to control fertility rates by freezing their representation in parliament based on the 1971 census figures, allocation of central assistance to states according to family planning performance, and most controversially, the provisions for state governments to pass compulsory sterilization legislation (Singh 1976). With the NPP’s introduction, the central government authorized and endorsed various coercive measures for sterilization and, in extreme cases, the provision for compulsory sterilization. The central and state governments substantially increased the financial rewards for sterilization acceptors. Through a range of incentives and disincentives, they pressured their employees to get sterilized and motivate others to do so. In some cases, quotas were imposed on government employees to produce people for sterilization. In other cases, citizens were required to produce sterilization certificates to access basic facilities, such as housing, irrigation, ration cards, and public healthcare facilities. Some extreme measures were also undertaken in some states. For example, the state government in Maharashtra passed a bill allowing compulsory sterilization of couples with three or more children (Shah Commission of Inquiry 1978; Panandiker, Bishnoi, and Sharma 1978).13 Historical records, court rulings, and anecdotal evidence from the field suggest that quotas were imposed, incentives and disincentives were provided, coercion was enforced, and misinformation was delivered to motivate individuals to undergo sterilization during this period.14 For example, in Uttar Pradesh, over 24,000 employees of the Department of Health and Family planning were not paid their salary in June 1976 for failure to complete their quota for the April–June quarter (Panandiker, Bishnoi, and Sharma 1978). Anecdotal evidence of some of the extreme coercive measures can be seen from the following incident in Uttawar, a village in the state of Haryana, on November 6, as reported in Gwatkin (1979, p. 46): * *The villagers of Uttawar were shaken from their sleep by loudspeakers ordering the menfolk-all above 15 to assemble at the bus-stop on the main Nuh-Hodol road. When they emerged, they found the whole village surrounded by the police. With the menfolk on the road, the police went into the village to see if anyone was hiding … As the villagers tell it, the men on the road were sorted out into eligible cases … and about 400 were taken to various thanas [headquarters towns], most to Palwal. Many had cases registered against them*—*a large number for alleged possession of illicit arms but most on suspicion of the threat of violence*—*and they were taken from there to clinics to be sterilized*. The aggressive family planning drive led to more than 8 million sterilizations in 1976–77, more than three times the number in the previous year. During the peak, over 1.7 million sterilizations were performed in September 1976 alone, a figure that equaled the annual average for the 10 preceding years (Gwatkin 1979). The majority of the sterilizations performed during this period involved men undergoing vasectomy. Out of about 8.3 million sterilizations performed in 1976– 77, about 6.2 million (about 75%) were achieved through vasectomy. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the forced sterilization policy’s legacy remained in peoples’ minds and can be felt even after the emergency rule is over. For example, to repair the family planning’s legacy, the Indian government changed the name of the Department of Family Planning to the Department of Family Welfare. Basu (1985) found that the family planning program shifted from vasectomy to tubectomy during the post-emergency period, when women emerged as the primary target. Tarlo (2000) notes that the word “emergency” itself became synonymous with “sterilization,” and many citizens even today refer to the emergency period as “*nasbandi ka vakt*” (the sterilization period). The emergency period remains controversial today and is still regarded as one of the darkest periods in the history of Indian democracy. The aggressive family planning program varied widely across states in India. The primary reason is the role of Sanjay Gandhi and his rapid rise to power during this period (Gwatkin 1979; Vicziany 1982; Nayar 2013; Chandra 2017; Williams 2014). Family planning was a key element of his self-declared five-point program and became the central theme of public addresses during this period. A report by the Indian National Congress (2011) suggests that the family planning program was pursued more vigorously because of Mr. Gandhi’s support. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that he and his colleagues were at the center of the action and continuously influenced regional political leaders, particularly those in adjacent states to the national capital, New Delhi, over whom they had an influence (Shah Commission of Inquiry 1978). Consequently, northern parts of India, especially states adjacent to New Delhi such as Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, were later popularly known as the “vasectomy belt” because of the large number of male sterilizations performed during this period (Scott 2017). (Gwatkin 1979) further found that distance from New Delhi (as a proxy of Mr. Gandhi’s influence), which was previously irrelevant, emerged as an important determinant of sterilization performance and was itself capable of explaining two-thirds of the variation in performance among states. ## 3. Data Sources and Description ### 3.1. Historical Data The historical data on sterilization for this paper come from the historical yearbooks published by the Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Department of Family Planning, Government of India. Along with various demographic and health statistics, the yearbooks report yearly statistics on family planning programs performed between April and March every year. Notably, the historical yearbooks include the numbers and types of sterilization performed at the state level. We collected historical yearbooks from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare archive and digitized the sterilization data. Figure 1 presents the total number of sterilizations along with the types of sterilization performed in India every year since the beginning of the program in 1956. As we can see, there is a sharp increase in the total number of sterilizations performed in 1976–77. We also see that most sterilizations performed during this period were vasectomies. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F1) Figure 1: Total Number of Sterilizations Performed in India (1956-82) In Figure A2 and Figure A3 in the Appendix, we present the state-level total number of sterilizations performed in 1975–76 and 1976–77, respectively. To provide a visual representation, we group the total number of sterilizations performed each year into four broad categories and denote a greater number of sterilizations performed by darker shades. As we can see, the number of sterilizations was higher in south India in 1975–76, the year before the announcement of the NPP. However, there is a shift in sterilization performance from the southern to the northern part of India after the NPP’s announcement in 1976–77. Figure 2 presents a better measure of state-level variation in exposure to the forced sterilization policy as measured by the number of excess sterilizations performed in 1976–77 normalized by performance in 1975–76. As we can see, exposure to the forced sterilization policy was particularly high in northern India, especially states adjacent to New Delhi. This is likely because a large number of sterilizations performed during this period were the result of the personal influence of Mr. Gandhi. ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F2) Figure 2: Excess Sterilizations Performed in 1976-77 (Normalized by 1975-76 Numbers) ### 3.2. Modern Data We combine the historical data on exposure to the forced sterilization policy with India’s national representative NFHS-4 (International Institute for Population Sciences [IIPS] 2017). The NFHS-4 sample is a stratified two-stage sample designed to produce indicators at the district, state, UT, and national levels, with separate estimates for urban and rural areas. The primary sampling units (PSUs) in the NFHS-4 are villages in rural areas and Census Enumeration Blocks (based on the 2011 Census) in urban areas. The dataset in our main analysis includes NFHS-4 data for children. To extend our analysis and examine the mechanism, we also use the NFHS-4 dataset for women.15 We also combine data on population and healthcare to control for potential covariates that could affect exposure to both forced sterilization and the vaccination rate. We collect population data from the 2011 population census to construct state-level population density. Additionally, we collect healthcare facility and healthcare personnel data from Rural Health Statistics to construct hospitals per 1000 population and doctors per 1000 population at the state level. Our primary outcome variable is the vaccination rate. The NFHS-4 data report a total of 13 vaccination details for children under the age of 5 years.16 The reported vaccines are against polio (Polio 0–3), tuberculosis (BCG), hepatitis B (Hepatitis-B 0–3), diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT 1–3), and measles. The NFHS-4 further categorizes these vaccines into three groups: basic vaccines (BCG, Measles, DPT 1–3, and Polio 1–3), age-appropriate vaccines (basic vaccinations + Hepatitis-B 0–3), and other vaccines (Polio 0). Based on the NFHS-4 classifications, we construct three vaccination indexes for our main analysis: basic vaccination, appropriate vaccination, and all vaccination. Basic vaccination is an index that measures the share of completed vaccines among the eight possible basic vaccines. Appropriate vaccination is an index that measures the share of completed vaccines among the 12 possible age-appropriate vaccines. All vaccination is an index that measures the share of completed vaccinations among all 13 possible vaccinations reported in the NFHS-4. The key benefit of considering a vaccination index measure instead of individual vaccine is that each vaccine or combination of doses is generally effective for preventing certain illnesses. Therefore, an index of vaccination completion can be considered an important health indicator. In the heterogeneous analysis, we also explore each vaccine separately as our outcome variable. We test whether the lower vaccination rate we observe differs by vaccines. We also use additional outcome variables to examine the mechanism through which the forced sterilization policy has influenced decision-making for childhood vaccinations. Our first additional outcome variable, from the NFHS-4 data, is the noninstitutional delivery of a child. We consider this variable because the place of delivery—at home or a healthcare facility—is an important determinant of vaccination because some vaccines are given immediately after birth, and vaccines are mostly administered at healthcare facilities. In the NFHS-4, about 20% of children are born at home (noninstitutional delivery). We test whether exposure to the forced sterilization policy has had any effect on the place of delivery of a child. Our second additional outcome variable, from the NFHS-4 data, is the reason for noninstitutional delivery among women. We use this variable to understand whether demand- or supply-side factors affect a mother’s intention to deliver her child at home. The NFHS-4 asks mothers the reasons for the noninstitutional delivery of their child and reports a total of nine.17 First, we consider each possible reason separately as our outcome of interest. Second, we combine the information on reasons reported and construct two indexes, demand-side and supply-side, and examine whether demand or supply-side factors affect the mother’s intention to deliver the child at home. Our third and final outcome variable, from the NFHS-4 data, is the mother’s data on ANC visits during pregnancy. We consider this variable to test the channel of information provision because an antenatal visit to healthcare centers can also be an essential source of receiving reliable and accurate information regarding a child’s future health-seeking behavior, such as vaccination practice. The NFHS-4 also provides information on the mother’s ANC records for her most recent pregnancy. In our sample, about 87% of mothers received ANC, and conditional on receiving ANC, the average number of visits was about 5.8. We construct two outcome variables from these data: 1) whether the mother received ANC, and 2) the number of visits conditional on receiving ANC. We test whether exposure to the forced sterilization policy has any effect on ANC. ## 4. Empirical Analysis ### 4.1. Correlation and OLS Estimates We begin by examining the relationship between historical exposure to the forced sterilization policy and India’s current vaccination rate. In Figure 3, we present a simple correlation plot between exposure to the forced sterilization policy and the basic vaccination index in 2015–16.18 In Panel A, we present the correlation between the state-level total number of sterilizations performed in 1976–77 and the basic vaccination index in 2015–16. In Panel B, we present the correlation considering a better measure of exposure to the forced sterilization policy, as measured by state-level excess sterilizations performed in 1976–77 normalized by performance in the year before, 1975–76 (we discuss this variable in detail below). As we can see, a strong negative relationship between exposure to the forced sterilization policy and the vaccination rate is apparent in the raw data. ![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F3) Figure 3: Correlation Plot for Basic Vaccination Index We then examine this relationship by controlling for individual, household, geographic, and healthcare characteristics that are also potentially important for India’s current vaccination rate. Our baseline estimating equation is: ![Formula][1] where ![Graphic][2] denotes one of our vaccination measures for child *i* living in household *h* in NFHS-4 cluster *c* of Indian state *s*. The variable *Forced Sterilizations* denotes one of our measures of exposure to the forced sterilization policy in state *s* (we discuss this variable in more detail below). We include ![Graphic][3] a vector of child-level covariates, which includes an indicator variable for child’s gender, birth month fixed effects, an indicator for whether the child is a twin, and birth order of the child. The vector ![Graphic][4] consists of household-level covariates, including the age and sex of the household head, household size, number of household members below the age of 5 years, seven religion fixed effects, four caste fixed effects, 20 education of the mother fixed effects, four household wealth index fixed effects, and an indicator for whether any household member is covered by health insurance. These child-level and household characteristics that we control have been shown to be correlated with the vaccination rate in India. ![Graphic][5] is a vector of NFHS-4 cluster-level covariates that captures the characteristics of the place