Iuc Book_22!03!12-Soft Bound Isbn

7/31/2019 Iuc Book_22!03!12-Soft Bound Isbn

1/98

Urban India 2011: Evidence


2/98

ISBN : 978-93-5067-451-2 | Original publication: November 22, 2011. Second Edition: December 22, 2011. Third Edition: January 21, 2012


3/98



4/98

URBAN INDI A 20 11: EVIDENCE

We would like to thank the several contributing authors in particular:Professor Martha Chen of Harvard University and Dr. GovindanRaveendran for generously sharing their analysis of 1999-2009 NSSdata on urban employment; Somik Lall and the World Bank team

working on the India Urbanisation Review for sharing their resultson Indias economic geography and in particular the distributionof employment. Dr. Jyotsna Jha and Madhusudan B.V. of the Centre forBudgetary and Policy Studies, Bangalore provided intriguing data onMunicipal Finance.

IUC AUTHOR AND PR ODUCTION TEAMAromar Revi, IIHSCharis Idicheria, IIHSGarima Jain, IIHSGeetika Anand, IIHSDr. H.S. Sudhira, IIHS

Dr. Jessica Seddon, IIHSKavita Wankhade, IIHSM.K. Rashmi, IIHSPriyadarshini Shetty, IIHSRevati Dhoble, CDF, IFMRShashikala Gowda, IIHSShriya Anand, IIHSSujatha Srinivasan, CDF, IFMR

PH OTO CREDITS:

Cover Image - Red Fort : F.S. ShazuddinUrban Dynamics: IIHS Geospatial LabEconomic Geography - Gurgaoun High Rises: F.S. ShazuddinMigration - Old Delhi Railway Station: Kavita Wankhade, IIHSUrban Poverty & Livelihoods - Okhla: Garima Jain, IIHS

Social Safety Nets - Abul Fazal Enclave: Garima Jain, IIHSUrban Infrastructure - Metro Gurgaon: F.S. ShazuddinUrban Finance - Public Investments: Himanshu Dhandha, IIHS

COPYRIGHT AND USE

All the content created by the author(s) for the purpose of the IUC is copyrighted.

For permission to reproduce copyrighted materials, contact the author(s) of the copyright, noted as the "Source" on each page. You are free to share, to copy, distribute and transmit the work under the following conditions:

Attribution -You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you / or your use of the work).

Non-commercial -You shall not use this work for commercial purposes.With the understanding that:

Public Domain -Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

Other Rights-In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:

Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations;

The author's moral rights;

Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.

Trademarks: The logos and names of sponsors and organizers on the IUC briefing are trademarks of these organisations. Use, reproduction, copying or redistribution of trademarks, without the written permissionof the logo/name's respective owner is prohibited. The IIHS graphics in the IUC content are also considered trademarks of IIHS.

This report is produced by Autumn Worldwide | www.autumnworldwide.com


5/98

Indias urban transition, a once in history phenomenon, has thepotential to shift the countrys social, environmental, political, andeconomic trajectory. It could catalyse the end of calorie povertyif post-1989 China is any example. It could deepen democracy andhuman development, enabling more Indians to live better quality,healthier, and better-educated lives. It could enable the country'stransition to a less resource- Intensive development, with lowerthroughputs, footprints and environmental impacts that could reshapeglobal trends because of Indias demographic and economic size.But these are only aspirations. Hard evidence indicates that much work

needs to be done to realise these opportunities over the next twentyto thirty years.

Indias urbanisation will interact with the countrys ongoingdemographic evolution to shape the extent of the demographicdividend as a young labour force moves into more or less productiveemployment with unknown opportunities for economic and socialmobility. The process will help redefine Indias imagination as a countrythat lives primarily in its villages with limited movement acrossgeographies. We will need to understand and deepen the linkages thatenable small urban centres to become catalysts for rural non-farmemployment, sites of opportunities, and a foundation for eliminatingrural poverty and exclusion.

The spatial patterns of urbanisation will also affect the possibilitiesfor the country to pioneer new, less resource-intensive formsof development. India has lower measured emissions per unit of outputthan many other countries at the moment, but the emerging economicgeography will determine whether this pattern can be sustained asgrowth continues and consumption increases. Will road transportcontinue to dominate shipping or will rail and inland waterways emerge

as convenient linkages between economic hubs? Will cities grow ascompact, efficient densely populated areas or continue to spread outover larger and larger territories? Will more people connect to theelectricity grid or will diesel generators continue to power the emergingsuburbs this is an important question for emissions and energysecurity, above and beyond the more prominent discussion about themove from coal to renewable energy.

Third, urbanisation will, for better or for worse, play an enormous rolein social transformation and economic mobility. It may exacerbateinequalities, create new opportunities, or both. Cities could be engines

of poverty reduction, both within their boundaries and through thefinancial, people, and goods flow between urban and rural India. Theycould also replicate existing social stratification and exacerbate themisery of poverty by concentrating the poor in smaller, more polluted,more market-dependent, less safe areas.

In short, urbanisation is a transition to be reckoned with.

IIHS originally produced this book for the India Urban Conference:Evidence and Experience (IUC 2011), a series of events designed to raisethe salience of urban challenges and opportunities in the ongoing debateon Indias development. The series, comprising an academic conferencein New Haven, CT, USA, an ideas-forum and discussion of emergingevidence and research in Mysore, a policy conference in Delhi, and

a national student challenge seeking innovative proposals for urbansolutions, was convened by the Indian Institute for Human Settlements(IIHS), Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy (JCCD), andthe South Asian Studies Council at Yale University, in collaboration withthe Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and the Ministryof Urban Development of the Government of India. The events also



6/98

relied on the expertise and networks of Context Anchors includingArghyam, Bangalore; DRONAH (Development and ResearchOrganisation for Nature Art and Heritage), Gurgaon; IFMR FinanceFoundation, Chennai; PHFI (Public Health Foundation of India), Delhi;India Urban Space Foundation (IUSF), Bangalore; SPA (Schoolof Planning and Architecture), Delhi; and Pratham, Mumbai and Delhi.The IUC series sought to contribute to building a strong and inclusiveknowledge foundation for this transition. The series of events soughtto create a platform for research and dialogue among practitioners,academics, and citizens to identify priorities for policy, research, andaction by all stakeholders in Indias urban transition.

We hope to extend the discussion beyond that series through widerpublication of the Urban India 2011: Evidence briefing and the evidencebehind it. This brief and intensive underlying analysis pulls togetheravailable evidence from national surveys, the Census of India, remotesensing data on urban spatial dynamics, as well as published and greyliterature. The picture created is far removed from the lived realityof urban India, and the aggregate summaries may be at odds with thevaried circumstances that policymakers, entrepreneurs and civil societyface as they seek to intervene in the urban transition. In some casesthese data may systematically misrepresent the context and dynamicsof urban India. However, the analysis captures one of the views availableto todays policymakers and starts to place diverse individualexperiences in some semblance of a broader context. It providesa starting point for developing a shared understanding of the underlyingtrends behind the everyday and individual observations of how Indiaand its urban areas are evolving. We hope that it will be challenged,augmented, and improved.

The Urban India 2011: Evidence also marks the initiation of a seriesof thematic Urban Atlases in collaboration with leading scholars andpractitioners. The Indian Institute for Human Settlements is firmlycommitted to furthering basic research - to borrow an academic termfrom the natural sciences - that helps civil society, academics, and policymakers at all levels of government understand and reflect upon the waysthat our society, culture, and economy are changing every day. The Atlasprogramme will be a platform for collaboration between allof the various stakeholders in data production - civil society and citizensas well as surveyors, academics, and governments - as well as a meansto disseminate the information that emerges from these exerciseto a broad audience.


7/98

[1]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Endnotes & Explanations 79-86

Abbreviations 87-88

1. Urban Dynamics 3-26

2. Economic Geography 27-40

3. Migration 41-48

4. 49-56Urban Poverty and Livelihoods

5. Social Safety Nets 57-62

6. Urban Infrastructure & Services 63-70

7. Urban Finance 71-78

UrbanDynamics

EconomicGeograp

hy

Migration

UrbanPovertyandLivelihoods

SocialSafetyNets

UrbanInfra

structure&Services

UrbanFinance


8/98[2]


9/98

Urban Dynamics

Na t io n a l Ca p i t a l Re gio n o f De lh i : Ur b a n L a n d Co ve r 2 0 1 1

Longitude"Latitude"

UrbanDynamics


10/98

Urban Dynamics

[4]

This section provides an overview of Indias urban dynamics in bothspatial and demographic terms. The first set of maps places Indiaspresent settlement distribution in historic context and suggests onescenario of how this may evolve over the next two decades. Indiasimpending urbanisation, particularly an acceleration of urbanisationin southern and parts of western India, are apparent and formidable.The next set of analyses disaggregates this overall pattern to show thebroad spatial distribution of cities by size class. Insets on the pagessummarize the current distribution of population as well as estimatesof land covered and economic output across cities of various sizes.This analysis shows how urban areas account for a disproportionatelysmall amount of Indias terrain when compared with their s ignificantand rising share of economic output. According to the Census of India2011 as well as calculations by the IIHS Geospatial Lab, the top 10 citiesof India account for almost 8% of Indias population, produce 15% oftotal economic output but only occupy approximately 0.1% of the totalland area. Similarly, the 53 million plus cities are estimated to accountfor 13% of the population produce, about a third of total economicoutput and occupy approximately 0.2% of the land. The top 100 citiesare estimated to account for 16% of the population, produce 43% ofIndias total output and occupy approximately 0.26% of the land. Theseestimates are necessarily rough given the absence of reliabledisaggregated data for urban areas but the emerging economicimportance of cities as well their increasing demographic presence isclear.

The next set of plates traces the evolution of Indias entire settlementstructure across villages, small towns and cities showing the changingdistribution of Indias population since Independence. The distributionhas a high concentration in the million cities and a very longdecentralised tail the 2011 Census estimated 8,000 urban centres,situated in a sea of over 6,60,000 villages. The graphs show a decline inthe number of people and proportion living in hamlets and smallvillages, partially because of population growth, but also because of theclustering and agglomeration of settlements as mobility networksincreased in coverage and settlement sizes grew. The analysis shows thatthe most significant change is in the proportion of the smallest and thelargest cities.

Two striking questions emerge: the distribution of both Indias urbanand rural population across settlement size class over the next half

century as we move from a rural-agrarian to an urbanindustrial/services-led economy. The second is the impact of the greyzone between Class IV to VI towns (


11/98

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

Populationinmillions

Top 100 Top 50 Top 25 Top 20 Top 10

Urban India: 1951

[5]

In 1951, there were only5 Indian cities with a populationgreater than 1 million and only41 cities greater than 0.1 millionpopulation. Much of Indiaeffectively lived in 0.56 million

villages.

Source: IIHS Analysis of Censusdata, 1951. (Satellite Map,Google Inc.)

UrbanDynamics


12/98

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031



Urban India: 2011

[6]

In 2011, there arepopulation greater than 10 millionand 53 cities with population

greater than 1 million. Over 833million Indians live in 0.64 million

villages but 377 million live inabout 8,000 urban centres.

3 cities with

Source: IIHS Analysis of Censusdata, 2011. (Satellite Map,Google Inc.)

UrbanDynamics


13/98

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031



Urban India: 2031

[7]

By 2031, it is projected that therewill be 6 cities with a populationgreater than 10 million. A key

question is how many Indianswould live in how many mediumand small towns - the bridge

between a transforming rural andurban India?

Source: IIHS Analysis basedon Census of India. (Satellite Map,Google Inc.)

UrbanDynamics


14/98

India's Largest Cities: 2011

Source: Census 2011

[8]

Top TenGreater MumbaiDelhi

KolkataChennaiBangaloreHyderabadAhmedabadPuneSuratJaipur (M Corp.)*

Mil lion P lu sGreater MumbaiDelhi

KolkataChennaiBangaloreHyderabadAhmedabadPuneSuratJaipur (M Corp.)*KanpurLucknowNagpurGhaziabadIndore

CoimbatoreKochiPatnaKozhikodeBhopalThrissurVadodaraAgraGVMC (MC)**MalappuramThiruvananthapuramKannurLudhiana (M Corp.)*

NashikVijayawadaMaduraiVaranasiMeerutFaridabad (M Corp.)*Rajkot

JamshedpurSrinagar

JabalpurAsansolVasai Virar City (M Corp.)*AllahabadDhanbadAurangabadAmritsarJodhpurRanchiRaipurKollamGwaliorDurg-Bhilainagar

ChandigarhTiruchirappalliKota (M Corp.)*

T op H u n d r e dGreater MumbaiDelhi

KolkataChennaiBangaloreHyderabadAhmedabadPuneSuratJaipur (M Corp.)*KanpurLucknowNagpurGhaziabadIndore

CoimbatoreKochiPatnaKozhikodeBhopalThrissurVadodaraAgraGVMC (MC)**MalappuramThiruvananthapuramKannurLudhiana (M Corp.)*

NashikVijayawadaMaduraiVaranasiMeerutFaridabad (M Corp.)*RajkotJamshedpur

SrinagarJabalpur

AsansolVasai Virar City (M Corp.)*AllahabadDhanbadAurangabadAmritsarJodhpurRanchiRaipurKollamGwaliorDurg-BhilainagarChandigarh

TiruchirappalliKota (M Corp.)*MysoreBareillyGuwahatiTiruppurSolapur (M Corp.)*Hubli-Dharwad *(M Corp.)*SalemAligarhGurgaonMoradabad (M Corp.)*Bhubaneswar

JalandharWarangalBhiwandiDehradunSaharanpur (M Corp.)*SiliguriGorakhpurGuntur

CuttackPuducherry

JammuBikaner (M Corp.)*Amravati (M Corp.)*Noida (CT)MangaloreBelgaumBhavnagarFirozabad (NPP)JamnagarDurgapurMalegaonNelloreBokaro Steel City

KolhapurRaurkelaAjmerNanded Waghala (M Corp.)*JhansiGulbargaErodeUjjain (M Corp.)*SangaliTirunelveliMuzaffarnagarVelloreRajahmundry

(List in descending order of population of Urban Agglomerations)

**GVMC (MC): Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation | *(M Corp.): Municipal Corporation.

UrbanDynamics


15/98

Ten Largest Cit ies

Ten Largest Cities

[9]

Source: IIHS Analysis 2011(built-uparea); Census 2011 (population);Planning Commission 2011(DPP Estimates 2005-06).See endnotes for methodof calculating urban output andbuilt-up area.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1990s 2000s 2010s

Thousands

Average Density in Built -up Area of Top

Ten Cities, people per sq km

Estimatednumberofpeoplepersquarekm

ofbuilt-uparea

0 10 20 30 40 50

Estimated Proport ion for all-India

Land

Population

Output

0.1%

8%

15%

The top 10 cities are estimated toproduce about 15% of the GDP, with8% of the population and just 0.1%of the land area.

UrbanDynamics


16/98

Cities with Populations

over 1 Million

Cities with Populations over 1 Million

[10]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1990s 2000s 2010sEstimatednumberofpeoplepersquarekm

ofbuilt-uparea

Thousands

Average Density in Built -up Areas of

Mil lion Plus Cit ies, people per sq km


0 10 20 30 40 50

Estimated Proportion for all-India

Land

Population

Output

0.2%

13%

31%

UrbanDynamics

The 53 Million-plus cities areestimated to produce about 32% ofthe GDP, with 13.3% of thepopulation and just 0.2% of the land

area.


17/98

Hundred Largest Cit ies

Hundred Largest Cities

[11]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1990s 2000s 2010s

Thousands

Average Density in Built -up Areas of Top

Hundred Cit ies, people per sq km

Estimatednumberofpeoplepersquarekm

ofbuilt-uparea


0 10 20 30 40 50

Estimated Proport ion for all-India

Land

Population

Output

0.24%

16%

41%

UrbanDynamics

The top 100 largest cities areestimated to produce about 43% ofthe GDP, with 16% of the populationand just 0.24% of the land area.


