Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3551624.3555299acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseaamoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Algorithmic Rural Road Planning in India: Constrained Capacities and Choices in Public Sector

Published: 17 October 2022 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    The use of AI and other algorithms in resource-constrained public sector settings of the developing world face unique technical and social challenges. The organizational and institutional realities of the public sector such as legacy data/IT systems, embedded work culture, bureaucratic norms and resource-constraints both explicitly and implicitly shape deliberation, design and deployment of public sector data science projects. Through the case of algorithmic rural road planning in a large-scale government program in India, our work demonstrates how algorithms can be positively utilized within the context of constrained capacities and choices. As practitioners deeply involved in the entire project life-cycle, our action-research provides an intimate and reflective account of how production of even seemingly “simple” algorithmic projects pose non-trivial complexities and challenges in the public sector. We situate the conversation around the humans-in-the-loop in our setting and show how public sector characteristics impact participatory design, choice of interfaces, data inequities and algorithm design. Further, we show how the preparation and production of technology by constrained capacities can be counter-productive and detrimental even before the technology is put to use. This further expands the scope of the debate concerning the use of public sector algorithms. Understanding the nuances, practices and constraints in production of data science in the public sector will not only allow more responsible production of data sciences, but also help formulate realistic strategies to mitigate the risks involved in the use of algorithms in high-stakes public policy situations.

