Studies in Comparative International Development

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 324–342 | Cite as

Using Crowd-Sourced Data to Study Public Services: Lessons from Urban India

  • Alison E. PostEmail author
  • Anustubh Agnihotri
  • Christopher Hyun


As cities throughout the developing world grow, they often expand more quickly than the infrastructure and service delivery networks that provide residents with basic necessities such as water and public safety. Why do some cities deliver more effective infrastructure and services in the face of rapid growth than others? Why do some households and communities secure better services than others? Answering these questions requires studying the large, politicized bureaucracies charged with providing urban services, especially the relationships between frontline workers, agency managers, and citizens in informal settlements. Researchers investigating public service delivery in cities of the Global South, however, have faced acute data scarcity when addressing these themes. The recent emergence of crowd-sourced data offers researchers new means of addressing such questions. In this paper, we draw on our own research on the politics of urban water delivery in India to highlight new types of analysis that are possible using crowd-sourced data and propose solutions to common pitfalls associated with analyzing it. These insights should be of use for researchers working on a broad range of topics in comparative politics where crowd-sourced data could provide leverage, such as protest politics, conflict processes, public opinion, and law and order.


Crowd-sourcing Public services Water India Street level bureaucracy Frontline worker 



This research was funded by a “DIL Innovate” Grant from the Development Impact Laboratory, Blum Center for Developing Economies (USAID Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-A-13-00002, Alison Post and Isha Ray Principal Investigators), U.C. Berkeley, and a dissertation fieldwork grant from the Institute for International Studies, U.C. Berkeley. Tanu Kumar and Isha Ray, U.C. Berkeley, are co-authors of the impact evaluation project described in this paper. We thank Maria Chang for research assistance. We also thank NextDrop, the Public Affairs Foundation, and the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) for their support of our research. We are grateful for comments from Thad Dunning, Agustina Giraudy, Tanu Kumar, Katerina Linos, Aila Matanock, Isha Ray, and seminar participants at U.C. Berkeley and American University.