where the child lives, such as altitude in meters, altitude squared, and an indicator of whether the cluster is urban. ![Graphic][6] is a vector of covariates meant to capture state-level characteristics that are likely to be correlated with vaccination, including population density per square kilometer (in log), hospitals per 1000 population, and doctors per 1000 population. We present the OLS estimates for the impact of *Forced* Sterilization*s* on the vaccination rate measured by the basic vaccination index in Table 1.19 In column 1, we use the total number of sterilizations performed in a state in 1976–77 (expressed in 100,000 individuals) as our measure of exposure to the forced sterilization policy. The estimated coefficient for *Forced Sterilizations*, β, is negative and statistically significant. This suggests that higher exposure to the forced sterilization policy has an adverse effect on the basic vaccination completion rate. Because the distribution of the number of sterilizations performed in 1976–77 is left-skewed, with a small number of observations taking on large values, we report estimates using the natural log of the number of sterilizations performed in 1976–77 in column 2. The results are similar, as we find a significant negative correlation between forced sterilizations and the vaccination rate. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T1) Table 1: OLS Estimates - Different Measures of Sterilization In columns 1 and 2, we use the total number of sterilizations performed in 1976–77 to measure exposure to the forced sterilization policy. One limitation of this measure is that it does not account for the number of sterilizations that would have happened anyway in the absence of the NPP. Accounting for this difference is important because sterilization, as a family planning method, has been performed in India since the 1950s, as shown in Figure 1. In column 3, we account for this issue and use an alternative measure of the forced sterilization policy based on the number of excess sterilizations performed in 1976–77 over and above the 1975–76 numbers.20 Additionally, in column 4, we report estimates using the natural log of the excess number of sterilizations performed in 1976–77. As we see, the results are similar using these alternative forced sterilization measures. The estimates we report in columns 3 and 4 use the absolute number of sterilizations to measure the forced sterilization policy. Some shortcomings of these measures are that they 1) do not account for the difference in the size of states, and 2) do not account for any state-wide historical factors associated with the level of sterilization performance that we do not capture in our estimation. To account for these issues, in column 5, we report the estimates normalizing the excess sterilizations performed using sterilization figures for the previous year (1975–76). 21 We normalized the previous years’ figures to account for the effect of emergency rule in India and isolate the impact of forced sterilization policy from India’s emergency rule.22 This is because India’s emergency rule could itself affect our outcome in several ways as this period was largely governed by autocratic rule and involved numerous policy changes. As we see, the results we obtain in column 5 remain robust to this alternative specification. For the remainder of our analysis, we use state-level excess sterilizations performed in 1976–77 normalized by the sterilization figure in 1975–76 (the specification from column 5). This provides a better measure that accounts for India’s emergency rule and is normalized by both size and state-level historical characteristics associated with sterilization performance. However, as illustrated in Table 1, our results do not rest on this choice only. We now turn to examine the impact of the forced sterilization policy on other vaccination measures. In Table 2, we report the OLS estimates of all three vaccination indexes. The estimates in Table 2 suggest that the forced sterilization policy is negatively correlated with all three measures of vaccination. In terms of magnitude, column 3 of Table 2 indicates that an average increase in excess sterilizations (about 3.4 times) leads to a decline of about 3 percentage points in the all vaccination index. This is relative to a baseline completion of 32.1% for the sample as a whole, which suggests a large and significant correlation between exposure to the forced sterilization policy and India’s current vaccination rate. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T2) Table 2: OLS Estimates - Different Measures of Vaccination In section C of the Appendix, we present a series of robustness tests. We only briefly discuss them here. We present the results of Table 2, adding each set of controls sequentially for each outcome and an analysis with children aged between 12 and 23 months (to capture the Indian government’s official vaccination estimate), and considering excess male sterilization (vasectomy), which constituted the majority of sterilization operations (about 75%), as an alternative measure of *Forced Sterilizations*. The findings are robust to these alternative specifications, specific cohorts, and different measures of the forced sterilization policy. ### 4.2. IV Estimates In the previous section, we presented results suggesting a negative relationship between historical exposure to the forced sterilization policy and vaccination. We also showed several alternative estimations to provide robust evidence. However, the correlation we found may not necessarily identify the causal effect of forced sterilization on vaccination. For example, the correlation could also be explained by some omitted variables that determine both exposure to forced sterilization and the vaccination rate. To address this concern, in this section, we present results by pursuing an instrumental variable approach. We need an instrument that is correlated with sterilization performance during the forced sterilization period but does not affect vaccination through any channels other than forced sterilization. We use distance to state capitals from New Delhi as an instrument to capture the variation in exposure to the forced sterilization policy. The history of forced sterilization policy during India’s emergency rule leaves little doubt that our instrument is relevant. Various sources, including Gwatkin (1979), Vicziany (1982), Chandra (2017), Indian National Congress (2011), Nayar (2013), and Williams (2014), describe the forced sterilization policy as aggressively undertaken owing to the active role played by Sanjay Gandhi. It is well known that family planning was a key element of his self-declared five-point program, and became the central theme of public addresses during the latter part of the emergency period. Mr. Gandhi and his colleagues in Delhi were at the center of the action and continuously influenced regional political leaders, particularly those in the states adjacent to the national capital of Delhi, over whom they had an influence (Shah Commission of Inquiry 1978). Consequently, northern parts of India, especially adjacent states of Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, were later popularly known as the “vasectomy belt” because a large number of (male) sterilizations were performed in these states during this period. Gwatkin (1979) describes that the distance to state capitals from New Delhi (as a proxy of Mr. Gandhi’s influence), which was previously irrelevant, emerged as an important determinant of excess sterilization performance and was itself capable of explaining two-thirds of the variation in