In 1951, there were only

Estim ated Major Net Urban to Urban Inter-State Migration: 20 0 1-20 11

M ig

ra tio n

The top 10 largest flows between urban areas are estim ated to be as below:

• UP to Delhi • Bihar to Delhi • Bihar to West Bengal • UP to Uttarakhand • Bihar to UP • UP to Maharashtra • Kerala to Tam il Nadu • Tam il Nadu to Kerala • AP to Karnataka • MP to UP

Stat e GDP (in Lakh Crores)

0 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.6

0.6 - 1.2

1.2 - 1.8

1.8 - 2.2

Source: IIHS Analysis based on the

2.2 - 3.6

data from Census of India 20 0 1, 20 11, and NSS 64th Round See endnote for explanation

The figures for 20 11 are estim ates with their m ethodology described in the endnotes.

on m ethodology for calculating net rural to urban m igration

Estim ated Top Migration Stream s: 20 0 1-20 11

Estim ated top 50 % of Total Migration Estim ated top 50 % of Migration into Urban areas

M ig

ra tio n

The above circo diagram s represent m igration stream s between states, with the thick end representing the source state and narrow end representing the destination state.

The first circo represents the stream s of m igration that am ount to 50 % of the total m igration occurring within the country. The m igration represented here, 50 % of total m igration, com es from just 20 stream s of m igrants.

The second circo represents the top 50 % m igration stream s in urban areas. While Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Karnataka and Haryana are the top destination

states, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Tam il Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh are the largest sources Source: IIHS Analysis based

on Census of India, 20 0 1and 20 11

of such m igration.

NSS 64th Round See endnote for explanation on m ethodology for calculating net rural to urban m igration

Urban Poverty & Livelihoods

Urban Poverty & Livelihoods

This section presents data on the persistence of poverty and inequality distribution in urban areas dem onstrate greater inequality than wealth in urban areas, read particularly through the lenses of slum s and

distribution in rural areas. Traditional caste hierarchies of rural India unem ploym ent. Som e points to note: First, although the proportion

appear to be reproducing them selves in urban India, contrary to popular of the poor in the total population is falling both in urban and rural

perception. In urban India, the Hindu forward castes continue to enjoy

areas, the absolute num ber of urban poor is increasing. The extent to higher ‘incom es’ at all levels of wealth distribution com pared to SCs,

rb

which this is due to m ovem ents of existing urban residents into poverty

STs, OBCs and non-Hindus.

versus in-m igration is not clear. Migration m ay be the first step toward

higher incom es and m ovem ent out of poverty. In other words, while the In term s of em ploym ent, the extent of inform ality in urban em ploym ent

ve

rt

is high at around 70 percent. It has rem ained largely unchanged over the ya overall num ber of urban poor m aybe increasing; it need not im ply that course of the past decade. Alm ost 60 percent of total urban em ployed

the fam ilies are not m oving out of poverty. However, if m igration is not

an im portant factor, then rising num bers of the urban poor point are wage workers, and 67 percent of this category are inform al wage

iv

workers. The rem aining are largely the urban self-em ployed, which

el

to declining incom es and assets as well as vulnerability to consum ption

ih

include own account workers, em ployers, and contributing fam ily and asset shocks. workers. Only a sm all proportion of the self-em ployed (about 5 percent)

Second, poverty’s relationship with the current settlem ent structure are em ployers, while the m ajority (74 percent) are own-account is im portant. Concentrations of poverty are associated with ‘slum s’

workers. The com position of urban inform al em ploym ent is sim ilar, leading to the assum ption that large m illion plus cities with visible

with about 50 percent being wage workers, 40 percent working slum s have higher concentrations of poverty. Million plus cities are

as own-account workers, and the rem aining working as em ployers and indeed hom e to 40 percent of the slum population. However, the

contributing or unpaid fam ily workers. The proportion of wage workers m ajority of the poor are, in fact, concentrated in m edium and sm all

in inform al em ploym ent has increased since 1999-20 0 0 . towns - 80 percent of the urban poor reside in cities with populations

Classified by industry, the largest category for urban em ploym ent less than one m illion. These findings m ay be an artifact of a data is non-trade services, which includes occupations as diverse collection process that does not fully capture slum s in sm aller cities,

but if true, they have critical im plications for current national as transport, dom estic workers and waste pickers. This category has the lowest proportion of inform ality, but it is not clear that these

policies on urban renewal and reform , particularly those targeting

"form al" jobs are those to aspire for.

urban poverty. Third, cities are sites of opportunity - for som e. As in the case of greater

inequality in consum ption expenditure over the 20 0 0 s, wealth

Urban Inform ality and J ob Types: 1999-20 0 9

Most urban em ploym ent is inform al, a situation that has rem ained stable over the past decade.

Informal Employment as a Proport ion of

Composit ion of Tot al Urban

Total Urban Employment

Employed in 2009-10

a 40 rb

Urban Self

Employed

Urban Wage

o 20 P Workers ve

rt 1999-00

Inform al

iv ih el o

s 25 d

Urban Employed Classified by Indust ry, 40 Unpaid Family

40 100.15 Proport ion Formal vs. Informal

Inform al

ta 5

T o 0 Formal

Non-trade services is a varied category, com bining transport, Am ong the urban self-em ployed, 74% are own account workers (without paid dom estic workers and waste pickers. Alm ost all dom estic workers

em ployees) and 21% are unpaid contributing fam ily workers -- self-

and waste pickers are inform ally em ployed, im plying that m uch of em ploym ent in sm all single-person businesses play a significant role. the form al em ploym ent in this industry is in transport.

Source: Chen, Martha A., and G. Raveendran, 20 11. "Urban Em ploym ent in India: Recent Trends and Patterns," (Mim eo)

Urban Inform al Em ploym ent Classified by Type of Work

Urban Informal Employment

Urban Informal Employment by Employment

by Employment Stat us

Stat us and Gender

2 0 0 ve 9 2009-10 rt M ALE

ya

n d L 5 0 iv -

ih el 2004-05 2 0 o 0

4 FEM ALE

M ALE o d s

Wage Workers

Employers

Ow n Account Workers

Unpaid Family Workers

Within inform al em ploym ent, only half are wage workers, a structure that has rem ained fairly stable over tim e. The self-em ployed are largely own-account workers. Male and fem ale work forces have sim ilar proportions of wage. Differences are apparent am ong self-em ployed, where the share of em ploym ent for unpaid fam ily workers is higher for wom en than m en.