  1. Anand N. Municipal disconnect: on abject water and its urban infrastructures. Ethnography. 2012;13(4):487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auerbach A. Clients and communities: the political economy of party network organization and development in India’s urban slums. World Politics. 2016;68(1):111–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailard CS. A field experiment on the internet’s effect in an African election: savvier citizens, disaffected voters, or both? J Commun. 2012;62(2):330–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baird S, Bohren JA, McIntosh C, Ozler B. Designing experiments to measure spillover effects, second version. 2015. Retrieved from
  5. Barberá P. The 2013 Italian parliamentary elections on Twitter. 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Barberá P. Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Polit Anal. 2015;23(1):76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barberá P, Metzger M. A breakout role for Twitter? The role of social media in the Turkish Protests (social media and political participation lab data report). Social Media and Political Participation Lab; 2013.Google Scholar
  8. Björkman L. Pipe politics, contested waters: embedded infrastructures of millennial Mumbai. Durham: Duke University Press; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bond R, Messing S. Quantifying social media’s political space: estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on Facebook. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2015;109(01):62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boutet A, Kim H, Yoneki E. What’s in your tweets? I know who you supported in the UK 2010 general election. ICWSM; 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Breuer A, Landman T, Farquhar D. Social media and protest mobilization: evidence from the Tunisian revolution (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2133897). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. 2012. Retrieved from
  12. Bryant M. Twitter geo-fail? Only 0.23% of tweets geotagged. 2010. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
  13. Bussell J. Serving clients and constituents: experimental evidence on political responsiveness. 2017.Google Scholar
  14. Calvo E. Anatomia Politica de Twitter en Argentina. Buenos Aires: Capital Intellectual; 2015.Google Scholar
  15. Carlson M, Jakli L, Linos K. Rumors and refugees: how government-created information vacuums undermine effective crisis management. Int Stud Q. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. Ching A, Zegras C, Kennedy S, Mamun M. A user-flocksourced bus experiment in Dhaka: new data collection technique with smartphones. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2013. Retrieved from
  17. DuVander A. 3 reasons geocoded tweets haven’t caught on and 2 reasons not to worry. 2010. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
  18. Estellés-Arolas E, González-Ladrón-de-Guevara F. Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. J Inf Sci. 2012;38(2):189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Furtado V, Caminha C, Ayres L, Santos H. Open government and citizen participation in law enforcement via crowd mapping. IEEE Intell Syst. 2012;27(4):63–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerber AS, Green DP. Field experiments: design, analysis, and interpretation. W. W Norton; 2012.Google Scholar
  21. Grossman G, Humphreys M, Sacramone-Lutz G. “I wld like u WMP to extend electricity 2 our village”: on information technology and interest articulation. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2014;108(03):688–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hargrave ML. Ground truthing the results of geophysical surveys. In: Johnson JK, Giardano M, Kvamme KL, Clay RB, Green TJ, Dalan RA, editors. Remote sensing in archaeology. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press; 2006. p. 269–303.Google Scholar
  23. Hyun C, Post AE, Ray I. Frontline worker compliance with transparency reforms: barriers posed by family and financial responsibilities. Governance. 2018;31:65–83.Google Scholar
  24. Iliffe M, Sollazzo G, Morley J, Houghton R. Taarifa: improving public service provision in the developing world through a crowd-sourced location based reporting application. OSGeo J. 2014;13(1):34–40.Google Scholar
  25. Jamal A, Keohane R, Romney D, Tingley D. Anti-Americanism or anti-interventionism in Arabic Twitter discourses. Perspect Polit. 2015;13(1):55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jha S, Rao V, Woolcock M. Governance in the gullies. World Dev. 2007;35(2):230–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klopp J, Mutua J, Orwa D, Waiganjo P, White A, Williams S. Towards a standard for paratransit data: lessons from developing GTFS data for Nairobi’s Matatu System. Presented at the Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting. 2014. Retrieved from
  28. Kruks-Wisner G. Seeking the local state: gender, caste, and the pursuit of public services in post-tsunami India. World Dev. 2011;39(7):1143–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kruks-Wisner G. The pursuit of social welfare: citizen claim-making in rural India. World Politics. 2018;70(1):122–63. Scholar
  30. Kumar T, Post AE, Ray I. Flows, leaks, and blockages in informational interventions: a field experimental study of Bangalore’s water sector. World Development. 2018;106:149–60.Google Scholar
  31. Lawrence AK. Repression and activism among the Arab Spring’s first movers: evidence from Morocco’s February 20th movement. Br J Polit Sci. 2017;47(3):699–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lipsky M. Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1980.Google Scholar
  33. Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K. Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2013.Google Scholar
  34. Offenhuber D. Waste is information: infrastructure legibility and governance. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  35. Olsen W. Triangulation in social research: qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. In Holborn M, editors. Developments in sociology. Causeway Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  36. Parikh T. Digital data collection for improving service delivery: a framework for decision-makers. 2015.Google Scholar
  37. Peixoto T, Fox J. When does ICT-enabled citizen voice lead to government responsiveness. 2016 World Development Report Background Paper, (Internet for Development). 2015.Google Scholar
  38. Post AE, Bronsoler V, Salman L. Hybrid regimes for local public goods provision: a framework for analysis. Perspect Polit. 2017;15(4):952–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poushter J. Smartphone ownership and internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies. 2016. Retrieved June 12, 2017, from
  40. Raza D. ‘I saw it on WhatsApp’: why people believe hoaxes on the messaging app. 2017. Retrieved June 12, 2017, from
  41. Sachdev C. If you see dirty water, don’t just gripe. Talk to the cloud! [National Public Radio]. 2017. Retrieved June 9, 2017, from
  42. Scott JC. State simplifications: nature, space, and people. Nomos. 1996;38:42–85.Google Scholar
  43. Starbird K, Palen L. (How) will the revolution be retweeted?: information diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian uprising. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2012. p. 7–16.Google Scholar
  44. Story M, Congalton RG. Accuracy assessment: a user’s perspective. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens. 1986;52(3):397–9.Google Scholar
  45. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. The Indian telecom services performance indicator report. New Delhi, India. 2017. Retrieved from
  46. Touchton M, Wampler B. Improving social well-being through new democratic institutions. Comp Pol Stud. 2014;47(10):1442–69. Scholar
  47. UNICEF. U-report application revolutionizes social mobilization, empowering Ugandan youth. 2012a. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
  48. UNICEF). TIME magazine covers UNICEF supported mTrac system in Uganda. 2012b. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
  49. Vaccari C, Valeriani A, Barberá P, Bonneau R, Jost JT, Nagler J, et al. Political expression and action on social media: exploring the relationship between lower- and higher-threshold political activities among Twitter users in Italy. J Comput-Mediat Commun. 2015;20(2):221–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van den Berg C, Danilenko A. The IBNET water supply and sanitation performance blue book. Washington D.C.: The World Bank; 2011.Google Scholar
  51. van der Windt P, Humphreys M. Crowdseeding conflict data. 2014.Google Scholar
  52. World Bank. Digital dividends: world development report 2016. Washington D.C.: The World Bank Group; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yadav, T. author has posted comments on this articleAnkit. 2015. Tension grips Rithora over objectionable WhatsApp post. Retrieved October 16, 2015, from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison E. Post
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anustubh Agnihotri
    • 1
  • Christopher Hyun
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations