Cited by 103Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareE-Government and Public Services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Datafying anti-poverty programmes: implications for data justice

Open access
Masiero, Silvia, Das, Soumyo·2019·Information, Communication & Society

Abstract

This paper seeks to illuminate the significance of datafication for anti-poverty programmes, meaning social protection schemes designed specifically for poor people. The conversion of beneficiary populations into machine-readable data enables two core functions of social protection, those of recognising entitled beneficiaries and assigning entitlements connected to each anti-poverty scheme. Drawing on the incorporation of Aadhaar, India’s biometric population database, in the national agenda for social protection, we unpack a techno-rational perspective that crafts datafication as a means to enhance the effectiveness of anti-poverty schemes. Nevertheless, narratives collected in the field show multiple forms of data injustice on recipients, underpinned by Aadhaar’s functionality for a shift of the social protection agenda from in-kind subsidies to cash transfers. Based on such narratives the paper introduces a politically embedded view of data, framing datafication as a transformative force that contributes to reforming existing anti-poverty schemes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2019.1575448

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Arora P., 2016, International Journal of Communication, 10, 1681
  2. Couldry N., 2018, Television & New Media, 1
  3. Cukier K., 2013, Foreign Affairs, 92, 28
  4. Drèze J., 2017, Economic & Political Weekly, 52, 50
  5. Government of India, 2015, Wiping every tear from every eye: The JAM trinity number solution. Economic survey 2015–2016
  6. Khera R., 2011, Economic & Political Weekly, 46, 106
  7. Masiero S., 2015, Economic & Political Weekly, 50, 21
  8. Nilekani N., 2016, Rebooting India: Realizing a billion aspirations
  9. Prakash A., 2015, Economic & Political Weekly, 50, 77
  10. Ramanathan U., 2014, Biometrics use for social protection programmes in India violating human rights of the poor
  11. Rao U., 2013, Economic & Political Weekly, 48, 72

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 103

Metadata

Authors
Masiero, S., & Das, S.
Affiliations
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore (IN)
Corresponding author
Masiero, Silvia
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Published
2019-05-13
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
916-933
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
OpenAlex
W2946326213
Cited by
103
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2
FWCI
28.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Development › Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
Keywords
datafication, anti-poverty programmes, social protection, data justice, Aadhaar, biometric identification, cash transfers, India

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review