Source: Chen and Raveendran (20 11) based on NSS 66th Round, Mim eo.

Urban and Rural Poverty Trends: 1973-20 0 4

Proport ion Below Povert y Line

Povert y Head Count

The poverty headcount ratio is declining in both urban and rural areas. However, the num ber of urban poor is rising while the num ber of rural poor is declining. Poverty head count data is from the Planning Com m ission, Eleventh Plan, Volum e III, and is based on poverty lines for 20 0 4-0 5. Poverty lines in 20 0 4-0 5 were Rs. 356 m onthly per capita consum ption expenditure for rural areas and Rs. 539 for urban areas.

Source: Governm ent of India, Planning Com m ission (20 0 8)

Caste-wise Rural and Urban Distribution of Wealth: 20 0 2

Source: Vakulabharanam (20 11) based on All-India Debt and Investm ent Survey, 20 0 2-3.

Zacharias and

Percent ile

Forward Caste

Percent ile

Percent ile

Scheduled Tribe

Percent ile

Scheduled Caste

Percent ile

Other Backward Caste

Urban

Rural

If rural and urban individuals for

a particular caste group were lined up from poorest to richest (10 0 th percentile), the lines on these charts represent the level of wealth for each individual in line.

The series highlights the distinct ways in which rural and urban incom e distributions for a particular caste group diverge.

U rb a n P

o ve rt

ya n d L

iv el ih o o d s

Caste-wise Rural and Urban Distribution of Wealth: 20 0 2

Rural Wealth Distribution

Urban Wealt h Dist ribut ion

If rural and urban individuals for a particular caste group were lined up from poorest

Scheduled Cast es

to richest (10 0 th percentile), the lines on these charts represent the level of wealth for

Scheduled Tribes

each individual in line. Ot her Backward Classes

Forw ard Cast es

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

Non-Hindus

Source: Zacharias and Vakulabharanam (20 11) based on All-India Debt and Investm ent Survey, 20 0 2-3.

City size-wise Urban Poor and Slum s

Share of Urban povert y and slum populat ion by cit y size

Medium and sm all cities have

Large Cit ies

a larger share of the poor and

(>1million)

a re 60%

a slightly larger share of slum

rb

population than the m illion plus

Small and

P ta o 50%

M edium

cities. It is not clear, however,

that the data accurately capture

ya n P

e rc 40%

the extent of slum s, particularly

in sm aller towns.

Share of urban poor (2003-04)

Share of slum populat ion (2001)

Dist ribut ion of t he Poor by Cit y Slum Populat ion, Dist ribut ion by

Size (1983-2004)

Cit y Size (2001)

Less t han

Large Cit ies (>1 million)

Great er t han

a Small and M edium

2-4mn

Source: Data on poverty from

1-2mn

Lanjouw and Murgai (20 11), based

NSS Round

500,000-1mn

on NSS data and urban population as of 20 0 1 Census. Data on slum s from Mathur (20 0 9) based on Census 20 0 1 data.

Social Safety Nets

Safety Nets

India has a weak and fragm ented urban social safety net, in spite target groups. The second indicates the m ultiplicity and overlap of changes in poverty, inequality and inform ality over the 20 0 0 s.

of program m es and schem es that seek to address these needs by target Multiple actors and program m es are involved in creating and

groups. The third then clusters som e overarching operational them es and the program m es that seek to address them . The last m ap depicts the

m aintaining the various pieces of the urban social safety nets that exist num ber of central m inistries that intervene in each operational them e in India. This section m aps the broad delegation of roles, priorities and through the various schem es and program m es they fund. target groups across m inistries and program m es. The com plexity of the

roles and connections between institutions obscures clear analysis on The figures here are based on research that a typical urban citizen could entitlem ents and delivery m echanism s. This section illustrates that the

undertake: consultation of prim ary sources (e.g. agency websites),

urban social safety net is in reality a com plex and fragm ented system , interviews with officials as available, and learning from secondary

o ci

which has included urban India as m ore of an afterthought rather than sources. They rem ain incom plete because publicly available reporting

a lS

a a specific space for intervention. It is hence m arked by am biguous structures, particularly for program m es that are operational in both

fe budgetary allocations and alm ost no way to m easure or track rural and urban areas, do not clearly convey the intended num ber of

ty N

developm ental outcom es. beneficiaries in urban areas and the allocation of resources intended for

s et

them . Thus, while the letter of these interventions broadly articulates The first m ap on urban social safety nets highlights m ost program m es

and schem es for identified ‘target groups’. It attem pts to portray the urban inclusion, the im plem entation and reporting m echanism s point m ore to their absence in urban areas.

current im agination on how to address the acknowledged needs of these

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

Target Group Link to Sub-Target Group

Benefit Afforded Specifically and/ or Hom es for long term

care and respite

Exclusively in Urban Areas

Tax Exem ptions on

Helplines

Access to special education

Benefit Afforded in Rural and

incom e below 240 ,0 0 0

Urban Areas

Deductions on

SEN IOR

Psycho-social rehabilitation

Medical Prem ium s

CITIZEN S

Facilities for Mental health

Program m es for pre-school

and early intervention

Mobile m edicare units

Water supply

for senior citizens

D IFFEREN TLY

Slum im provem ent

in slum s

Skill training and job placem ent

Storm water

Com m unity

drains

Free Health screening

Physical Rehabilitation

toilets

SLU M D W ELLERS

for diabetes and

for patients recovering

high blood pressure

from leprosy

Low Cost Sanitation Units

Solid waste

Financial Assistance of

EW S

m anagem ent

30 0 0 / year/ child to provide

Street lighting

Transportation

education for children with

Subsidy of 5% pa for loans

EW S/ LIG

Affordable

1 cooked m eal/ child/ day: 70 0 cal

to School

special needs

of 10 0 ,0 0 0 to build houses

Sites for Houses

Housing

Subsidised foodgrain

special access to

+ 20 g protein from class VI-VIII

Residential schools for street

Affordable Housing

(8.30 for rice

healthcare services

children and vulnerable children

20 0 per m onth/ beneficiary

and 6.10 for wheat)

