Standalone, Collective or Both? How Low-income Urban Households Employ Strategies to Secure Basic Service Access in Hyderabad, India

Abstract

Basic service security remains grossly insufficient for many urban slum households in low‐income and middle‐income countries. While participation in collective action has often been hailed as the most effective means to secure improvements, households also employ standalone strategies to enhance service provision. Yet potential trade‐offs or complementarities between individual and collective strategies have rarely been considered. Using data from a survey of 752 households in the core urban area of Hyderabad, India, this study uses both the exit, voice and loyalty and collective action frameworks to jointly consider household participation in standalone and groups efforts to improve basic service security. Findings show that, contrary to most past conceptualizations, households employ several strategies simultaneously. While there is some evidence of substitution in strategies employed by households, there appears to be little strategic complementarity. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How collectively organised residents in marginalised urban settlements secure multiple basic service enhancements: Evidence from Hyderabad, India

“…Moreover, bottom-up strategies employed by residents of marginalised settlements are more likely to effect long-term service enhancements if employed via collective action, as demonstrated in a companion study (Pierce, 2017a). The term 'collective action' is used by scholars variously to describe the efforts of groups (ranging in size from a few households on a block to millions) to engage in coordinated efforts to obtain a common goal.…”

“…Involvement in BVM activities does not require membership, dues or any other prerequisites. The core collective activity of the BVM takes place in regular neighbourhood-level meetings, which typically involve individuals from 10 to 15 households (Pierce, 2017a). As Mancur Olson first suggested, effective collective action is much more plausible in observable groups such as these neighbourhood meetings.…”

“…The BVM solicits a broad range of participation from residents, and has demonstrated substantial, albeit imperfect inclusion of concerns across gender, caste and political lines. In 2014, across the three large study areas, about 12% of households routinely attended these weekly meetings (Pierce, 2017a). As described throughout this study, concerns regarding basic service access raised at these meetings are then represented to the urban local body, its authorised service providers or scaled up to a slum-level BVM committee.…”

“…As described throughout this study, concerns regarding basic service access raised at these meetings are then represented to the urban local body, its authorised service providers or scaled up to a slum-level BVM committee. Further analysis of the organisation, internal power dynamics and activities of the BVM can be found in companion studies by the author (Pierce, 2016;Pierce, 2017a).…”

“…In Hyderabad, marginalised settlement residents vote in official elections at higher rates than the general population, making this mechanism to improve collective service access potentially promising (C Kar, interview 9 July 2014). While some assert that slum votes are cast along communal lines or captured by patrons rather than on the basis of service delivery performance (Gupta, 2004; J Jairath, interview 15 August 2013), baseline survey data of residents in the three main study areas shows that nearly twothirds of residents voted locally at least in part on the basis of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) conditions (Pierce, 2017a).…”