performance among states. To provide a visual understanding, we present Gwatkin’s (1979) insight on distance from New Delhi as an important determinant of excess sterilization performance in Figure 4. In panel (A), we plot the correlation between the distance to state capitals from New Delhi and *Forced Sterilizations* as measured by excess sterilizations in 1976–77. In panel (B), we present the same correlation, but instead consider excess sterilizations in 1975–76. As we can see, the correlation is negative in panel (A); however, we do not see any correlation in panel (B). Based on these insights, we use the distance to state capitals from New Delhi as an instrument to capture the variation in exposure to the forced sterilization policy. ![Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F4) Figure 4: Distance from New Delhi as Instrument We present the IV estimates in Table 3. Panel A presents the first stage estimates for the instrument we considered in our analysis. As we expected, the instrument is a strong predictor of the forced sterilization policy as measured by excess sterilizations. In Panel B, we present the second stage estimates. column 3 of Table 3 indicates that an average increase in excess sterilizations (from zero to 3.45 times) decreases the completion of all vaccinations by about 8.1 percentage points. The IV estimates reported in Panel B are about 2.7 times higher in magnitude in comparison with our corresponding OLS estimates. This suggests that the OLS estimates are biased downward. View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T3) Table 3: IV Estimates ### 4.3. Adjusting Standard Errors for Alternative Clustering The NFHS-4 sample that we use in this paper is a stratified two-stage sample. The PSUs in the NFHS-4 are villages in rural areas and Census Enumeration Blocks (based on the 2011 Census) in urban areas. Thus far, we have shown all our estimates by clustering our standard errors at the NFHS-4 PSU level. We adjust our standard error clustering at the NFHS-4 PSU level primarily because of the design and selection of the NFHS-4 sample (Abadie et al. 2017). Furthermore, individuals (or children in our case) in the same village are more likely to have been subject to common unobserved forces that may affect their current vaccination behavior. However, it is likely that the within-group correlation of the residuals could exist at a higher level than the PSU. Additionally, many of the explanatory variables in our estimation do not vary across these clusters. Instead, we have only aggregate figures that vary at the state level, such as our treatment variable, *Forced* Sterilization*s*, and ![Graphic][7]. In particular, the instrument that we use for our IV estimation (distance) does not vary across PSUs. Therefore, we present estimates adjusting standard errors at higher levels to address the potential concern for within-group correlation of the residuals at a higher level than the PSU. A concern about clustering at a higher level, such as state, is that we have few clusters. For example, if we cluster our standard errors at the highest aggregate levels, we have only 34 clusters based on the number of current states in India.23 In this case, the general consensus is to be conservative and avoid bias and to use bigger and more aggregate clusters up to the point at which there is concern about too few clusters (Cameron and Miller 2015). Based on this conventional principle, we present the estimates with different and more aggregate levels of clustering in Table 3. We report our usual standard errors based on NFHS-4 PSU in parentheses. In square brackets, we report the standard errors adjusted for clustering at the current district levels. In curly brackets, we report the standard errors adjusted at the current state levels. As we can observe, our results are overall robust to adjusting standard errors for these three levels of clustering. In section D of the Appendix, we present a series of alternative analyses showing that our results are also robust to sequential inclusion of controls in Table 3, consideration of specific cohorts, and an alternative measure of *Forced Sterilizations*. For the remainder of this paper, we consider the most conservative cluster and report standard errors adjusted for clustering at the current state level. ### 4.4. Testing Exogeneity of the Instrument In section 4.2, we presented anecdotal evidence by Gwatkin (1979) suggesting that the instrument we use (i.e., distance to state capital from New Delhi) is plausibly exogenous. We provide some evidence through a correlation plot suggesting that our instrument is not correlated with sterilization performance in the previous year. In this section, we perform two falsification exercises to examine the potential concern about the exogeneity of our instrument. First, we perform a placebo IV analysis to examine formally whether distance to state capital from New Delhi predicts excess sterilizations in 1975–76 in the first stage and the vaccination rate in the second. Next, we perform a second placebo IV analysis to examine whether our instrument predicts excess female sterilization during the forced sterilization period (which was not the main focus during this period) and the subsequent vaccination rate. #### 4.4.1. Exposure to Sterilization Before the Forced Sterilization Period Our first exercise consists of examining sterilizations performed before 1976. Because Mr. Gandhi had no personal influence over the sterilization before 1976, our instrumental variable should have no predictive power on sterilization performance before 1976. We formally test this by estimating a placebo IV analysis considering excess sterilizations performed in 1975–76, the year immediately before the implementation of the forced sterilization policy. We present the results in columns 1–3 of Table 4. As we can see, the distance to state capitals from New Delhi has no predictive power for excess sterilizations performed in 1975–76 in the first stage or the vaccination rate in the second. View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T4) Table 4: Test of Exogeneity of the Instrument #### 4.4.2. Exposure to Female Sterilization (Tubectomy) *Exposure to Female Sterilization (Tubectomy)*.—Our second exercise consists of female sterilization, or tubectomy, which was not the focus during India’s forced sterilization period (Gwatkin 1979; Shah Commission of Inquiry 1978). During the period of emergency rule, the forced sterilization program mostly focused on men undergoing vasectomy, as can be seen from Figure 1. The main reason for the heavy reliance on vasectomy was the simplicity of the procedure. Tubectomy operations constitute major abdominal surgery, whereas vasectomies are relatively quick to perform and patients can be discharged on the same day of the operation. During the period of emergency rule, the authorities relied on vasectomy, as sterilization was mostly performed in temporary camps. The existing infrastructure also struggled to cope with the large number of operations because of increased pressure and intentions to meet the target (Gwatkin 1979). Therefore, although vasectomy was not a part of the constructed family planning scheme during this period, it was necessary to reach the required target owing to the pressure of time scales (Scott 2017). This narrative provides a falsification test for our instrument. We formally test whether distance to state capitals from New Delhi predicts the variation in excess female sterilizations performed during the forced sterilization period. Columns 4–6 of Table 4 present the results of our falsification