APL

for TB patients

1 cooked m eal/ child/ day: 30 0 cal

Hom e schooling for

+ state assistance for those

+ 8-12g protein from class I-V

Barrier-free access

children with

a subsidy of 30 0 ,0 0 0 or 35%

widows 60 -64 years

Skill training for em ploym ent

to education

severe disabilities

for an incom e-generating

with a m onthly stipend

STU D EN TS

venture or 60 ,0 0 0 per m em ber

BPL W OMEN

Em ploym ent at m inim um wage

Pre-and Post-m atric

20 0 per m onth/ beneficiary

to create public assets

1250 scholarships in

scholarships for SC/ ST/ OBC

+ state assistance for those

BPL SEN IOR CITIZEN S

177 prem ier institutions

2 free sets of uniform s for girls,

older than 65

Subsidised

BPL

Financial assistance

up to 1 lakh in the case

SC, ST and BPL children

10 kgs of free foodgrain/ beneficiary/ m onth

Fuel

of critical illness

stipend of 20 0 m onth for

POOR

girls with disabilities

Legal Assistance

ci

for those eligible but not covered by

NOAPS

80 0 cal and 20 -25g

Shelters and special hom es

protein for severely

for children with special needs

25% subsidy for an

Subsidised foodgrain (3.0 0

m alnourished children

Subsidised foodgrain

incom e-generating

for rice and 2.0 0 for wheat)

VU LN ERABLE

open shelter for street

ty

20 0 per m onth/ beneficiary

(5.65 for rice and

CH ILD REN

children in urban areas Nutritional supplem ent of 60 0 calories, 18-20 g

+ state assistance for those

4.15 for wheat)

venture or 50 ,0 0 0

CH ILDREN /

24/ 7 Em ergency helpline

of protein and recom m ended daily intake

s et

with severe disabilities

BPL D IFFEREN TLY ABLED

AAY

10 ,0 0 0 in the case

Health check-ups for

MIN ORS

of m icronutrients per day for 30 0 days

for AGs 11-14 in and out of school

IFA supplem ents for anem ia for get to the hospital of

of death of prim ary

Legal Help

Clinical Help

Transportation subsidy to

children below 6 and pregnant

Nutrition

AG 11-18 out of school 10 0 per visit up to

breadwinner

W OMEN IN

Food, Shelter

and lactating m others

CH ALLEN GIN G SITU ATION S

and Clothing

basic healthcare

Im m unisation

10 0 0 annually

GIRLS

AD OLESCEN T

50 0 cal and 12-15g protein

GIRLS ( AG)

Im m unisation for children

Counseling on fam ily welfare and childcare for AGs

U N ORGAN ISED

60 0 cal and 18-20 g protein for

below 6 and pregnant

for children 6-72 m onths

W ORKERS

pregnant and lactating m others

W OMEN

and lactating m others

11-18 out of school

Nutritional supplem ent of 60 0 calories, 18-20 g

Health check-up and referral

services for AGs 11-18

Subsidised housing with childcare

Control for diarrhea and

com m unicable disease

of protein and recom m ended daily intake

out of school

annual insurance of 30 ,0 0 0 fam ily of 5

facilities for wom en working away

of m icronutrients per day for 30 0 days

from their hom etowns

Reproductive Healthcare

in the event of hospitalisation

for AGs 11-18 out of school

Vocational Training under National Skill D evelopm ent Program for 16-18 AGs

through a sm artcard for hostpitalization

Nutrition and Health Education

for wom en between 14-45

Cash transfer for pregnant wom en

W ORKIN G CH ILD REN

Cash incentive of 40 0 0

to encourage institutional delivery

in 3 instalm ents for wom en

Mid-day m eals

who follow som e basic nursing

Subsidy of 150 0 for

Access to healthcare

and im m unization practices

caesarean or delivery

Education and

related com plications

vocational training

Monthly stipend

Assisted transport for referrals

of 10 0 / child

Source: Idicheria, Charis. (20 11).

and m aternal check-ups

"Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net," IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net: Program m es for Intended Target Groups

* 2009-10 Budget Estimates ** Cumulative Budget Estimates

UHCSDHBP under

Benefit and Budget Specifically and/ or

RAN

UTBSD under RNTCP

NPCDCS (NS)

Exclusively in Urban Areas

RE: 729.63 L

RE: x/ 350 crores

Benefit and Budget Split across Rural and Urban Areas

J SY

SJ SRY

RE: 1475 crores*

Scheme/ Programme in Which the Benefits and Budget is Split across

RE: 425. 0 4 crores

Rural and Urban Areas

Scheme/ Programme in Which the RE: 3923.38 crores

Benefits and Budget is Specifically and/ or

Exclusively in Urban Areas RSBY RE: 264.51 crores*

RE: 68.0 9 crores

RE: 10 14.73 crores

IHSDP

ISHUP

RE: 215.35 crores

APL

2.69 crores **

Swadhar BE: 34.21 crores

BPL U N ORGAN ISED

RE: 182 crores

ICPS

W ORKERS

EW S/ LIG

BE: 30 0 crores

BPL SEN IOR CITIZEN S

BPL W OMEN

SLU M D W ELLERS

TCE

SSA

W OMEN IN

2.84 crores **

BE 40 50 3 crores

CH ALLEN GIN G SITU ATION S

TPDS 45356 crores

BPL D IFFEREN TLY ABLED

STU D EN TS

VU LN ERABLE CH ILD REN

BPL

W OMEN

IDESS

ci a RE: 57.77 crores

a lS

AD OLESCEN T

RSEAG

fe 328 crores ** ty SHWW

AAY

POOR

GIRLS ( AG)

BE: 15 crores

W ORKIN G CH ILD REN

IGMSY

10 1 crore**

NCLP BE: 135 crores

SEN IOR

CITIZEN S

D IFFEREN TLY

ICDS

ABLED

RE: 9280 crores

IPOP (NS)

DDRS (NS)

Source: Idicheria, Charis. (20 11). "Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net," IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net: Program m es and their Operational Them es