18/98

Distribution of Indias Population by Settlement Size (Urban & Rural): 1951-2011*

[12]

Source:on Census 1951 to 2011

IIHS Analysis based

Megacities (> 10 m)

Large Metropolitan Cities (5-10 m)

Million + Cities (1 - 5 m)

Other Class I Cities (0.1 to 1 m)

Class V & VI (5,000)

22%

17%

13%

10%

7% 5%3%

21%

19%

18%

15%

12%

10%

8%

20%

21%

21%

20%

19%

18%

17%

17%

18%

20%

21%

22%

23%24%

5%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

17%

3%1%

1%

1%

1%1%

1%

7%8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

9%

1%2%

4%

6%7%

8%

9%

3%3%

3% 3%4%

5%6%

1% 3% 4%2%

2% 3%

3% 4% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1951

1961

1971

1981

1991 2001 2011

ProportionofAllIndiaPopulation(%)

C

lassI

Cities

OtherUrban

Centres

Mediumand

smallvillages

Large

Villages

265 m

112 m

537 m

200 m

Est. 2011Pop.

Depending on the definition of urban, more settlements shift from the rural into the urban category.

De f in i t i on o f Urba n (Ce ns us 20 11) :All st atu tor yplace s w ith a m un icipa lity , corp ora tion , can ton m ent

board or notified town area comm ittee. A place satisfying

the following three criteria simultaneously: a minim um

pop ula tion of 5,0 00 ; at le ast 75 per ce nt of m ale w ork ingpop ula tion eng ag ed in non -ag ricu ltu ral p ursuit s; a nd

a density of population of at least 400 per sq. km .Source: Census, 2011

All Ind ia : Num ber of Se t t lemen ts (1971-2011)

1991

3,351

6,34,321

2 0 0 1

5,161

6,38,588

2011

7,935

6,40,867

Urban

Rural*The break-up of smaller cities+ for 2011 is an estimate

(estimate)

UrbanDynamics


19/98

Largest 20 Urban Agglomerations by Population: 2011

[13]

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

Greater Mumbai UA

Delhi UA

Kolkata UA

Chennai UA

Bangalore UA

Hyderabad UA

Ahmedabad UA

Pune UA

Surat UA Jaipur (M Corp.)

Kanpur UA

Lucknow UA

Nagpur UA

Ghaziabad UA

Indore UA

Coimbatore UA

Kochi UA

Patna UA

Kozhikode UA

Bhopal UA

Populationinm

illions

The rapid growth of the largest metropolitan cities in the 20th century,is now beginning to slow down, whereas the smaller cities are expanding.

Source: IIHS Analysis based onCensus of India, 2011

UrbanDynamics


20/98

Population and Built up Area: Inside and Outside Indias 10 Largest Cities

[15]

Source:and IIHS AnalysisSee endnote for explanationon methodology for calculatingbuilt-up area

H.S. Sudhira (2011)

Indias largest cities have a significant portion of bothpopulation and built-up areas outside ULB boundaries. Inmost cases, the proportion of built- up area outside ULB

boundaries is greater than the proportion of populationoutside the administrative boundaries, implying relativelylow-density sprawl. Comparison over time (highlighted inthe next page) shows that this spatial expansion hasaccelerated between 2000 and 2010.

Population Built -up area

Population Built -up area

MumbaiGreater Delhi Kolkata Chennai Bangalore Hyderabad Ahmedabad Pune Surat Jaipur

Populationandbuilt

0

populationorbuilt

50-upareaoutsidetheurbanlocalbodyasaproportionof

-

100upareainsidetheurbanlocalbody

150

200

250

2010

Populat ion up areaBuilt -

Mumbai MumbaiGreater Delhi Kolkata Chennai Bangalore Hyderabad Ahmedabad Pune Surat Jaipur Greater Delhi Kolkata Chennai Bangalore Hyderabad Ahmedabad Pun e Sur at Jai pur

Populationandbuilt

Populationandbuilt

0 0

populationorbuilt

populationorbuilt

50- 50upareaoutsidetheurbanlocalbo

dyasaproportionof

-upareaoutsidetheurbanlocalb

odyasaproportionof

-upareainsidetheurbanlo

calbody

-upareainsidetheurbanlocalbody

100 100

150 150

200 200

250 250

1990 2000

UrbanDynamics


21/98

Urban Growth: Population vs. Built up Areas

[14]

Built-up area has been growing faster than population in nearly all of Indias largest cities for the past two decades.


H.S. Sudhira (2011)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GreaterMumbai

Delhi Kolkata Chennai Bangalore Hyderabad Ahmedabad Pune Surat Jaipur

Change(%)

Percentage Change in Population and Built -up Area

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GreaterMumbai


Change(%)

Percentage Change in Population Percentage Change in Built- up Area

for 10 Largest Cit ies, 1990-2000

Percentage Change in Populat ion and Built -up Area

for 10 Largest Cities, 2000-2010

UrbanDynamics


22/98

Urban Growth: Density

[16]

Built-up density, estimated as population over built-up area, is decreasing for most of the core areas of theten largest cities. The evolution of density outside the urban local body boundaries varies more, but

density is lower than in the city cores.


H.S. Sudhira (2011)

UrbanDynamics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GreaterMumbai


Personspersq.

kmofbuilt-uparea

Thousands

Built-up Densities inside Administrative Boundary

1990

2000

2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GreaterMumbai


Personspersq.

kmofBuilt-uparea

Thousands

Built-up Densities outside Administrative Boundary

1990

2000

2010


23/98

Change in Urban Built-up Area & Land Cover: Mumbai & Delhi

[17]

Source: H. S. Sudhira (2011).Urban Land Cover and Land CoverChange Dataset of Indian Cities.IIHS Working Paper, Mimeo.

Delhi

1992 2000 2011

Water bodies

Vegetation

Built-up

Others

Mumbai

199212.6 million 200116.4 million 201118.4 million


UrbanDynamics

U


24/98

Change in Urban Built-up Area & Land Cover: Kolkata & Chennai

[18]

Kolkata

1990 2001 2010

Water bodies

Vegetation

Built-up

Others

Chennai

1991




UrbanDynamics


25/98

Change in Urban Built-up Area & Land Cover: Bangalore & Hyderabad

[19]

Bangalore

1992 2001 20093.4 million 5.7 million 8.5 million

Water bodies

Vegetation

Built-up

Others

Hyderabad

1989 2001 20094.3 million 5.7 million 7.7 million


UrbanDynamics


26/98

Water bodies

Vegetation

Built-up

Others

Change in Urban Built-up Area & Land Cover: Ahmedabad & Pune

[20]

Ahmedabad

1992 2001 2011

Pune

1992 2001 2011




UrbanDynamics

U


27/98

Change in Urban Built-up Area & Land Cover: Surat & Jaipur

[21]

Jaipur

1989

Water bodies

Vegetation

Built-up

Others

Surat




UrbanDynamics

Ur


28/98

Change in Urban Built-up Area & Land Cover: Agra & Chandigharh

[22]

Water bodies

Vegetation

Built-up

Others

Agra

1989 2000 2011

Chandigharh

1989 2000 20110.6 million 0.8 million 1 million



rbanDynamics

U


29/98

[23]

UrbanDynamics

Spatial Variation in District-wise Distribution of Sectoral Output: 2005-06

All the districts of India are arranged in ascendingorder of level of urbanisation, and the linesrepresent the cumulative distribution of sectoral

output. As expected, we see that some economicactivity like banking, insurance and real estate ismore concentrated in urban areas, whereasforestry, logging, agriculture, mining andquarrying are less concentrated in urban areas.

This chart shows the sectoral composition of the economy. Shades of green

represent the primary sector, shades of blue represent the secondary sectorand shades of pink and purple represent the tertiary sector.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cumulativ

ePercentageofTotalAll-IndiaOutpu

t

Districts, ordered by Level of Urbanisation

Agriculture

Forestry andLogging

Mining andQuarrying

Manufacturing

Trade, Hotelsand Restaurants

Banking andInsurance

Real Estate

Total DDP

Sectoral Composition of All India GDP, 2005-06

Agriculture

19% Forestry 1%

Fishing 1%

Mining 2%

Manufacturing

14%

Electricity2%

Construction8%

Trade

15%Railways 1%

Other Transport 4%

Communication

3%

Banking6%

Real Estate

9%

PublicAdmn

5% OtherServices

9%

Source : District-level dataon economic output from thePlanning Commission

U


30/98

[24]

UrbanDynamics

Spatial Variation in District-wise Distribution of Output for Select States: 2005-06


The districts of a particular state are linedup in increasing order of level of urbanisationon the horizontal axis, and the vertical axis

depicts the cumulative percentage of the statesoutput accounted for by these districts. For moredetails, refer to endnotes. From this figure, we cansee that some states like Maharashtra andKarnataka have a greater spatial concentrationof output in highly urbanised districts, whereasin some states like Andhra Pradesh, Punjab andRajasthan, output is distributed more evenlyacross the districts of the state.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

PerCapitaGSDP(inRupees)

Per Capita GSDP

All India Per Capita GDP

There is a great deal of variation in per capita GSDP (Gross State DomesticProduct) between the states in our sample.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CumulativePercentageofStateOutput

Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

Karnataka

Andhra Pradesh

Bihar

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

All India

Districts, ordered by Level of Urbanisation

U


31/98

Primary Secondary Tertiary Total DDP

[25]

Distribution of Sectoral Output by Districts for Select States: 2005-06

0%

10%

20%

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Proport ion Rural

CumulativeSectoralOutpu

t

Cumulative Population, Districts Orderedby Level of Urbanisation

Rajasthan

Agriculture13%

Mining1%

Manufacturing

19%

Electricit y 3%

Construction 5%

Trade17%

Railways 1%

Other Transport 5%

Communication 4%

Banking11%

Real Estate

11%

Public Admn. 4% OtherServices

7%

Agriculture

26%

Forestry 2%

Mining 2%

Manufacturing12%

Electricit y 3%

Construction13%

Trade13%

Railways 1%

Other

Transport3%

Communication3%

Banking 4%

Real Estate 6%

Public Admn 4%

Other Services 8%

Districts in a particular state are linedup in increasing order of the levelof urbanisation, and these charts arescatter plots of the cumulative percentageof population against the cumulativeproportion of output in the primary,secondary and tertiary sectors of theeconomy. The black vertical line indicatesthe overall level of urbanisation in the

state. It does not indicate that thepopulation above the line is completelyurban: Districts above the line aresomewhat more rural and districts belowthe line are somewhat more urban.

Sectoral compostion of state output : 2005-06

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Rajasthan Karnataka Punjab Maharashtra


Per Capita GSDP


Proportion Rural


Maharashtra

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


t


Rajasthan Maharashtra

UrbanDynamics

Urb


32/98

[26]

banDynamics

Distribution of Sectoral Output by Districts for Select States: 2005-06

The pie charts show the sectoralcomposition of state output: shadesof green represent the primary sector,shades of blue represent the secondarysector and shades of pink and purplerepresent the tertiary sector.In Maharashtra and Karnataka, secondaryand tertiary sector output is concentratedin the more urbanised districts of the state,

whereas primary sector outputis concentrated in the more rural districtsof the state. Output in Punjab and Rajasthanis more evenly spread across districts.

Sectoral compostion of state output: 2005-06


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Rajasthan Karnataka Punjab Maharashtra


Per Capita GSDP


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Proport ion Rural

CumulativeSectoralOutput

Cumulative Population ordered by Percentage Urban

Karnataka

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Proport ion Rural


t


Punjab

Agriculture

18%Forestry 1%Mining 1%

Manufacturing16%

Electricity 3%

Construction 7%

Trade14%

Railways 1%

Other Transport 4%

Communication4%

Banking 7%

Real Estate13%

Public Admn 4%

Other Services 7%

Agriculture

32%

Manufacturing

15%

Electricity 3%Construction 7%

Trade13%

Railways 1%

Other

Transport3%

Communication3%

Banking 5%

Real Estate 4%

Public Admn 5%

Other Services 8%

Primary Secondary Tertiary Total DDP

Karnataka Punjab


33/98

Economic Geography


34/98

Economic Geography

[28]

Indias economic dynamism varies dramatically across the country.Unfortunately no comparable official estimates are available for cityeconomic output, in spite of urban areas producing close to two-thirdsof the GDP.

Hence, the series of maps present the closest spatial approximation -district-level data on economic output, disaggregated by sector, thathighlight the spatial distribution of economic activity for select sectorsand in aggregate. The striking pattern is the concentration of economicoutput in districts that host some of the largest cities, across mosteconomic sectors especially services, but including manufacturing.This is set in a highly unequal landscape in terms of natural resourceendowments (some of the poorest districts have high concentrationsof energy, forest and mineral wealth) and agricultural land-use

and productivity.

The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) maps show where thechanges are taking place over the early 2000s, during an acceleratingperiod of economic reform. It is interesting to note that tertiary sectoractivity is concentrated in and around large urban centres, and itsgrowth is strongest in the more urbanised regions of the country.From the CAGR maps, one can observe that the rate of growthof agricultural output is lower than that of manufacturing, whichin turn is lower than that of trade related output. These trends pointto an ongoing economic restructuring and shifts in the sectoral andspatial composition of the economy, potentially moving in the directionof divergence and urban primacy.

To supplement the IIHS analysis on economic activity, this brief drewon work done for the World Banks as-yet-unpublished IndiaUrbanisation Review on employment patterns and the concentration

of employment in cities disaggregated by city size. The results reinforcethe general conclusion of concentrated (but slowly de-concentrating)economic activity.

Workforce participation rates, at least in employment captured in theEconomic Census, are highest in the major metros (population4 million plus), and employment in high tech sectors (ICT, high-technology manufacturing, and fast-growing exports) is also highlyconcentrated in the larger cities. Manufacturing in general and low techmanufacturing in particular is relatively well distributed across thecountry. Further, the pattern of employment growth around the India'slargest cities shows that manufacturing activity is shifting outwardsfrom the city core. Manufacturing is shifting to a 10-100 km radius fromthe city centre, with high tech manufacturing shifting to a 10-50km

radius from the city centre, and medium high tech manufacturing andfast growing export manufacturing shifting to a 50-100 km radius fromcity centres. The patterns around cities with at least a million personsas of the 2001 census are somewhat different: low tech manufacturingis growing in the city core and in a 10-50 km radius from the city core,and high tech and medium high tech manufacturing is declining in thesame radius. Fast growing export manufacturing is increasingin a 50-100 km radius from the city centres.

The spread of manufacturing and other employment away from the citycore connects to the issue of sprawl, and raises questions related to thelinks between land use and transportation. The shifting spatialdistribution of economic activity as well as infrastructure hasimplications for the distribution of economic development as wellas poverty.

EconomicGeograph

y


35/98

Source: IIHS Analysis basedon District-level economicdata from the PlanningCommission website and theCentral Statistical Organization.

Distribution and Growth Rate of Total Output: 2001-05

[29]

NOTE: Data for Gujarat,Jammu & Kashmir,Nagaland, and Tripura isnot available at the districtlevel. Therefore, the valueassigned to each district inthese four states is theaverage of the state GDP.

District-wise Distribution of Total GDP Output - 2005 Considerable concentrationof economic output aroundmajor urban centers and

urbanised states over theearly 2000s

EconomicGeograph

y


36/98

Distribution and Growth Rate of Primary Sector Output: 2001-05

[30]


District-wise Distribution of Primary Sector Output - 2005


Major concentrationof primary sector economicactivities in 'GreenRevolution', delta andirrigated areas apart frommining-intensive districts.

EconomicGeograph

y


37/98

Distribution and Growth Rate of Secondary Sector Output: 2001-05

[31]


Distr ict-wise Distribut ion of Secondary Sector Output - 2005


The concentrationof secondary activitiescontinues in establishedcentres and along growthcorridors.

