Potty Politics: Investigating the Policymaking Processes of Sanitation Service to the Urban Poor in Delhi

This study investigates why sanitation outcomes vary across urban poor communities in Delhi, India. Unequal access to quality sanitation has serious implications for the health, dignity, and economic well-being of the poor and public health in general due to risks of environmental contamination. For this multiple-case study, a sample of 15 communities is drawn from slums, public housing, homeless shelters, and the streets. The database comprises of direct observations of sanitation outcomes in these communities, interviews with 95 key policy informants, official documents of relevant government agencies, newspaper articles, and a perception-of-the-poor survey of 30 sanitation bureaucrats. Thematic analysis of government documents and interviews with officials reveals a laissez faire framework for governing sanitation where the state plays a limited role of building infrastructures. Broadly speaking, the poor are blamed for unsanitary conditions that arise due to limited government intervention, and are handed the responsibility of service management for sanitation improvement. To then understand why outcomes vary within this broader framework, the qualitative dataset is analyzed using process-tracing to uncover policy decisions across communities. Variations in social constructions of the poor by policymakers have a dominant influence in shaping policy decisions. Perceptions of unsanitary habits and incorrigible, irresponsible behaviors result in lack of government support and worse sanitation outcomes in “deviant” communities. Government support for better sanitation is justified as civic education of the communities perceived as needy “dependents”, and a reward for politically organized “contender” communities. A quantitative cultural consensus analysis of the survey shows that a majority of the bureaucrats share a strongly-held view of the poor on the dependent-deviant spectrum. This largely corroborates the qualitative findings. Clientelist politics is the other influential factor that shapes policy decisions. Poor communities access service improvements by exchanging votes with politicians and solidarity with service providers. The strength and longevity of these clientelistic exchanges influences the timing and provision of entitled sanitation services in client-communities. Findings show that inequitable sanitation outcomes are manufactured by biases that blame the poor for service deficits and make the provision of entitled benefits contingent on political mobilization of exhibiting “good citizenship.” This has serious implications for democratic accountability between the government and the very citizens that are most in need of public services to meet their sanitation needs

How to Set Up, Manage, and Study a UBI+ Experiment The Case of the ‘WorkFREE’ Project in Hyderabad, India

WorkFREE is a collaborative research project led by the University of Bath,UK in partnership with the Montfort Social Institute (MSI) and the IndiaNetwork for Basic Income (INBI). It is funded by the European ResearchCouncil (ERC). The project brings together civil society institutions, academics,and activists from India and the UK to pilot and study a unique interventionthat we call ‘UBI+’ in four slum communities (‘bastis’) in Hyderabad, India. Thepilot combines universal basic income (UBI) and needs-focused, participatorycommunity organising to support people to increase their power to meet theirneeds. All residents in the said bastis, (approximately 1250 people across 350households) receive monthly unconditional cash transfers for 18 months. Inaddition, the community organising support wraps around the cash over aperiod of 24 months. The project studies the impact on peoples’ lives –including their relationships, their work, and their wellbeing – and seeks toassess the prospects of UBI+ as a future social policy. WorkFREE is the firstmajor UBI experiment to take place in urban India, and one of the first in theworld to work with entire communities as opposed to selected individualswithin those communities. Full project information can be found on theproject’s website here. The rest of this ‘Process Document’ will outline thecomplex, challenging, nitty-gritty practicalities involved in project design,implementation, and management, with a view to supporting future would-bepiloters embarking on similar journeys. We structure the report around threebroad temporal phases

How to Set Up, Manage, and Study a UBI+ Experiment The Case of the ‘WorkFREE’ Project in Hyderabad, India

WorkFREE is a collaborative research project led by the University of Bath, UK in partnership with the Montfort Social Institute (MSI) and the India Network for Basic Income (INBI). It is funded by the European Research Council (ERC). The project brings together civil society institutions, academics, and activists from India and the UK to pilot and study a unique intervention that we call ‘UBI+’ in four slum communities (‘bastis’) in Hyderabad, India. The pilot combines universal basic income (UBI) and needs-focused, participatory community organising to support people to increase their power to meet their needs. All residents in the said bastis, (approximately 1250 people across 350 households) receive monthly unconditional cash transfers for 18 months. In addition, the community organising support wraps around the cash over a period of 24 months. The project studies the impact on peoples’ lives – including their relationships, their work, and their wellbeing – and seeks to assess the prospects of UBI+ as a future social policy. WorkFREE is the first major UBI experiment to take place in urban India, and one of the first in the world to work with entire communities as opposed to selected individuals within those communities. Full project information can be found on the project’s website here. The rest of this ‘Process Document’ will outline the complex, challenging, nitty-gritty practicalities involved in project design, implementation, and management, with a view to supporting future would-be piloters embarking on similar journeys. We structure the report around three broad temporal phases