*20 0 9-10 Budget Estim ates ** Cum ulative Budget Estim ates

BSUP

ICLS

ULC under NLEP

TPDS

Benefits and Budgets Specifically and

RE: 10 14.73 crores

RE: 68.0 9 crores

RE: x/ 45.32 crores

45356 crores

/ or Exclusively in Urban Areas Benefits and Budgets Split across

Rural and Urban Areas

SHWW

IHSDP

UTBSD under RNTCP

UHCSDHBP under NPCDCS

Schem es/ Program m es in which

BE: 15 crores

RE: 215.35 crores

RE: x/ 350 crores

(NS)

benefits and budgets are split between Rural and Urban Areas

ISHUP

UMS under NVDBCP

Schem es/ Program m es in which

Pro gram m e s an d

2.69 crores **

(RE: x/ 424.95 crores)

benefits and budgets are specifically

Sch e m e s th at Fo cu s o n a

and/ or exclusively in Urban Areas

Sin gle Are a o f th e U rban So cial Safe ty N e t

RE: 264.51 crores*

IDESS RE: 57.77 crores

H o u s in g/ Sh e lte r ( Co n s tru ctio n

Live lih o o d s / Em p lo ym e n t

H e alth

Ed u catio n

N u tritio n /

So cial Se cu rity

Po ve rty

an d Im p ro ve m e n t)

Fo o d Se cu rity

Alle viatio n

Pro gram m e s an d Sch e m e s th at Fo cu s o n Mo re th an On e Are a o f

th e U rban So cial Safe ty N e t

UFWS RE: 182 crores NCLP BE: 135 crores J SY

IPOP (NS)

RE: 1475 crores*

BE: 34.21 crores

NS

328 crores **

RE: 729.63 L

BE: 30 0 crores

BE 40 50 3

RE: 9280 crores

RE: 3923.38 crores

crores

Source: Idicheria, Charis. (20 11).

"Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net," IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net: Ministries and their Operational Them es

Min is try o f H o u s in g an d U rban Po ve rty Alle viatio n

Min is try o f Labo u r an d Em p lo ym e n t

Min is try o f H e alth an d

Fam ily W e lfare

Min is try o f So cial Ju s tice Min is try o f Co n s u m e r Affairs , & Em p lo ym e n t

S Fo o d & Pu blic D is tribu tio n o ci a

lS Min is try o f Ru ral

fe D e ve lo p m e n t ty U rban D e ve lo p m e n t

a Min is try o f

N s et

H o u s in g/ Sh e lte r ( Co n s tru ctio n

Live lih o o d s / Em p lo ym e n t

H e alth

Ed u catio n

N u tritio n / Fo o d Se cu rity

So cial Se cu rity

Po ve rty Alle viatio n

Source: Idicheria, Charis. (20 11). "Mapping the Urban Social Safety Net," IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

Urban Infrastructure & Services

Urban Infrastructure & Services

India’s urban infrastructure and services are the basic foundations for settlem ents’ econom ic, social, cultural, and environm ental dynam ics. Im proving them is m ore than a m atter of investm ent targets and per capita access; these are strategic investm ents in the structure, functionality, liveability, and sustainability of India’s cities.

Much of urban India’s infrastructure is in relatively poor shape, especially in the non-m etropolitan cities. The J NNURM has started changing that for a fraction of the cities in the country, but the investm ent and absorption deficits are so large that is becom ing difficult even to catch-up with the expanding inform ality and growth in city sizes.

The following pages present som e selected highlights of research and data analysis from the last decade on India’s urban infrastructure and services. Unfortunately, there are few com prehensive sources on urban infrastructure and services across sectors - the patchwork here is as m uch by necessity as choice.

On each page, we m ention som e of the relevant service level benchm arks provided by the Ministry of Urban Developm ent in 20 0 8, which have been incorporated as progress benchm arks in the Thirteenth Finance Com m ission Report and as the basis for calculating investm ent needs in the HPEC (20 11) Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services. These can be and are debated in term s of feasibility and desirability, but they are the de facto policy standard.

The figures on access to the services, taken from analysis of Census

20 0 1 data in the World Bank’s (draft) India Urbanisation Review presents a striking contrast to these norm s. The graphs also highlight significant discrepancies between cities of different sizes in term s of both providing and accessing basic infrastructure and services. The location of m ore com petitive or “higher tech” em ploym ent – highlighted in the section Econom ic Geography - is understandably correlated with better infrastructure.

The pages are also m eant to initiate a discussion on the consequences of incom plete infrastructure and services. Unreliable electricity provision, for exam ple, affects businesses’ prospects, especially for sm aller enterprises that m ay not be able to afford backup power. When one considers that m uch of urban em ploym ent is in the inform al sector, and often self-em ployed sole-proprietor enterprises, the figures on cost to business are obviously an underestim ate. Use of backup generators is also environm entally unsustainable. Sim ilarly, the page on transport highlights the ongoing shift away from public transport via bus toward road-based private transport. Current investm ent patterns in urban infrastructure, discussed in the section on Urban Investm ent, appear to reinforce this environm entally challenging trend.

Finally, we present som e hints of the ways of how the current infrastructure gaps are filled through “inform al privatisation”: use of borewells and generators, for exam ple, as well as reliance on waste- pickers and other inform al and sm all scale entrepreneurs for solid waste m anagem ent. With m uch of the discussion about private provision of urban infrastructure focused on PPPs and larger-scale private finance, we felt that it was worthwhile to expand the discussion to other aspects of non-public provision.

The final page represents urban infrastructure provision as it m ay look from a citizen’s (or other m onitor’s) perspective. The chart outlines som e of the different agencies that are involved in providing the 18 constitutionally m andated functions of ULBs, showing that both the num ber and density of service providers is disparate between these large cities. The list, generated by the Public Record Of Operations and Finance (PROOF) initiative at J anaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Dem ocracy, is m eant to highlight som e of the fragm entation of responsibilities and finance and is not necessarily com prehensive in covering every single urban service provider in these cities.