EconomicGeograph

y


38/98

Distribution and Growth Rate of Tertiary Sector Output: 2001-05

[32]

NOTE: Data for Gujarat,Jammu & Kashmir,Nagaland, and Tripura is

not available at the districtlevel. Therefore, the valueassigned to each district inthese four states is theaverage of the state GDP.

District-wise Distribution of Tertiary Sector Output - 2005


High concentrationof tertiary sector outputin metropolitan cities andstate capitals.

EconomicGeography


39/98

Distribution and Growth Rate of Agricultural Output: 2001-05

[33]



District-wise Distribution of Agricultural Output - 2005


Agricultural Output

concentrated in GreenRevolution and cash cropbased districts. Muchof semi-arid, eastern andnorth-eastern India remainrelatively 'backward'.

EconomicGeography


40/98

Distribution and Growth Rate of Manufacturing Output: 2001-05

[34]



District-wise Distribution of Manufacturing Output - 2005


Manufacturing outputremains highlyconcentrated in olderindustrial and metropolitancentres in spite of 15 yearsof economic reforms.

EconomicGeography


41/98

Distribution and Growth Rate of Trade Output: 2001-05

[35]



District-wise Distribution of Trade Output - 2005


Strong concentrationof trade output in largemetropolitan centres statecapitals and along growthcorridors.

EconomicGeography


42/98

Distribution and Growth Rate of Real Estate Output: 2001-05

[36]



District-wise Distribution of Real Estate Output - 2005


High concentration of realestate share of outputin large metropolitancentres and moreprosperous states.

EconomicGeography


43/98

Sectoral Employment by City Size: 2005

[37]

Source: World Bank (2011)India Urbanisation Review. Mimeo

Workforce Participation Rate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

ICT services Transport, telecom Financial services Real estate

%ofN

ationalJobsintheSector

Business Service Employment

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%ofNationalJobsintheSector

Other Service Employment

Medium (0.05-0.1million) Large (0.1-1 million) Million+ (1-4million) Major Metro (>4 million)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

%ofWorkersinPopulation

0

20

40

60

80

100

Low Tech

Med LowTech

Med HighTech

High Tech

Fast-GrowingExports

Manufacturing

%ofNationalJobs

intheSector

EconomicGeography


44/98

Sectoral Concentration in Employment

[38]


L o ca t i o n Q u o t i e n t is the share of a sector (s) employment in that region (r) divided by the national share of employment (e) in thatsector: (e /E )/(e /E ). Values greater than one signify a relative concentration of that sectors employment in a particular region.sr r sn NThe clusters of columns on this graph show the variation in geographic concentration of employment in particular sectors.The clusters with relatively uniform height - low-technology manufacturing and manufacturing in general - represent evenlydispersed jobs. Other sectors, most notably ICT, have a significant portion of jobs clustered in the larger cities.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

LocationQuotient

Sector

Major Metro (>4 million)

Million+ (1-4million)

Large (0.1-1 million)

Medium (0.05-0.1 million)

Small (0.02-0.05 million)

Town (


45/98

Workforce and Employment around Major Metros: 1998-2005

[39]

Major Metros are Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata, Chennai, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad in this analysis, which were the seven largestcities as of 2001 Census.

rural

urban

Manufacturing

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

%ofManufacturingWorkforce

7 largest cities are as per 2001 census

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

%ofBusinessServicesWorkforce


Business Services

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

%ofOtherServicesWorkforce


Other Services

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

%ofICTWorkforce


ICT Services


EconomicGeography


46/98

Geography of Employment Growth: 1998-2005

[40]

Major Metros are Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata, Chennai, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad in this analysis. Medium-sized citiesare cities of at least 1 million as of Census 2001. The ring buffer analysis excludes areas within 100km from seven largest cities.

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


47/98

Migration

i i


48/98

Migration

[42]

A commonly held perception is that explosive rural to urban migrationis the primary cause for the state of Indias cities. This is not borne outby the evidence. For the last 30 years, migration has contributed abouta fifth of the population, natural urban population growth contributedabout 60 percent, and the rest about equally split between new townformation because of reclassification and urban boundary expansionor sprawl.

This section estimates patterns of migration in India, focusing on 2011,in anticipation of the release of Census 2011 data. Besides givingan overview of the contribution of net rural to urban migration to thetotal increase in urban population, it also attempts to trace the patternsof peoples movements between the states.

Using data from multiple sources, including recent results from Censusand SRS 2011 and the NSS 64th Round, three interesting trends emerge.First, the net migration share in urban growth is up from 21 percentover the last decade to about 24 percent over 2001-11. Demographicdynamics, with dropping birth rates has led to a decline in naturalpopulation growth share in cities from 59 percent in 1991-2001to 44 percent over the last decade. The remaining 32 percent is dueto reclassification of Census towns and expansion of urbanagglomerations. Census 2011 saw the largest rise in new Census Towncreation in history pointing to the movements of large villages in thegrey zone into an urban classification. The growth in urban areais corroborated with satellite data in the section on Urban Dynamics.

The maps explore spatial trends in inter-state migration over the2001-2011 period, using NSS data as a proxy in advance of the release

of the Census 2011 data. Not unsurprisingly, much of the migration(female+male; rural + urban) is concentrated around thedemographically dominant states of northern India along with theincreasing concentration of investment, economic activity, wealth andjobs around particular centres.

Uttar Pradesh leads the country as an interstate migration destinationfollowed by Delhi, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan. Delhi leadsas a destination for net rural to urban migration (from UP, Bihar andHaryana) followed by Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and AndhraPradesh. While comparing total urban to urban migration, Delhi againleads other states as a destination followed closely by Uttar Pradesh,Maharashtra, West Bengal and Karnataka. Maharashtra, Gujarat,

Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka also show significant migration intourban areas.

The diagram represents 20 streams of migration that make up halfof the estimated total migrants over the 2001-10 decade. The mostsignificant total migration flows (urban & rural) are from Uttar Pradesh,Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. Key destination statesare Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Haryana, UP and Bihar. Urban migrationis much more diverse, but the lead source states still continue to be UP,Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Haryana. Key destination statesinclude Delhi, Kerala, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu andAndhra Pradesh.

Migration

C f U b P l i G h 6


49/98

Source: IIHS Analysis basedon Census of India, 2011; NSS 64thRound; Sivaramakrishnan,Kundu and Singh (2005)SRS,Vol.45 No.1, 2011See endnote for explanationon methodology for calculating netrural to urban migration

Components of Urban Population Growth: 1961-2011

[43]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1961-71 1971-81 1981-91 1991-2001 2001-2011*

UrbanPopulationGrowth(in

million)

Net Rural to Urban migration

Expansion in urban area / agglomeration

New towns less declassified towns

Natural Growth

The major component of urban population growthis still natural growth. While approximately40 million of the 2001-2011 increase is dueto natural growth, only about 22 million is due to net

rural to urban migration.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1961-71 1971-81 1981-91 1991-2001 2001-2011*

%Share

ofUrbanPopulationGrowth

Net Rural to Urban migrationExpansion in urban area / agglomeration

New towns less declassified t owns

Natural Growth

Tracing the rates of change of the components of urbangrowth from 1961-71 to 2001-11, the rate of naturalgrowth has declined from 59% in 1991-01 to 44%in 2001-11, whereas the estimated rate of net rural tourban migration has marginally increased from 21%in 1991-01 to 24% in 2001-11.

* The figures for 2011 are estimates with their methodology described in the endnotes.

Migration

E i d M j I S Mi i S


50/98

State GDP (in Lakh Crores)

Source: IIHS Analysis based on thedata from Census of India 2001,2011, and NSS 64th RoundSee endnote for explanationon methodology for calculatingnet rural to urban migration

[44]

Estimated Major Inter-State Migration Streams: 2001-2011

The figures for 2011 are estimates with their methodology described in the endnotes.

0 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.6

0.6 - 1.2

1.2 - 1.8

1.8 - 2.2

2.2 - 3.6

Migration

The 10 largest flows of inter-statemigration (including rural andurban migration) are in the north(UP, MP, Haryana and Delhi) andeast (Bihar and West Bengal) withsignificant flows between TamilNadu and Kerala.