exercise. As we can see, our instrumental variable has no predictive power for excess female sterilizations performed during the forced sterilization period in the first stage or the vaccination rate in the second. ## 5. Heterogeneity We next turn to examine the heterogeneous effect of the forced sterilization policy on the current vaccination rate. To do this, we explore each vaccination separately to understand whether the lower vaccination rate we observe differs for some vaccines or any particular doses. Understanding the heterogeneous effect is important because 1) different vaccines are given to children at different points of time, and 2) multiple doses of the same vaccines are given for full immunization. For example, according to India’s National Immunization Schedule, the first dose of polio and hepatitis B vaccine (Polio 0 and Hepatitis B 0) should be given immediately after birth, whereas the measles vaccine is generally given between age 9 and 12 months. Similarly, vaccines such as hepatitis, DPT, and polio are given to children multiple times for full immunization. We present the estimates for each vaccine separately in Table 5. The results in Table 5 suggest two interesting findings. First, from columns 1 and 9, we find that higher exposure to the forced sterilization policy has the largest negative and statistically significant effect on vaccines given at birth (i.e., Polio 0 and Hepatitis 0). Second, although not robust, we also find that the vaccination rate declines with higher doses for vaccines administered multiple times, such as hepatitis, DPT, and polio. In Section E of the Appendix, we present alternative estimates examining specific cohorts, such as those between the age of 13 and 24 months, and alternative measures of the forced sterilization policy as measured by excess male sterilization. Overall, our analysis provides evidence that the forced sterilization policy has heterogeneous effects on vaccination and, in particular, the largest and most significant effects on vaccines given at birth. View this table: [Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T5) Table 5: Heterogenous Effects ## 6. Mechanisms Up to this point, we have found that the forced sterilization policy has had a significant and sizable effect on India’s vaccination rate. We have also found that the policy has heterogeneous effects on different vaccines. In particular, we found that the policy has the largest and most significant effect on vaccines given at birth. In this section, we turn to examine plausible channels or mechanisms through which the forced sterilization policy has affected India’s current vaccination rate. First, we explore whether the place of delivery of a child is a possible channel considering the results of our heterogeneous analysis. Second, we examine an indirect channel of information provision through ANC. ### 6.1. Place of Delivery Place of delivery—at home or in a healthcare facility—is an important determinant for vaccinations because some vaccines are given immediately after birth, and most are administered at healthcare facilities. We test whether exposure to the forced sterilization policy has any effect on the place of delivery. The NFHS-4 includes a question on the place of birth of the child. About 20% of the children in our sample were associated with noninstitutional delivery, such as at the homes of the respondents, their parents, or others. We present the estimates of the place of delivery in Table 6. As we can see, the coefficient of excess sterilization is sizable, positive, and significant. This suggests that exposure to the forced sterilization policy has a large, positive, and significant effect on noninstitutional delivery. Table F1 of the Appendix presents the results considering alternative forced sterilization policy measures as measured by excess male sterilization. Again, the results are similar, suggesting that higher exposure to the forced sterilization policy positively affects child delivery at home. View this table: [Table 6:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T6) Table 6: Mechanism - Non-Institutional Delivery We dig a little further and also check the reasons for noninstitutional delivery. The NFHS-4 asks mothers for reasons for not delivering their child in a healthcare facility. Both demand- and supply-side constraints are reported, such as higher costs, facility not open, facility being far/no transportation, no female provider, no trust in the healthcare facility/poor service quality, not allowed by the husband or family, not necessary, not customary, and others. We present each answer’s estimates separately in Table 7.24 We also present estimates by indexing the reasons, both supply- and demand-side, in Table F3 of the Appendix. The coefficients of individual answers and average effect size coefficients suggest that the effect of exposure to the forced sterilization policy on supply-side constraints is minimal, sometimes negative, and statistically insignificant. However, the effect of the forced sterilization policy on demand-side constraints is large, positive, and statistically significant. These results suggest that demand-side constraints, including trust in the healthcare facility, are an important mechanism. View this table: [Table 7:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T7) Table 7: Mechanism - Reasons for Non-Institutional Delivery ### 6.2. Information Provision through Antenatal Care (ANC) In this section, we examine an additional mechanism of information provision. Several studies have shown that information provision is important to generate a take-up rate in health-seeking behavior.25 We test this channel in India’s context in general and vaccination in particular because one of the main challenges for India’s recent vaccination campaign is concern about the circulation of misinformation, rumors, and conspiracy theories, including vaccines causing sterilization (Gurnani et al. 2018). We hypothesize that in such an environment, the provision of reliable and accurate information can help increase the vaccination take-up rate. We study information provision mechanism through ANC. ANC not only is important to reduce the health risks for mothers and their babies during pregnancy, but also can be an essential source of reliable and accurate information regarding a child’s future health-seeking behavior, such as vaccination practice. The NFHS-4 asks a question about the mother’s ANC records for her most recent pregnancy. In our sample, about 83% of mothers received ANC, and conditional on receiving ANC, the average number of visits was about 5.6. We test whether exposure to the forced sterilization policy has had any effect on receiving ANC. We present the results in Table 8. Column 1 presents the results on exposure to the forced sterilization policy on the probability of receiving ANC. Column 2 reports the results on exposure to the forced sterilization policy on the number of ANC visits conditional on receiving ANC. We find that exposure to the forced sterilization policy has a large, negative, and significant effect on visiting a healthcare center for ANC and the number of visits conditional on receiving ANC. These results suggest that a lack of reliable and accurate information provision may also be an important channel. In Table F4 of the Appendix, we present estimates showing that the results presented in Table 8 are robust to alternative measures of the forced sterilization policy. View this table: [Table 8:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T8) Table 8: Mechanism - Antenatal Care (ANC) ## 7. Conclusion In this paper, we have