U rb a n I n fr a st ru ct u re

er vi ce s

Urban Water Supply

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

Drinking Wat er Access (2001)

Coping Cost s of Wat er Supply (2001)

R c c 90 4,000

it 70 d a Safe s/

60 Drinking it re

l 2,500 o ld 50 Wat er

0 h 40 5 0 Tap 30 r

H o u se

Drinking fo

IV V VI Rural

th 500 n

Cit y Class

Public Connect ion Privat e Connect ion Privat e Wat er

St andpost (Wat er

Tanker Transport at ion

Access varies substantially by city size, with the

Cost )

m ost significant gaps in sm aller cities.

U a rb n

n I fr a

Min is try o f U rban D e ve lo p m e n t Se rvice - Le ve l Be n ch m arks ( 2 0 0 8 )

st ru

Access:

10 0 % individual piped water

R eliability :

24 x 7

Supply : Per capita

ct u

supply for all households including

water supply for

consum ption of 135 liters per

re

inform al settlem ents.

all cities.

capita per day

er vi ce s

Sources: Access: World Bank (20 11) India Urbanisation Review (m im eo) based on Census 20 11, Text: HPEC (20 11), Coping Costs: Raghupathi (20 0 3)

Sanitation & Drainage

Im proved access to latrines and drainage is one m atter, but large and dense cities require networks to collect, m anage and recycle/ treat waste-which are often m issing, fractured or dysfunctional. Though Sanitation and Drainage are m anaged as separate departm ents in m any cities, they are com ponents of a com plex interlinked urban waste m anagem ent system .

Access t o Lat rine (2001)

Drainage (2001)

IV V VI Rural

I II III

IV V VI Rural

Access t o Lat rine (Wat er Closet )

Pit or Ot her Lat rine

Closed Drain

Open Drain

No Drain

“Access” in the chart above includes shared and com m unity toilets as well Nearly 94% of India’s cities do not have even a partial sewerage network as private latrines. As of 20 10 , m ore than 30 % of urban households’ only

and less than 20 % of the road network is covered by storm water drains.

access to a latrine was through shared or com m unity toilets. Nearly 20 % (HPEC,20 10 ) Only 13.5% of waste water is treated. (Sacosan, 20 11)

rb

of non-notified slum s and 10 % of notified slum s had no access n I to a latrine – Sacosan (20 11).

Min is try o f U rban D e ve lo p m e n t Se rvice - Le ve l Be n ch m arks ( 2 0 0 8 )

Underground Sewerage system s

10 0 % collection and

Storm water drains for 10 0 %

er

for all cities.

treatm ent of waste-water

of the road length on both sides

vi ce

of the road for all cities.

s Sources: Access: World Bank (20 11)

India Urbanisation Review (m im eo) based on Census 20 11, Text: As Noted

Solid Waste Managem ent

Solid Wast e Generat ed (2011 est )

Compliance wit h M SW Rules 2000 (2004 est )

Fillin g th e Gap s : Th e Ro le o f W as te -Picke rs

There are at least 15 lakh waste-pickers and itinerant waste buyers in India - Bangalore BBMP has 15,0 0 0 . (AIW, 20 0 9) These workers m ake

a substantial contribution to solid waste m anagem ent as well as environm ental sustainability. Their work saves nearly a m illion tonnes of CO2

equivalent, in Delhi, and m anages 59% of the waste in certain pockets, saving the city over Rs. 12 lakhs in labour cost alone. (Chintan, 20 0 9) In Pune,

rb a

waste pickers recover recyclable m aterials am ounting to 22% of m unicipal solid waste, saving the city 12 crores per annum in waste handling costs.

(Chikarm ane et al, 20 0 1)

fr a st

ru ct u re

Min is try o f U rban D e ve lo p m e n t Se rvice - Le ve l Be n ch m ark ( 2 0 0 8 )

10 0 % of Municipal Solid Waste collected, transported, and treated for all cities as per MSW 20 0 0 Rules

er vi ce s

Source: See end note

Urban Transport

Cars and two wheelers m ake up 85% of vehicles on India’s

Growt h of Vehicle Populat ion in India (1951 - 2009)

roads, but account for only 29% of trips and are a significant cause of congestion. There has been an exponential growth

120 n

of two wheelers over the last three decades. The num ber

il li o 100

of buses, which account for 90 % of public transport has

rem ained alm ost constant. Public transport accounts for 49%

n o 80 ti

Tot al

trips in lower m iddle incom e countries and 40 % in upper

la

Tw o-w heelers

p u 60 o

m iddle incom e countries while its share is 27% in India. Lack

Cars, Jeeps, et c.

of effective public transportation has further forced people ic le 40 h to use personal vehicles. Though a large percentage of urban

Buses

e V 20

residents still walk or cycle, an ‘epidem ic’ of traffic accidents puts them at high risk.

Vehicular Composit ion in India (1951 - 2009)

M odal Split of Trips by Type of Cit ies (2007)

Ot hers

Car g e

Goods Vehicles

ta

ta n

Public Transport

Cars, Jeeps, et c.

Tw o-w heelers

Cycle n 20 I Walk

> 80 lakhs Average

re 0

w it h plain w it h hilly

t errain

t errain

S er

vi s ce

Min is try o f U rban D e ve lo p m e n t Se rvice - Le ve l Be n ch m ark ( 2 0 0 8 )

Rail and Road-based m ass rapid transit system (MRTS) for Class 1A and 1B cities, and city bus services for other cities.

Source: IIHS Analysis from various sources, see Endnotes

Power

Ele ctricity an d th e Bu s in e s s Clim ate

Elect ricit y Access (2001) Firm s reporting lack of access to reliable

ss 100

electricity as a “Major Constraint”: 3 2 %

c c 90

Firm s owning or sharing a generator: 4 1.4 %

A 80

h it 70

Am ongst generator owners, share of

ws

60

electricity from a generator: 9 .8 %

ld 50 o

h 40

Value lost due to electricity outages 6 .6 %

se u 30

of annual sales.

H 20

f 10 o %

0 W orld Ban k En terprise Surv ey s, 20 0 6.

I II III

IV V VI Rural

Cit y Size Class

U rb n a n I a fr st

There are no Ministry of Urban Developm ent Service Level Benchm arks for electricity.

ru ct u re

er vi ce s

Source: Access: World Bank (20 11) India Urbanisation Review (m im eo) based on Census 20 0 1 data.