E ti t d M j N t R l t U b I t St t Mi ti


51/98


1 lakh persons

Estimated Major Net Rural to Urban Inter-State Migration: 2001-2011


[45]

0 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.6

0.6 - 1.2

1.2 - 1.8

1.8 - 2.2

2.2 - 3.6


Much of the major movementis between the states in the northand eastern India, except formovement between Tamil Naduand Kerala, and Andhra Pradeshand Karnataka. The top 10movement streams are estimatedto be as follows:

UP to Delhi Bihar to Delhi UP to Maharashtra Bihar to West Bengal Tamil Nadu to Kerala Bihar to UP Haryana to Delhi UP to Gujarat Kerala to Tamil Nadu Andhra to Karnataka

Migration

E ti t d M j N t U b t U b I t St t Mi ti


52/98

The top 10 largest flows betweenurban areas are estimatedto be as below:

UP to Delhi Bihar to Delhi

Bihar to West Bengal UP to Uttarakhand Bihar to UP UP to Maharashtra Kerala to Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu to Kerala AP to Karnataka MP to UP


[46]

Migration


Estimated Major Net Urban to Urban Inter-State Migration: 2001-2011

0 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.6

0.6 - 1.2

1.2 - 1.8

1.8 - 2.2

2.2 - 3.6


E ti t d T Mi ti St 2001 2011


53/98

Estimated Top Migration Streams: 2001-2011

[47]

Estimated top 50% of Total Migration Estimated top 50% of Migration into Urban areas

Source: IIHS Analysis basedon Census of India, 2001and 2011NSS 64th RoundSee endnote for explanationon methodology for calculatingnet rural to urban migration

The above circo diagrams represent migration streams between states, with the thick endrepresenting the source state and narrow end representing the destination state.

The first circo represents the streams of migration that amount to 50% of the total migrationoccurring within the country. The migration represented here, 50% of total migration, comesfrom just 20 streams of migrants.

The second circo represents the top 50% migration streams in urban areas. While Delhi,Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Karnataka and Haryana are the top destinationstates, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh are the largest sourcesof such migration.

Migration


54/98

[48]


55/98

Urban Poverty & Livelihoods



56/98

UrbanPovertyandLiveliho

ods


[50]

This section presents data on the persistence of poverty and inequalityin urban areas, read particularly through the lenses of slums andunemployment. Some points to note: First, although the proportionof the poor in the total population is falling both in urban and ruralareas, the absolute number of urban poor is increasing. The extent towhich this is due to movements of existing urban residents into povertyversus in-migration is not clear. Migration may be the first step towardhigher incomes and movement out of poverty. In other words, while theoverall number of urban poor maybe increasing; it need not imply thatthe families are not moving out of poverty. However, if migration is notan important factor, then rising numbers of the urban poor pointto declining incomes and assets as well as vulnerability to consumptionand asset shocks.

Second, povertys relationship with the current settlement structureis important. Concentrations of poverty are associated with slumsleading to the assumption that large million plus cities with visibleslums have higher concentrations of poverty. Million plus cities areindeed home to 40 percent of the slum population. However, themajority of the poor are, in fact, concentrated in medium and smalltowns - 80 percent of the urban poor reside in cities with populationsless than one million. These findings may be an artifact of a datacollection process that does not fully capture slums in smaller cities,but if true, they have critical implications for current nationalpolicies on urban renewal and reform, particularly those targetingurban poverty.

Third, cities are sites of opportunity - for some. As in the case of greaterinequality in consumption expenditure over the 2000s, wealth

distribution in urban areas demonstrate greater inequality than wealthdistribution in rural areas. Traditional caste hierarchies of rural Indiaappear to be reproducing themselves in urban India, contrary to popularperception. In urban India, the Hindu forward castes continue to enjoyhigher incomes at all levels of wealth distribution compared to SCs,STs, OBCs and non-Hindus.

In terms of employment, the extent of informality in urban employmentis high at around 70 percent. It has remained largely unchanged over thecourse of the past decade. Almost 60 percent of total urban employedare wage workers, and 67 percent of this category are informal wageworkers. The remaining are largely the urban self-employed, whichinclude own account workers, employers, and contributing familyworkers. Only a small proportion of the self-employed (about 5 percent)

are employers, while the majority (74 percent) are own-accountworkers. The composition of urban informal employment is similar,with about 50 percent being wage workers, 40 percent workingas own-account workers, and the remaining working as employers andcontributing or unpaid family workers. The proportion of wage workersin informal employment has increased since 1999-2000.

Classified by industry, the largest category for urban employmentis non-trade services, which includes occupations as diverseas transport, domestic workers and waste pickers. This category hasthe lowest proportion of informality, but it is not clear that these"formal" jobs are those to aspire for.

Urban Informality and Job Types: 1999 2009


57/98

Source: Chen, Martha A., andG. Raveendran, 2011. "UrbanEmployment in India: Recent Trendsand Patterns," (Mimeo)

Urban Informality and Job Types: 1999-2009

[51]

Composition of Total Urban

Employed in2009-10

Urban WageWorkers

59%

Urban SelfEmployed

41%

Formal

33%

Informal

67%

Employers

5%

Own

Account

Workers

74%

Unpaid Family

Workers

21%

Among the urban self-employed, 74% are own account workers (without paidemployees) and 21% are unpaid contributing family workers -- self-employment in small single-person businesses play a significant role.

0

20

40

60

80

100

1999-00 2004-05 2009-10

Informal Employment as a Proport ion of

Total Urban Employment

Formal Informal

Most urban employment is informal, a situation thathas remained stable over the past decade.

25 40

40 100.15

05

1015202530354045

Pro

portionofTotalUrbanEmployed(%)

Urban Employed Classified by Industry,

Proportion Formal vs. Informal

Informal

Formal

Non-trade services is a varied category, combining transport,domestic workers and waste pickers. Almost all domestic workersand waste pickers are informally employed, implying that much ofthe formal employment in this industry is in transport.

Constru

ctio

n


ods

Urban Informal Employment Classified by Type of Work


58/98

Source: Chen and Raveendran (2011)based on NSS 66th Round, Mimeo.

Urban Informal Employment Classified by Type of Work

[52]

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1999-00

2004-05

2009-10

Urban Informal Employmentby Employment Status

Wage Workers Employers Own Account Workers Unpaid Family Workers

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

MALE

FEMALE

MALE

FEMALE

MALE

FEMALE

1999-00

2004-05

2009-10

Urban Informal Employment by EmploymentStatus and Gender

Within informal employment, only half are wage workers, a structure that has remained fairly stable over time. The self-employed

are largely own-account workers. Male and female work forces have similar proportions of wage. Differences are apparent amongself-employed, where the share of employment for unpaid family workers is higher for women than men.


ods

Urban and Rural Poverty Trends: 1973-2004


59/98

Source: Government of India,Planning Commission (2008)

Urban and Rural Poverty Trends: 1973-2004

[53]

Millions

Poverty Head Count

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1973 1983 1999 2004

Urban Rural

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1973 1983 1999 2004

PercentageofPopulation

Proportion Below Poverty Line

Urban Rural

The poverty headcount ratio is declining in both urban and rural areas. However, the number of urban poor is rising while thenumber of rural poor is declining. Poverty head count data is from the Planning Commission, Eleventh Plan, Volume III,and is based on poverty lines for 2004-05. Poverty lines in 2004-05 were Rs. 356 monthly per capita consumption expenditurefor rural areas and Rs. 539 for urban areas.


ods

Caste-wise Rural and Urban Distribution of Wealth: 2002


60/98


[54]

Source:Vakulabharanam (2011) basedon All-India Debt andInvestment Survey, 2002-3.

Zacharias and

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

5 10 1520 253035 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Wealth,1000sof2006Rs

Percentile

Forward Caste

Urban Rural

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

5 10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80 85 90 95


Percentile

Non-Hindu

Urban Rural

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

5 10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75 80 85 90 95


Percentile

Scheduled Tribe

Urban Rural

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

5 10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75 80 85 90 95


Percentile

Scheduled Caste

UrbanRural

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

5 1015 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95


Percentile

Other Backward Caste

Urban Rural

If rural and urban individuals fora particular caste group were linedup from poorest to richest (100thpercentile), the lines on these chartsrepresent the level of wealth for eachindividual in line.