examined the importance of historical events in shaping current vaccination practices in India. In particular, we examined whether the aggressive family planning program under which a forced sterilization policy was implemented during the period of emergency rule in the 1970s could partly explain India’s lower vaccination rates today. We examined vaccination rates using data from the NFHS-4. We found that greater exposure to the forced sterilization policy has had negative effects on the current vaccination completion rate. In the heterogeneous analysis, we explored each vaccination separately and found that higher exposure to the forced sterilization policy has had the largest effect on vaccines given at birth (i.e., Polio 0 and Hepatitis 0). Second, although not robust, we also found that the vaccination rate declined with higher doses for vaccines administered multiple times, such as hepatitis, DPT, and polio. Finally, we examined plausible mechanisms. First, we examined whether the place of delivery was a possible channel considering the results from our heterogeneous analysis. We found that exposure to the forced sterilization policy has had a large, positive, and significant effect on noninstitutional delivery. Going a bit further, we also checked the reasons for noninstitutional delivery. We found that demand-side constraints, including trust in the healthcare facility, was an important mechanism. Additionally, we also tested some plausible indirect channels of information provision through ANC. We found that exposure to the forced sterilization policy has had a large, negative, and significant effect on mothers’ visits to healthcare centers for ANC during pregnancy and the number of visits conditional on receiving ANC. These results suggest that a lack of reliable and accurate information provision could also be an important channel. Our results provide robust evidence suggesting that historical events have had a strong impact on shaping India’s current vaccination practice. This has important implications for understanding the puzzling factors behind the lower demand for health-seeking behaviors, such as vaccination, even if the potential cost in morbidity and mortality is high and services are available for free. These findings also highlight the unintended consequences associated with medical interventions in the past and the importance of understanding such contexts for the design and implementation of future interventions. This has important implications for public policy since several countries currently pursue evidence-based policy-making through experimentation. We empirically show that a policy failure (or success) could have spillover effects and could affect subsequent policies in the long-run. Finally, considering the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for universal vaccination, our results also provide some implications for policy-makers and practitioners to understand the factors affecting vaccination practice in India and carve out a pragmatic policy to maximize the uptake of a new vaccine. ## Data Availability All the data are publicly available and cited in the manuscript. ## Online Appendix ### Section A: Figures This section presents the figures. Figure A1 presents the basic vaccination completion rate for children between 12-23 months by their background characteristics. Figure A2 presents the state-level total number of sterilizations performed in 1975-76. Figure A3 presents the state-level total number of sterilizations performed in 1976-77. Figure A4 presents the correlation plot for appropriate vaccination Index. Figure A5 presents the correlation plot for all vaccination Index. ![Figure A1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F5.medium.gif) [Figure A1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F5) Figure A1: Basic Vaccination Completion Rate by Child’s Background Characteristics in India Data Source: National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015-16 [https://dhsprogram](https://dhsprogram). com/pubs/pdf/FR339/FR339.pdf ![Figure A2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F6.medium.gif) [Figure A2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F6) Figure A2: Total Number of Sterilizations Performed in 1975-76 ***(Previous year)*** ![Figure A3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F7.medium.gif) [Figure A3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F7) Figure A3: Total Number of Sterilizations Performed in 1976-77 ![Figure A4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F8.medium.gif) [Figure A4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F8) Figure A4: Correlation Plot for Appropriate Vaccination Index ![Figure A5:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F9.medium.gif) [Figure A5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/F9) Figure A5: Correlation Plot for All Vaccination Index ### Section B: Robustness to OLS Estimates - Different Measures of Sterilization This section presents the robustness results to OLS estimates reported in Table 1. In Table B1, we present results considering different measures of sterilization for appropriate vaccination. In Table B2, we present results considering different measures of sterilization for all vaccination. View this table: [Table B1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T9) Table B1: **Appropriate Vaccinations** View this table: [Table B2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T10) Table B2: **All Vaccinations** ### Section C: Robustness to OLS Estimates - Different Measures Vaccination This section presents the robustness results to OLS estimates reported in Table 2. In Table C1, we present results for basic vaccinations adding each set of controls sequentially. In Table C2, we present results for appropriate vaccinations adding each set of controls sequentially. In Table C3, we present results for all vaccinations adding each set of controls sequentially. In Table C4, we present results for the cohort of children between 12-23 months. In Table C5, we present results considering excess male sterilization (vasectomy) as an alternative measure of forced sterilization policy. View this table: [Table C1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T11) Table C1: **Basic Vaccinations** View this table: [Table C2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T12) Table C2: **Appropriate Vaccinations** View this table: [Table C3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T13) Table C3: **All Vaccinations** View this table: [Table C4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T14) Table C4: **Children Between 12-23 Months** View this table: [Table C5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T15) Table C5: Alternative Measures of Force Sterilization Policy - **Male Sterilization** ### Section D: Robustness to IV Estimates This section presents the robustness results to IV estimates reported in Table 3. In Table D1, we present results for basic vaccinations adding each set of controls sequentially. In Table D2, we present results for appropriate vaccinations adding each set of controls sequentially. In Table D3, we present results for all vaccinations adding each set of controls sequentially. In Table D4, we present results for the cohort of children between 12-23 months. In Table D5, we present results considering excess male sterilization (vasectomy) as an alternative measure of forced sterilization policy. View this table: [Table D1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T16) Table D1: **Basic Vaccinations** View this table: [Table D2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T17) Table