Urban Finance

Urban Finance

This section exam ines various aspects of urban investm ent: allocation & of investm ent would be handled in the current institutional set up. expenditure, revenue collection and finally J nNURM, placing them in

We use the investm ent requirem ents outlined in the High Powered the context of observed needs for infrastructure when possible.

Expert Com m ittee (20 11) to illustrate som e of the structural changes anticipated in the role of local governm ents’ own revenues as well as the

The first chart places urban investm ent in perspective. It has,

sectoral allocation of urban investm ent.

historically, been sm all, even if one considers the fact that som e portion of the allocations to social services, transport and com m unication, and

Lastly, urban investm ent is evaluated on the basis of the flagship central other sectors would go to urban areas in addition to the allocation

governm ent program m e J nNURM. In this analysis, larger cities are specifically designed for “urban investm ent.”

shown to receive higher per capita investm ents, notwithstanding the m inim al per capita investm ent for urban infrastructure in com parison

This fact raises not only political econom y questions about priorities, but also im portant considerations about how any expansion

to rural infrastructure.

U rb a n F

in a n ce

Estim ated Plan Investm ent Allocation in the XI Five Year (20 0 5-20 11)

re

re

ro

ro

sa 150 u

sa

Source: Governm ent of India, U Planning Com m ission- “Issues for

rb a Approach to the 12th Five Year Plan”,

n F 21 April, 20 11

in a n ce

Financing Urban Expenditure

Ow n Revenue

Ow n Revenue

Ow n Revenue

This graph sum m arises the investm ent requirem ents for urban

Deficit

infrastructure and services over

the com ing decade, as estim ated by the HPEC. The HPEC had also

New Improved JnNURM

projected a potential distribution

JnNURM

of the financing burden across

levels of governm ent and public and

Ot her GoI Grant s

private sectors. ULBs’ own revenues

Transfers from Stat e

are expected to finance the bulk of

Government

investm ent by 20 31.

Revenue from Ent it ies ot her t han ULBs

Ow n Revenue

Source: High Powered Expert a n

Com m ittee for Estim ating the F

Investm ent Requirem ents for in a

Urban Infrastructure Services (20 11) n ce

J awaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission: Allocations by City Size

Jaw ah arlal N e h ru N atio n al U rban Re n e w al

Pe r Cap ita Ce n tral As s is tan ce Re le as e d

Po p u latio n Co ve re d u n d e r U IG an d

Mis s io n (J nNURM) launched in 20 0 5, com prises

u n d e r U IG an d U ID SSMT by State

U ID SSMT by City-Size

of four sub-m issions: Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG) and Basic Services for the

Urban Poor (BSUP) for 65 Mission Cities, and Million Plus

Urban Infrastructure Developm ent Schem e for

l Ass

Sm all and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) and

Assis 1000

Integrated Housing and Slum Developm ent Class I

Class VI

Class II

Program m e (IHSDP) for 640 towns and cities. Class III

Class IV

Released (Rupees) Per 500

Capita Released (in Rupees) 200

Class V

Co m m itte d Ce n tral As s is tan ce Percentage share in total urban population

Level of Urbanisation (%)

by Sch e m e

The above graphs show the relationship between the per capita funding and states’ urbanisation levels as well as per capita funding and the share of particular size-classes of cities in the total urban population.

IHSDP The size of the bubble represents the total urban population in the state/ particular class.

Po p u latio n Co ve re d u n d e r U IG an d U ID SSMT by City-Size

UIDSSM T UIG 46%

75% of the assistance is com m itted to 65 m ission

n M n i 60

cities under UIG and BSUP; 25% is for the rest

ti o

640 towns under IHSDP and UIDSSMT.

la P o p u

40 Uncovered Populat ion

Per capita investm ent is not correlated with the level of urbanisation in a state but there Covered

is a relationship between allocations and city size. Populat ion On an average, bigger cities have had a higher per

capita investm ent. Also, the percentage of urban population covered under these two schem es

M illion Plus Cit ies

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Class V & VI

decreases with class size. However, sm aller cities tend to have bigger service deficits.

The above graph shows the relationship between the population of the

cities covered under UIG and UIDSSMT as a percentage of the total U

Source: IIHS Analysis based on data

from www.jnnurm .nic.in; last rb

population in that class.

accessed on Oct. 20 , 20 11. a n Population and services data

F from Census of India 20 0 1.

in a n ce

J awaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission: Transport Sector Snapshot

We focus here on the pattern of J nNURM investm ent in transport as an exam ple of som e of the

D is tribu tio n o f Tran s p o rtatio n Pro je cts

challenges of defining priorities for urban investm ent within the J nNURM structure. Transport

u n d e r Jn N U RM

infrastructure is an essential foundation for m obility, which in turn shapes land use, labour m arkets, econom ic opportunity, and the environm ental sustainability of India’s cities.

HCV

The chart here display the intra-sector allocation of funding for transport - in total, 11 per cent

Three-w heeler

LCV

of J nNURM investm ent. One point to note is the contrast between funding for roads, flyovers,

and parking - infrastructure for vehicles on the roads - in contrast to funding for public transport and the absence of funding for pedestrian or other non-m otorized transport.

Car, SUV 14%

Two -w heeler

Mo d al Sp lit o f Trip s in U rban

Mo to ris e d Ve h icu lar Co m p o s itio n

Ot her Urban

The charts on the left provide som e insight into the

possibilities for enhancing m obility without increasing vehicular traffic: cars and two-wheelers constitute nearly 86 per cent of the vehicles on the road, while accounting for only 29 per cent of trips.

M ass Rapid

Public Transport

Roads/ Flyovers

Syst em 57%

Two W heeler 16%

Source: IIHS Analysis based on data from www.jnnurm .nic.in;

last accessed on Oct. 20 , 20 11. U

MoUD and Wilbur Sm ith Report rb

on Study on Traffic and a n

Transportation Policies and F

Strategies in Urban Areas in a

in India, 20 0 8. n ce

Urban Investm ent: Sectoral Shifts?