The series highlights the distinct waysin which rural and urban incomedistributions for a particular caste

group diverge.


ods



61/98

Caste wise Rural and Urban Distribution of Wealth: 2002

[55]

Source: Zacharias andVakulabharanam (2011) basedon All-India Debt and InvestmentSurvey, 2002-3.

If rural and urban individuals for a particular caste group were lined up from poorestto richest (100th percentile), the lines on these charts represent the level of wealth foreach individual in line.

The two graphs display differing scales of wealth, but similar orderings of caste groups.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Rural Wealth Distribution

percentile

Wea

lthinRs.1000s

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Urban Wealth Distribution

percentile

WealthinRs.1000s

Scheduled Castes

Scheduled Tribes

Other Backward Classes

Forward Castes

Non-Hindus


ods

City size-wise Urban Poor and Slums


62/98

City size wise Urban Poor and Slums

[56]

Source:Lanjouw and Murgai (2011), basedon NSS data and urban populationas of 2001 Census. Data on slumsfrom Mathur (2009) basedon Census 2001 data.

Data on poverty from

Greater t han4mn

1-2mn

500,000-1mn

100,000-

500,000

Less than

100,000

Slum Population, Distribution by

City Size (2001)

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

1983 1993-94 2004-05

ShareofUrb

anPoor

NSSRound

Distribution of the Poor by CitySize (1983-2004)

Large Cities (>1 million)

Small and Medium

Cities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%90%

100%

Share of urban poor (2003-04) Share of slum population (2001)

PercentageShare

Large Cities

(>1million)

Small and

Medium

Cities

Share of Urban poverty and slum population by city size

2-4mn

Medium and small cities havea larger share of the poor anda slightly larger share of slumpopulation than the million pluscities. It is not clear, however,that the data accurately capturethe extent of slums, particularlyin smaller towns.


ods


63/98

Social Safety Nets

Safety Nets


64/98

Safety Nets

[58]

SocialSafetyNets

India has a weak and fragmented urban social safety net, in spiteof changes in poverty, inequality and informality over the 2000s.

Multiple actors and programmes are involved in creating andmaintaining the various pieces of the urban social safety nets that existin India. This section maps the broad delegation of roles, priorities andtarget groups across ministries and programmes. The complexity of theroles and connections between institutions obscures clear analysis on

entitlements and delivery mechanisms. This section illustrates that theurban social safety net is in reality a complex and fragmented system,which has included urban India as more of an afterthought rather thana specific space for intervention. It is hence marked by ambiguousbudgetary allocations and almost no way to measure or trackdevelopmental outcomes.

The first map on urban social safety nets highlights most programmesand schemes for identified target groups. It attempts to portray thecurrent imagination on how to address the acknowledged needs of these

target groups. The second indicates the multiplicity and overlapof programmes and schemes that seek to address these needs by targetgroups. The third then clusters some overarching operational themesand the programmes that seek to address them. The last map depicts thenumber of central ministries that intervene in each operational themethrough the various schemes and programmes they fund.

The figures here are based on research that a typical urban citizen could

undertake: consultation of primary sources (e.g. agency websites),interviews with officials as available, and learning from secondarysources. They remain incomplete because publicly available reportingstructures, particularly for programmes that are operational in bothrural and urban areas, do not clearly convey the intended number ofbeneficiaries in urban areas and the allocation of resources intended forthem. Thus, while the letter of these interventions broadly articulatesurban inclusion, the implementation and reporting mechanisms pointmore to their absence in urban areas.


65/98

Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net: Programmes for Intended Target Groups


66/98

Benefit and Budget Specifically and/orExclusively in Urban Areas

Benefit and Budget Split across Rural andUrban Areas

Scheme/Programme in Which theBenefits and Budget is Specifically and/or

Exclusively in Urban Areas

Scheme/Programme in Which theBenefits and Budget is Split across

Rural and Urban Areas

* 2009-10 Budget Estimates

** Cumulative Budget Estimates

pp g b y g g p

[60]

Source:"Mapping the UrbanSocial Safety Net,"IIHS Working Paper, Mimeo.

Idicheria, Charis. (2011).

POOR

SLUM DWELLERSE WS /L IG

APL

BP L

AAY

BPL UNORGANISEDWOR KE R S

SENIORCITIZENS

DIFFERENTLY

ABLED

VULNERABLE CHILDRENSTUDENTS

GIRLS

WOR KING C HIL DR E N

C HIL DR E N/

MINOR S

ADOLESCENTGIRLS (AG)

W O M E N

WOME N IN

CHALLENGING SITUATIONS

BSUPRE: 1014.73 crores

IHSDPRE: 215.35 croresISHUP

2.69 crores **

UFWSRE: 182 crores

UHCSDHBP underNPCDCS (NS)

JSYRE: 1475 crores*

TPDS45356 crores

MDMS6937.79 crores*

SSABE 40503 crores

IDESSRE: 57.77 crores

NSAPRE: 3923.38 crores

RSBYRE: 264.51 crores*

NCLPBE: 135 crores

ICDSRE: 9280 crores

IGMSY101 crore**

RSEAG328 crores **

SHWWBE: 15 crores

SwadharBE: 34.21 crores

ICPS

BE: 300 crores

TCE2.84 crores **

DDRS(NS)

IPOP

(NS)

BPL SENIOR CITIZENS

SJSRYRE: 425. 04 crores

ICLSRE: 68.09 crores

RANRE: 729.63 L

UTBSD under RNTCPRE: x/ 350 crores

BPL DIFFEREN TLY ABLED

B PL WOME N

SocialSafetyNets

Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net: Programmes and their Operational Themes


67/98

pp g y g p

[61]



Benefits and Budgets Specifically and/or Exclusively in Urban Areas

Benefits and Budgets Split acrossRural and Urban Areas

*2009-10 Budget Estimates

** Cumulative Budget Estimates

Schemes/Programmes in which

benefits and budgets are splitbetween Rural and Urban Areas

Schemes/Programmes in whichbenefits and budgets are specificallyand/or exclusively in Urban Areas

H ousi ng / She l t e r(Cons t ruc t i on

a n d I m p r o v e m e n t)

Livel ihoods/ Em pl oym ent

H eal t hN ut r i t i on /

Food Secur i t yEduca t i onSocial Securi ty Pover t y

Alleviation

BSUPRE: 1014.73 crores

IHSDPRE: 215.35 crores

UTBSD under RNTCPRE: x/ 350 crores

ICLSRE: 68.09 crores

SJSRYRE: 425. 04

crores

JSYRE: 1475 crores*

TPDS45356 crores

ICPSBE: 300 crores

MDMS6937.79crores*

IGMSY101 crore**

IPOP (NS)

SSABE 40503

crores

RANRE: 729.63 L

DDRSNS

ISHUP2.69 crores **

RSEAG328 crores **

NSAPRE: 3923.38 crores

RSBYRE: 264.51 crores*

SHWWBE: 15 crores

ICDSRE: 9280 crores

UHCSDHBP under NPCDCS(NS)

ULC under NLEPRE: x/45.32 crores

P r o g r a m m e s a n dSchem es t ha t Focus on aS i ng le A rea o f t he U rbanSocial Safety Net

P r o g r a m m e s a n dSchem es t ha t Focus onMore t han O ne A rea o f t he U rban Soc i a l Safe t y N et

IDESSRE: 57.77 crores

TCE2.84 crores **

UMS under NVDBCP(RE: x/424.95 crores)

NCLPBE: 135 crores

UFWSRE: 182 crores

SwadharBE: 34.21 crores

SocialSafetyNets

Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net: Ministries and their Operational Themes


68/98

Min is t ry o f U r b a n D e ve l o p m e n t

pp g y p

[62]



Hous ing /She l t e r

(C ons t ruc t iona n d I m p r o v e m e n t )

Livelihoods/

E m p l o y m e n tHea l th

Nu t r i t i on / Food S ecu r i ty

E duca t ion Soc ia l Secu r i ty Poverty Alleviation

Min i s t ry o f Hous inga n d U r b a n P o v er t y

Alleviation

Min i s t ry o f Hea l th andFami ly Wel fa re

Min i s t ry o f Hum an

R esou rce Deve lopmen t

Min i s t ry o f R ura l

Deve lopmen t

Min i s t ry o f L abour and E m ploymen t

Min i s t ry o f Wom en andC h i ld Deve lopmen t

Min i s t ry o f C onsumer Af fa i r s ,Food & Pub l i c Di s t r ibu t ion

4 Ministries 4 Ministries 4 Ministries 4 Ministries 6 Ministries 2 Ministries 4 Ministries

Min is t ry o f Soc ia l Ju s t i c e& E mploymen t

SocialSafetyNets


69/98

Urban Infrastructure & Services

Urban Infrastructure & Services


70/98

[64]

Indias urban infrastructure and services are the basic foundations forsettlements economic, social, cultural, and environmental dynamics.Improving them is more than a matter of investment targets and per

capita access; these are strategic investments in the structure,functionality, liveability, and sustainability of Indias cities.