    References

    [1]
    2020. Machine Learning for Developing World (ML4D) Workshop, NuerIPS 2020.
    [2]
    Rediet Abebe and Kira Goldner. 2016. Mechanism Design for Social Good. http://md4sg.com
    [3]
    Rediet Abebe and Kira Goldner. 2018. Mechanism design for social good. AI Matters 4, 3 (2018), 27–34.
    [4]
    Klaus Ackermann, Joe Walsh, Adolfo De Unánue, Hareem Naveed, Andrea Navarrete Rivera, Sun-Joo Lee, Jason Bennett, Michael Defoe, Crystal Cody, Lauren Haynes, 2018. Deploying machine learning models for public policy: A framework. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 15–22.
    [5]
    Shilpa Aggarwal. 2018. Do rural roads create pathways out of poverty? Evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics 133 (2018), 375–395.
    [6]
    Sam Asher, Karan Nagpal, and Paul Novosad. 2018. The Cost of Distance: Geography and Governance in Rural India. World Bank Working Paper(2018).
    [7]
    Sam Asher and Paul Novosad. 2016. Market access and structural transformation: Evidence from rural roads in India. Manuscript: Department of Economics, University of Oxford (2016).
    [8]
    Sam Asher and Paul Novosad. 2018. Rural roads and local economic development. The World Bank.
    [9]
    Jamie Bartlett and Nathaniel Tkacz. 2017. Governance by dashboard: A policy paper. (2017).
    [10]
    Hannah Bloch-Wehba. 2021. Transparency’s AI Problem. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/transparencys-ai-problem
    [11]
    Samuel Carton, Jennifer Helsby, Kenneth Joseph, Ayesha Mahmud, Youngsoo Park, Joe Walsh, Crystal Cody, CPT Estella Patterson, Lauren Haynes, and Rayid Ghani. 2016. Identifying police officers at risk of adverse events. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 67–76.
    [12]
    The Hindu Business Line CP Chandrasekhar Jayati Ghosh. 2019. The withering trend of public employment in India. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/the-withering-tren-of-public-employment-in-india/article28750003.ece
    [13]
    Kate Crawford. 2021. The Atlas of AI. Yale University Press.
    [14]
    Aditya Dasgupta and Devesh Kapur. 2020. The political economy of bureaucratic overload: Evidence from rural development officials in India. American Political Science Review 114, 4 (2020), 1316–1334.
    [15]
    Jonathan P Demenge. 2013. The road to Lingshed: Manufactured isolation and experienced mobility in Ladakh. HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies 32, 1(2013), 14.
    [16]
    Richard H Dykstra, Joan S Ash, Emily Campbell, Dean F Sittig, Ken Guappone, James Carpenter, Joshua Richardson, Adam Wright, and Carmit McMullen. 2009. Persistent paper: the myth of “going paperless”. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 2009. American Medical Informatics Association, 158.
    [17]
    David Freeman Engstrom, Daniel E Ho, Catherine M Sharkey, and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar. 2020. Government by algorithm: Artificial intelligence in federal administrative agencies. NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper20-54 (2020).
    [18]
    Danielle Ensign, Sorelle A Friedler, Scott Neville, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2018. Runaway feedback loops in predictive policing. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 160–171.
    [19]
    Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
    [20]
    Megan Finn, Janaki Srinivasan, and Rajesh Veeraraghavan. 2014. Seeing with Paper: Government Documents and Material Participation. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1515–1524. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.195
    [21]
    Ishita Ghosh, Jay Chen, Joy Ming, and Azza Abouzied. 2015. The Persistence of Paper: A Case Study in Microfinance from Ghana. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (Singapore, Singapore) (ICTD ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 13, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2737856.2738029
    [22]
    Greg Hearn and Marcus Foth. 2005. Action research in the design of new media and ICT systems. Topical issues in communications and media research (2005), 79–94.
    [23]
    The Hindu. 2020. Over 6.83 lakh vacant posts in central govt departments: Personnel Ministry. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/over-683-lakh-vacant-posts-in-central-govt-departments-personnel-ministry/article30741372.ece
    [24]
    Aspen Hopkins and Serena Booth. 2021. Machine Learning Practices Outside Big Tech: How Resource Constraints Challenge Responsible Development. (2021).
    [25]
    Matthew S Hull. 2012. Documents and bureaucracy. Annual review of anthropology 41 (2012), 251–267.
    [26]
    Matthew S Hull. 2012. Government of paper: The materiality of bureaucracy in urban Pakistan. Univ of California Press.
    [27]
    Surya Mattu Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson and ProPublica Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine Bias. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
    [28]
    Pratyusha Kalluri. 2020. Don’t ask if artificial intelligence is good or fair, ask how it shifts power. Nature 583 (07 2020), 169–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02003-2
    [29]
    Devesh Kapur. 2020. Why Does the Indian State Both Fail and Succeed?Journal of Economic Perspectives 34, 1 (2020), 31–54.
    [30]
    Meghana Kshirsagar, Caleb Robinson, Siyu Yang, Shahrzad Gholami, Ivan Klyuzhin, Sumit Mukherjee, Md Nasir, Anthony Ortiz, Felipe Oviedo, Darren Tanner, 2021. Becoming Good at AI for Good. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.11757(2021).
    [31]
    Bogdan Kulynych, David Madras, Smitha Milli, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Angela Zhou, and Richard Zemel. 2020. Participatory Approaches to Machine Learning. International Conference on Machine Learning Workshop.
    [32]
    Avishek Kumar, Syed Ali Asad Rizvi, Benjamin Brooks, R Ali Vanderveld, Kevin H Wilson, Chad Kenney, Sam Edelstein, Adria Finch, Andrew Maxwell, Joe Zuckerbraun, 2018. Using machine learning to assess the risk of and prevent water main breaks. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 472–480.
    [33]
    Megh Marathe and Priyank Chandra. 2020. Officers Never Type: Examining the Persistence of Paper in e-Governance. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376216
    [34]
    Shannon Mattern. 2015. Mission control: A history of the urban dashboard. Places Journal (2015).
    [35]
    Development Monitoring and Government of India Evaluation Office, NITI Aayog. 2020. DATA GOVERNANCE QUALITY INDEX (DGQI). https://dmeo.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-03/DGQI_Toolkit.pdf
    [36]
    Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. nyu Press.
    [37]
    Ministry of Rural Development. 2015. PMGSY-II Programme Guidelines. http://pmgsy.nic.in/PMGSY_E_J_2015.pdf
    [38]
    Ministry of Rural Development. 2019. PMGSY-III Programme Guidelines. http://pmgsy.nic.in/PMGSY3gl.pdf
    [39]
    Cathy O’Neil. 2008. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and. (2008).
    [40]
    Marion Oswald, Jamie Grace, Sheena Urwin, and Geoffrey C Barnes. 2018. Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘Experimental’proportionality. Information & Communications Technology Law 27, 2 (2018), 223–250.
    [41]
    Samir Passi and Solon Barocas. 2019. Problem formulation and fairness. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 39–48.
    [42]
    Samir Passi and Steven Jackson. 2017. Data vision: Learning to see through algorithmic abstraction. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2436–2447.
    [43]
    Samir Passi and Steven J Jackson. 2018. Trust in data science: Collaboration, translation, and accountability in corporate data science projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW(2018), 1–28.
    [44]
    QGIS Development Team. 2021. QGIS Geographic Information System. QGIS Association. https://www.qgis.org
    [45]
    Naresh Chandra Saxena. 2019. What Ails the IAS and Why It Fails to Deliver: An Insider’s View. SAGE Publications India.
    [46]
    David Sculley, Gary Holt, Daniel Golovin, Eugene Davydov, Todd Phillips, Dietmar Ebner, Vinay Chaudhary, Michael Young, Jean-Francois Crespo, and Dan Dennison. 2015. Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015), 2503–2511.
    [47]
    Andrew D Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 59–68.
    [48]
    Zheyuan Ryan Shi, Claire Wang, and Fei Fang. 2020. Artificial intelligence for social good: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.01818(2020).
    [49]
    The Times of India Siddharth Tiwari. 2021. Asha workers to go on strike today over salary. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/82891204.cms
    [50]
    Aakash Solanki. 2019. Management of Performance and Performance of Management: Getting to Work on Time in the Indian Bureaucracy. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 42, 3 (2019), 588–605.
    [51]
    Aakash Solanki. 2020. 13. UNTIDY DATA: SPREADSHEET PRACTICES IN THE INDIAN BUREAUCRACY. Lives of Data, Institute of Network Cultures.
    [52]
    Harini Suresh and John V Guttag. 2019. A framework for understanding unintended consequences of machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.10002(2019).
    [53]
    Kentaro Toyama. 2015. Geek heresy: Rescuing social change from the cult of technology.
    [54]
    Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Towards Responsible Urban Geospatial AI: Insights From the White and Grey LiteraturesJournal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis10.1007/s41651-024-00184-28:2Online publication date: 26-Jun-2024

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    EAAMO '22: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization
    October 2022
    239 pages
    ISBN:9781450394772
    DOI:10.1145/3551624
    Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 17 October 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. AI/ML
    2. algorithms
    3. public sector
    4. social good

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    EAAMO '22
    Sponsor:

    Upcoming Conference

    EAAMO '24
    Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization
    October 30 - November 1, 2024
    San Luis Potosi , Mexico

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)32
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Towards Responsible Urban Geospatial AI: Insights From the White and Grey LiteraturesJournal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis10.1007/s41651-024-00184-28:2Online publication date: 26-Jun-2024

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media