Se cto r-w is e Ce n tral As s is tan ce Re le as e d Se cto r-w is e U rban In fras tru ctu re u n d e r Jn N U RM ( 2 0 0 6 -11) Re qu ire m e n t p ro p o s e d by H PEC ( 2 0 12 -3 1)

Ot hers

Ot hers

8% Sewerage Drainage/ St orm

Wat er Drains

Slum Housing Slum Housing 5% Wat er Supply

35% Solid Wast e

M anagement

Transportat ion

Sewerage

Transport at ion

Re lative Sh are o f Ce n tral As s is tan ce Re le as e d

u n d e r Jn N U RM ( 2 0 0 6 -11) vs . Pro p o s e d

by H PEC ( 2 0 12 -3 1) by City-Size

Solid Wast e

Drainage/ St orm

M anagement

Wat er Drains

The High Powered Expert Com m ittee (HPEC) for estim ating the investm ent

re requirem ents for urban infrastructure services proposed alm ost 35 tim es increase 30 a

JnNURM

e in overall investm ent in urban areas as com pared to investm ents m ade under S g

HPEC

J nNURM. ta n 20

A shift in the proposed sectoral com position can be seen with alm ost 60 per cent rc

P e 10

of the investm ent to be m ade in the transportation sector. The focus of the transport projects, however, rem ains on the roads.

The HPEC recom m endations seem to continue to allocate substantial funding to

M illion Plus

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV, V,

the larger cities. VI

Source: IIHS Analysis based on data from www.jnnurm .nic.in; last

U accessed on Oct. 20 , 20 11,

rb HPEC Report on Indian Urban

a n Infrastructure and Services 20 11,

F Census of India 20 0 1.

in a n ce

From Allocations to Infrastructure

These charts dem onstrate the challenges in financing infrastructure - even when funds are available or allocated, it is not always the case that they can

be disbursed and spent. The following charts present evidence from national and local levels to illustrate two types of bottlenecks.

Sect or -wise Released vs. Pending Cent ral Assistance under JnNURM

Unspent Balances as % of Revenue

10 sub-mission UIG

(for 8 municipalit ies in Karnat aka)

2 M unicipalit y (St udy is of 8 ULBs in Karnat aka) 1

0 At the local level, it is clear that m unicipalities often face difficulties in spending revenues even after these have com e into their accounts. Half of the Karnataka m unicipalities depicted here - left unnam ed in order to focus attention on the overall point rather than particular ULBs - have

left m ore than 15% of their revenues unspent. The underlying data suggest that ULBs often have trouble with sudden increases in revenues - unspent balances are m uch higher for years when revenues peak.

At the national level, there is a significant discrepancy between central m oney allocated (the height of the colum n) versus disbursed (released) under J nNURM sub-m ission UIG. Funds are “pending” when the central governm ent has not released them to cities, possibly because they haven’t spent other released funds.

U rb n a

Source: J nNURM website and F

Centre for Budget and Policy in a

Studies (CBPS) n ce

End Notes

Page 7 | U rban In d ia 2 0 3 1

Population projections have been m ade for each city by fitting a quadratic curve for its population growth over the past ten Census periods (using population data from the Census of India 190 1-20 11), and estim ating its population for the next twenty years by extending the curve till 20 31.

Page 9 , 10 , 11 | To p Te n Citie s o f In d ia

Population data from Census of India (20 11), land cover estim ated by IIHS Geospatial Lab, and output data estim ated from district-level econom ic output data from the Planning Com m ission (accessed at http:/ / planningcom m ission.nic.in/ plans/ stateplan/ index.php?state=ssphdbody.htm on 25 October 20 11). Data for the states of Gujarat, Goa, J am m u and Kashm ir, Nagaland and Tripura was not available, therefore calculations for these states are based on state-level output data from the Central Statistical Organization (accessed at: http:/ / m ospi.nic.in/ Mospi_ New/ upload/ SDPm ain.htm on 3 Novem ber

20 11). Sim ilarly, data for Delhi, Chandigarh, and Puducherry was also obtained from the latter source. Output for a particular city is obtained from the output of the district by assum ing that the econom ic output of the city is proportional to its population share in the district. It is assum ed that if the city accounts for x% of the population share in a district, it produces 2x% of the output of that district.

Page 17-2 2 | Ch an ge in U rban Bu ilt-u p Are a & Lan d Co ve r

The rem ote sensing data was obtained from the Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF - http:/ / www.landcover.org/ ), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NASA’s Landsat m ission website. The cloud free data coinciding to the decadal census period of 1991, 20 0 1 and 20 11 with

a deviation of one or two years prior and after were selected and downloaded for processing. The rem ote sensing data are processed to quantify the land cover broadly into 4 classes – built-up, water bodies, agriculture and vegetation, and others (including all other categories). The m ulti-spectral data of Landsat TM and Landsat ETM+ resam pled for a spatial resolution of 30 m each were analyzed using IDRISI Taiga (Eastm an, 20 0 9; http:/ / www.clarklabs.org). The im age analyses included im age registration, rectification and enhancem ent, false colour com posite (FCC) generation, and classification.

The classification of the m ulti-spectral rem ote sensing data is carried through unsupervised classification process. The ISOCLUST m odule, which is an iterative self-organising unsupervised classifier based on a concept sim ilar to the well-known ISODATA routine (Ball and Hall, 1965; In: Eastm an, 20 0 9) and cluster routines such as the H-m eans and K-m eans procedures was used for perform ing the unsupervised classification. In the unsupervised classification the num ber of clusters for classification was identified through the num ber of distinct peaks obtained from the histogram . These clusters were carefully interpreted and assigned the actual land cover m anually by trained and experienced analysts. These were then reclassified into 4 broad land cover categories: built-up; vegetation; water bodies; and others. Further, the classified im ages were reclassified to note the expansion of built-up during 1990 s, 20 0 0 s and 20 10 s. The land cover change m aps were then prepared and the areal extent of these changes were com puted along with estim ation of various landscape m etrics.

Page 2 3 , 2 4 | Se cto ral o u tp u t

Source: District-level data on econom ic output, disaggregated by industry, obtained from the Planning Com m ission website (accessed at http:/ / planningcom m ission.nic.in/ plans/ stateplan/ index.php?state=ssphdbody.htm on 25 October 20 11). District-level data for Gujarat, Goa, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland and Tripura is not available.