Much of urban Indias infrastructure is in relatively poor shape,especially in the non-metropolitan cities. The JNNURM has startedchanging that for a fraction of the cities in the country, but theinvestment and absorption deficits are so large that is becomingdifficult even to catch-up with the expanding informality and growthin city sizes.

The following pages present some selected highlights of research anddata analysis from the last decade on Indias urban infrastructure andservices. Unfortunately, there are few comprehensive sources on urbaninfrastructure and services across sectors - the patchwork here

is as much by necessity as choice.

On each page, we mention some of the relevant service levelbenchmarks provided by the Ministry of Urban Development in 2008,which have been incorporated as progress benchmarks in the ThirteenthFinance Commission Report and as the basis for calculating investmentneeds in the HPEC (2011) Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure andServices. These can be and are debated in terms of feasibility anddesirability, but they are the de facto policy standard.

The figures on access to the services, taken from analysis of Census2001 data in the World Banks (draft) India Urbanisation Reviewpresents a striking contrast to these norms. The graphs also highlightsignificant discrepancies between cities of different sizes in terms

of both providing and accessing basic infrastructure and services.The location of more competitive or higher tech employment highlighted in the section Economic Geography - is understandablycorrelated with better infrastructure.

The pages are also meant to initiate a discussion on the consequencesof incomplete infrastructure and services. Unreliable electricityprovision, for example, affects businesses prospects, especially for

smaller enterprises that may not be able to afford backup power. Whenone considers that much of urban employment is in the informal sector,and often self-employed sole-proprietor enterprises, the figures on costto business are obviously an underestimate. Use of backup generatorsis also environmentally unsustainable. Similarly, the page on transporthighlights the ongoing shift away from public transport via bus towardroad-based private transport. Current investment patterns in urbaninfrastructure, discussed in the section on Urban Investment, appearto reinforce this environmentally challenging trend.

Finally, we present some hints of the ways of how the currentinfrastructure gaps are filled through informal privatisation: useof borewells and generators, for example, as well as reliance on waste-

pickers and other informal and small scale entrepreneurs for solid wastemanagement. With much of the discussion about private provisionof urban infrastructure focused on PPPs and larger-scale privatefinance, we felt that it was worthwhile to expand the discussion to otheraspects of non-public provision.

The final page represents urban infrastructure provision as it may lookfrom a citizens (or other monitors) perspective. The chart outlinessome of the different agencies that are involved in providing the 18constitutionally mandated functions of ULBs, showing that both thenumber and density of service providers is disparate between these largecities. The list, generated by the Public Record Of Operations andFinance (PROOF) initiative at Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship andDemocracy, is meant to highlight some of the fragmentation

of responsibilities and finance and is not necessarily comprehensivein covering every single urban service provider in these cities.

UrbanInfrastructure&Services

Urban Water Supply


71/98

[65]

Sources:India Urbanisation Review (mimeo)based on Census 2011, Text: HPEC(2011), Coping Costs:Raghupathi (2003)

Access: World Bank (2011)

Drinking Water Access (2001)

010

2030405060708090

100

I II III IV V VI Rural

%ofHouseholdswithAccess

Cit y Class

Safe

Drinking

Water

Tap

Drinking

Water

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Public Connection

Private Connection

Private Water

Tanker

Standpost (Water

Transportation

Cost)

MonthlyC

ostsfor500litres/day(Rs)

Coping Costs of Water Supply (2001)

Access varies substantially by city size, with themost significant gaps in smaller cities.

No Indian city has 24 x 7 water supply. Duration of water supplyranges from 1-6 hours.

M i n i s t r y o f U r b a n D e v el o p m e n t S e r v i ce - L e ve l B e n c h m a r k s ( 2 0 0 8 )

Acces s: 100% individual piped watersupply for all households includinginformal settlements.

Re liab ilit y : 24 x 7water supply forall cities.

Supply: Per capitaconsumption of 135 liters percapita per day


Sanitation & Drainage


72/98

[66]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70



Drainage (2001)

Closed Drain Open Drain No Drain

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



Access to Latrine (2001)

Access to Latr ine (Water Closet) Pit or Other Latrine

Improved access to latrines and drainage is one matter, but large and dense cities require networks to collect, manage and recycle/treat waste-which areoften missing, fractured or dysfunctional. Though Sanitation and Drainage are managed as separate departments in many cities, they are componentsof a complex interlinked urban waste management system.

Access in the chart above includes shared and community toilets as wellas private latrines. As of 2010, more than 30% of urban households onlyaccess to a latrine was through shared or community toilets. Nearly 20%of non-notified slums and 10% of notified slums had no accessto a latrine Sacosan (2011).

Nearly 94% of Indias cities do not have even a partial sewerage networkand less than 20% of the road network is covered by storm water drains.(HPEC,2010) Only 13.5% of waste water is treated. (Sacosan, 2011)

M i n i s t r y o f U r b a n D e v el o p m e n t S e r v i ce - L e ve l B e n c h m a r k s ( 2 0 0 8 )

Underground Sewerage systemsfor all cities.

100% collection andtreatment of waste-water

Storm water drains for 100%of the road length on both sidesof the road for all cities.

Sources:India Urbanisation Review (mimeo)based on Census 2011, Text:As Noted

Access: World Bank (2011)


Solid Waste Management


73/98

Source: See end note

0102030405060708090

Sto

rageatSource

Segregation

Prim

aryCollection

StreetSweeping

StorageDepot

Transport

Processing

DisposalP

ercentageCompliance

Compliance with MSW Rules 2000 (2004 est)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Mumbai

Delhi

Kolkata

Chennai

Bangalore

Hy

derabad

Ahm

edabad

Pune

Surat

Jaipur

Tons/day(1000s)

Solid Waste Generated (2011 est)

Fi l ling the Gap s : The Role of Was te -Pickers

There are at least 15 lakh waste-pickers and itinerant waste buyers in India - Bangalore BBMP has 15,000. (AIW, 2009) These workers makea substantial contribution to solid waste management as well as environmental sustainability. Their work saves nearly a million tonnes of CO2equivalent, in Delhi, and manages 59% of the waste in certain pockets, saving the city over Rs. 12 lakhs in labour cost alone. (Chintan, 2009) In Pune,waste pickers recover recyclable materials amounting to 22% of municipal solid waste, saving the city 12 crores per annum in waste handling costs.(Chikarmane et al, 2001)

M i n i s t r y o f U r b a n D e v el o p m e n t S e r v i ce - L e ve l B e n c h m a r k ( 2 0 0 8 )100% of Municipal Solid Waste collected, transported, and treated for all cities as per MSW 2000 Rules

[67]


Urban Transport


74/98

Source: IIHS Analysis from varioussources, see Endnotes

[68]


0

20

40

60

80

100

1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2009

PercentageShare

Vehicular Composition in India (1951 - 2009)

Others

Goods Vehicles

Buses

Cars, Je

Iuc Book_22!03!12-Soft Bound Isbn

Documents

Transcript of Iuc Book_22!03!12-Soft Bound Isbn