D2: **Appropriate Vaccinations** View this table: [Table D3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T18) Table D3: **All Vaccinations** View this table: [Table D4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T19) Table D4: **Children Between 12-23 Months** View this table: [Table D5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T20) Table D5: Alternative Measures of Force Sterilization Policy - **Male Sterilization** ### Section E: Robustness to Heterogenous Effects This section presents the robustness results to estimates reported in Table 5. In Table E1, we present results for the cohort of children between 12-23 months. In Table E2, we present results considering excess male sterilization (vasectomy) as an alternative measure of forced sterilization policy. View this table: [Table E1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T21) Table E1: **Children Between 12-23 Months** View this table: [Table E2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T22) Table E2: Alternative Measures of Force Sterilization Policy - **Male Sterilization** ### Section F: Robustness to Mechanisms This section presents the robustness results to the mechanism reported in Section 6. In Table F1, we present the robustness results to Table 6, considering excess male sterilization (vasectomy) as an alternative measure of forced sterilization policy. In Table F2, we present the robustness results to Table 7, considering excess male sterilization (vasectomy) as an alternative measure of forced sterilization policy. In Table F3, we present the estimates *indexing the reasons for non-institutional delivery.* In Table F4, we present the robustness results to Table 8, considering excess male sterilization (vasectomy) as an alternative measure of forced sterilization policy. View this table: [Table F1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T23) Table F1: Robustness to *Non-institutional Delivery* Using Alternative Measures of Force Sterilization Policy - **Male Sterilization** View this table: [Table F2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T24) Table F2: Robustness to *Reasons for Non-institutional Delivery* Using Alternative Measures of Force Sterilization Policy - **Male Sterilization** View this table: [Table F3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T25) Table F3: Robustness to Indexing the Reasons for Non-institutional Delivery View this table: [Table F4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.01.21.21250216/T26) Table F4: Robustness to *Information Provision through Antenatal Care (ANC)* Using Alternative Measures of Force Sterilization Policy - **Male Sterilization** ## Footnotes * pramodsur{at}gmail.com * The references section was updated. The revised manuscript was English proofread for clarity in understanding and grammatical errors. The contents are overall the same. * 1 World Health Organization estimates. [https://www.unicef.org/rosa/media/6901/file/South\_Asia\_Immunization\_Regional\_Snapshot\_2018.pdf](https://www.unicef.org/rosa/media/6901/file/South\_Asia\_Immunization_Regional_Snapshot_2018.pdf) * 2 Basic vaccination includes one dose of Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG; tuberculosis); three doses of diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus (DPT); three doses of oral polio vaccine (OPV); and one dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV). DPT-3 refers to the third dose of DPT. * 3 These estimates are for children between 12–23 months of age. Therefore, they are much higher than the general average estimates, such as children between 1 and 5 years of age. * 4 The autocratic rule (emergency) officially ended in March 1977. However, it was substantially relaxed in January 1977. * 5 The first immunization policy was introduced in India as the Expanded Program of Immunization (EPI) in 1978. The Indian government renamed the Ministry of Health and Family Planning to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 1977. * 6 Hereafter, we refer to ‘states and union territories’ in India as ‘states’ for simplicity. * 7 We do this to account for each state’s size and the effect of emergency rule in India and isolate the impact of the forced sterilization policy because several policy changes were made during this period, which could affect the outcomes in various ways. * 8 The reported vaccines in NFHS-4 are BCG, Hepatitis-B 0, Hepatitis-B 1, Hepatitis-B 2, Hepatitis-B 3, DPT 1, DPT 2 DPT 3, Polio 0, Polio 1, Polio 2, Polio 3, and Measles. We exclude Vitamin A supplements reported in the survey since supplements are not a vaccine. * 9 The vaccination indexes are: basic vaccination (eight vaccines), age-appropriate vaccination (12 vaccines), and all vaccination (13 vaccines). * 10 In India’s case, the government implemented the forced sterilization policy in April 1976 and ended it less than a year later, in January 1977. * 11 For a detailed overview of this period, see Dhar (2018) and Nayar (2013). * 12 For a detailed overview of the family planning program during the emergency rule period, see Panandiker, Bishnoi, and Sharma (1978), Shah Commission of Inquiry (1978), and Gwatkin (1979). * 13 This was not approved by the central government and eventually returned to the state for revision. * 14 For a detailed discussion on quota enforcement, incentives and disincentives, coercion, misinformation, and fear of sterilization during the emergency, see Panandiker et al. (1978) and the Shah Commission of Inquiry (1978). * 15 The sample of Sikkim and Nagaland are excluded from our analysis as we have incomplete information on sterilization in these two states. * 16 We exclude vitamin A supplements reported in the survey because supplements are not a vaccine. * 17 The reasons include: cost too high, facility not open, too far/no transportation, no female provider, no trust in a healthcare facility/poor service quality, not allowed by the husband or family, not necessary, not customary, and others. * 18 In Figures A4 and A5 in the Appendix, we also present a correlation plot for the appropriate and all vaccination indexes, respectively. * 19 In Section B of the Appendix, we present the results for the appropriate and all vaccination indexes. * 20 Alternative measures of excess sterilization performed in 1976–77, such as deducting the average of the last 2 or 3 years, are also possible. Using such alternative measures produced nearly identical results. * 21 Specifically, we define *Forced Sterilizations* ![Formula][8] * 22 Using alternative measures such as normalizing by the average of the last 2 or 3 years produced nearly identical results. * 23 The samples from Sikkim and Nagaland are excluded from our analysis as we have incomplete data on sterilization in these two states. In particular, these two states do not have any information on the number of sterilizations performed in 1975–76, the year before the NPP. * 24 In Table F2 of the Appendix, we present estimates showing that the results presented in Table 6 are robust to alternative measures of the forced sterilization policy as measured by excess male sterilizations. * 25 See Dupas and Miguel (2017) for a review. * Received January 21, 2021. * Revision received February 17, 2021. * Accepted February 18, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. Abadie, Alberto, Susan Athey, Guido W Imbens, and Jeffrey Wooldridge. 2017. “When Should You Adjust Standard Errors for Clustering?” No. w24003. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. 2. Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A Robinson. 2001. “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation.” American Economic Review 91 (5): 1369–1401. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1257/aer.91.5.1369&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000172772800010&link_type=ISI) 3. Alsan, Marcella, and Marianne Wanamaker. 2018. “Tuskegee and the Health of Black Men.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133 (1): 407–55. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/qje/qjx029&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30505005&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F18%2F2021.01.21.21250216.atom) 4. Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak, Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster, and Dhruva Kothari. 2010. “Improving Immunisation Coverage in Rural India: Clustered Randomised Controlled Evaluation of Immunisation Campaigns with and without Incentives.” Bmj 340. 5. Basu, Alaka M. 1985. “Family Planning and the Emergency: An Unanticipated Consequence.” Economic and Political Weekly, 422–25. 6. Black, Robert E, Simon Cousens, Hope L Johnson, Joy E Lawn, Igor Rudan, Diego G Bassani, Prabhat Jha, et al. 2010. “Global, Regional, and National Causes of Child Mortality in 2008: A Systematic Analysis.” The Lancet 375 (9730): 1969–87. 7. Cameron, A Colin, and Douglas L Miller. 2015. “A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference.” Journal of Human Resources 50 (2): 317–72. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToid3BqaHIiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiNTAvMi8zMTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wMi8xOC8yMDIxLjAxLjIxLjIxMjUwMjE2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2013. “Global Routine Vaccination Coverage-2012.” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 62 (43): 858–61. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24172880&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F18%2F2021.01.21.21250216.atom) 9. Chandra, Bipan. 2017. In the Name of Democracy: JP Movement and the Emergency. Penguin UK. Dhar, Prithvi Nath. 2018. “Indira Gandhi the’Emergency’and Indian Democracy.” In . Oxford. 10. Dupas, Pascaline. 2011. “Health Behavior in Developing Countries.” *Annu*. Rev. Econ. 3 (1): 425– 49. 11. Dupas, Pascaline, and Edward Miguel. 2017. “Impacts and Determinants of Health Levels in Low-Income Countries.” In Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, 2:3–93. Elsevier. 12. Francis, Mark Rohit, Hanna Nohynek, Heidi Larson, Vinohar Balraj, Venkata Raghava Mohan, Gagandeep Kang, and J Pekka Nuorti. 2018. “Factors Associated with Routine Childhood Vaccine Uptake and Reasons for Non-Vaccination in India: 1998--2008.” Vaccine 36 (44): 6559–66. 13. Ghosh, Arpita, and Ramanan Laxminarayan. 2017. “Demand-and Supply-Side Determinants of Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus Nonvaccination and Dropout in Rural India.” Vaccine 35 (7): 1087–93. 14. Gurnani, Vandana, Pradeep Haldar, Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal, Manoja Kumar Das, Ashish Chauhan, John Murray, Narendra Kumar Arora, Manoj Jhalani, and Preeti Sudan. 2018. “Improving Vaccination Coverage in India: Lessons from Intensified Mission Indradhanush, a Cross-Sectoral Systems Strengthening Strategy.” Bmj 363. 15. Gwatkin, Davidson R. 1979. “Political Will and Family Planning: The Implications of India’s Emergency Experience.” Population and Development Review, 29–59. 16. Hewitt, Vernon. 2007. Political Mobilisation and Democracy in India: States of Emergency. Routledge. 17. Indian National Congress. 2011. Congress and the Making of the Indian Nation. Academic Foundation New Delhi. 18. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS). 2017. “National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015--16.” International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai, India. 19. Liu, Li, Shefali Oza, Dan Hogan, Yue Chu, Jamie Perin, Jun Zhu, Joy E Lawn, Simon Cousens, Colin Mathers, and Robert E Black. 2016. “Global, Regional, and National Causes of under-5 Mortality in 2000--15: An Updated Systematic Analysis with Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals.” The Lancet 388 (10063): 3027–35. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31593-8&link_type=DOI) 20. Lowes, Sara Rachel, and Eduardo Montero. 2018. “The Legacy of Colonial Medicine in Central Africa.” CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP12772. 21. Nayar, Kuldip. 2013. Emergency Retold. Konark Publishers. 22. Nunn, Nathan. 2009. “The Importance of History for Economic Development.” *Annu*. Rev. Econ. 1 (1): 65–92. 23. Nunn, Nathan. 2014. “Historical Development.” Handbook of Economic Growth 2: 347–402. 24. Panandiker, V A Pai, R N Bishnoi, and Om Prakash Sharma. 1978. Family Planning Under the Emergency: Policy Implications of Incentives and Disincentives. New Delhi: Radiant Publishers. 25. Panda, Basant Kumar, Gulshan Kumar, and Suyash Mishra. 2020. “Understanding the Full-Immunization Gap in Districts of India: A Geospatial Approach.” Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health 8 (2): 536–43. 26. Pramanik, Santanu, Arpita Ghosh, Rituu B Nanda, Marlou De Rouw, Philip Forth, and Sandra Albert. 2018. “Impact Evaluation of a Community Engagement Intervention in Improving Childhood Immunization Coverage: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Assam, India.” BMC Public Health 18 (1): 1–13. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-018-6293-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F18%2F2021.01.21.21250216.atom) 27. Scott, Gemma. 2017. “‘My Wife Had to Get Sterilised’: Exploring Women’s Experiences of Sterilisation under the Emergency in India, 1975--1977.” Contemporary South Asia 25 (1): 70–84. 28. Shah Commission of Inquiry. 1978. “Third and Final Report.” Government of India New Delhi. 29. Shrivastwa, Nijika, Brenda W Gillespie, Giselle E Kolenic, James M Lepkowski, and Matthew L Boulton. 2015. “Predictors of Vaccination in India for Children Aged 12--36 Months.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 49 (6): S435--S444. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.008&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F18%2F2021.01.21.21250216.atom) 30. Shrivastwa, Nijika, Abram L Wagner, and Matthew L Boulton. 2019. “Analysis of State-Specific Differences in Childhood Vaccination Coverage in Rural India.” Vaccines 7 (1): 24. 31. Singh, Karan. 1976. “National Population Policy: A Statement of the Government of India.” Population and Development Review 2 (2): 309–12. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11663276&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F18%2F2021.01.21.21250216.atom) 32. Srivastava, Swati, Jasmine Fledderjohann, and Ashish Kumar Upadhyay. 2020. “Explaining Socioeconomic Inequalities in Immunisation Coverage in India: New Insights from the Fourth National Family Health Survey (2015--16).” BMC Pediatrics 20 (1): 1–12. 33. Tarlo, Emma. 2000. “Body and Space in a Time of Crisis: Sterilization and Resettlement during the Emergency in Delhi.” Violence and Subjectivity, 242–70. 34. Vicziany, Marika. 1982. “Coercion in a Soft State: The Family-Planning Program of India: Part I: The Myth of Voluntarism.” Pacific Affairs 55 (3): 373–402. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2757117&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1982PR81500001&link_type=ISI) 35. Williams, Rebecca Jane. 2014. “Storming the Citadels of Poverty: Family Planning under the Emergency in India, 1975-1977.” The Journal of Asian Studies, 471–92. [1]: /embed/graphic-4.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [8]: /embed/graphic-37.gif