The distributions in this graph are created by ordering the districts in each state in increasing order of the level of urbanization. The vertical axis depicts the cum ulative percentage of the state’s output accounted for by these districts. However, each state has a different num ber of districts, ranging from 17 districts in Punjab to 70 districts in Uttar Pradesh. For the purpose of com parison, each state’s distribution has been scaled to the sam e length. The all-India distribution is sim ilarly obtained by ordering all the districts in India in increasing order of urbanization, however, the distribution is m issing data for the states of Gujarat, Goa, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland and Tripura.

To illustrate, in Maharashtra, the m ost urbanized district is Mum bai and it accounts for 22% of the state’s output. From this figure, we can see that som e states like Maharashtra and Karnataka have a greater spatial concentration of output in highly urbanized districts, whereas in som e states like Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Rajasthan, output is distributed m ore evenly across the districts of the state. However, caution m ust

be exercised when com paring the distributions of different states because the levels of urbanization are very different. So, for instance, the m ost urbanized district in Punjab is only 50 % urban, whereas the m ost urbanized district in Maharashtra is 10 0 % urban.

In addition to the levels of urbanization varying by state, the per capita level of output also varies. While the chart on the top left of the page dem onstrates inequalities within states, the chart on the bottom left of the page dem onstrates inequalities between states. There is a great deal of variation in per capita GSDP (Gross State Dom estic Product) between the states in our sam ple. Looking at the two charts together, one can see that a larger pie is distributed m ore unevenly in Maharashtra when com pared to say, Andhra Pradesh, where a sm aller pie is distributed m ore evenly across the state. This im plies that urban residents in Maharashtra are m uch better off relative to urban residents in Andhra Pradesh.

The chart on the top right shows the spatial distribution of sectoral output across the country. As before, all the districts of India (excluding the districts in the states Gujarat, Goa, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland and Tripura) are arranged in increasing order of level of urbanization, and the vertical axis represents the cum ulative distribution of sectoral output. The chart on the bottom right shows the sectoral com position of the econom y. The shades of green represent the prim ary sector, the shades of blue represent the secondary sector and the shades of pink and purple represent the tertiary sector.

Page s 2 5, 2 6 | Se cto ral o u tp u t

Source: District-level data on econom ic output, disaggregated by industry, obtained from the Planning Com m ission website (accessed at http:/ / planningcom m ission.nic.in/ plans/ stateplan/ index.php?state=ssphdbody.htm on 25 October 20 11).

Districts in a particular state are lined up in increasing order of the level of urbanization, and these charts are scatter plots of the cum ulative percentage of population against the cum ulative proportion of output in the prim ary, secondary and tertiary sectors of the econom y. Therefore, the distance of the lines from the 45 degree line or the line of perfect inequality represents how m uch output is concentrated in the m ore urbanized districts of the state. It is clear that in Maharashtra and Karnataka, secondary and tertiary sector output is concentrated in the m ore urbanized districts of the state, whereas prim ary sector output is concentrated in the m ore rural districts of the state. On the other hand, output in Punjab and Rajasthan is m ore evenly spread across districts. The pie charts show the sectoral com position of the state econom y. The shades of green represent the prim ary sector, the shades of blue represent the secondary sector and the shades of pink and purple represent the tertiary sector.

Page 2 9 to 3 6 | D is trict D o m e s tic Pro d u ct

District-level data on econom ic output, disaggregated by industry, obtained from the Planning Com m ission website (accessed at http:/ / planningcom m ission.nic.in/ plans/ stateplan/ index.php?state=ssphdbody.htm on 25 October 20 11). District-level data for Gujarat, Goa, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland and Tripura is not available, and therefore calculations for these states are based on state-level output data from the Central Statistical Organization (accessed at: http:/ / m ospi.nic.in/ Mospi_ New/ upload/ SDPm ain.htm on 3 Novem ber

20 11). District outputs in these states have been estim ated as follows: data for state-level econom ic output was obtained from the CSO, and output was assum ed to be distributed evenly across all the districts of the state. Sim ilarly, data for Delhi, Chandigarh, and Puducherry was also obtained from the latter source.

Page 4 3 | Migratio n - Co m p o n e n ts o f U rban Po p u latio n Gro w th

The m ethodology used to disaggregate urban population growth into four com ponents- natural growth, increase due to reclassification, increase in the size of urban agglom eration, and net rural to urban m igration- has been borrowed from the ‘Handbook on Urbanisation’ by Sivaram akrishnan, Kundu and Singh (20 0 5). The com ponents for the decade 20 0 1-11 have been calculated in the following m anner: Natural Growth: The natural growth rate for urban areas in each state from SRS, Vol.45 No.1, 20 11 have been used to arrive at the national com ponent of natural growth.

Increase due to reclassification of towns: Using the following inform ation released by the Census of India, 20 11, estim ation is m ade of the population in these additional towns using the m inim um lim it of 5,0 0 0 persons in each of these (According to the definition of urban by Census of India - All statutory places with a m unicipality, corporation, cantonm ent board or notified town area com m ittee. A place satisfying the following three criteria sim ultaneously: a m inim um population of 5,0 0 0 ; at least 75 per cent of m ale working population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits; and a density of population of at least 40 0 per sq. km .) These additional towns m ay have m ore people than the m inim um standard defined which will result in an increase of this com ponent.

2 0 11 Ce n s u s

2 0 0 1 Ce n s u s Ad d itio n s

Statu to ry T o w n s

U rban Agglo m e ratio n

N e t Ru ral to U rban Migratio n

IIHS Analysis is based on the m igration rates presented in the NSS 64th round for the year 20 0 7-0 8. Population was extrapolated for the year

20 0 7-0 8 using Census of India’s population data from 20 0 1 and 20 11. The interstate m igration rates have been borrowed from Table 24, NSS 64th Round (20 0 7-0 8). Following was the process to calculate the Net Rural to Urban m igration using NSS 64th round data and Census Data 20 0 1 and 20 11 -

Step 1 - Estim ating population as of 20 0 8 using population data from 20 0 1 and 20 11.

Step 2 - Estim ating Migrant population as of 20 0 8 using proportion of m igrants vs. non-m igrants in urban and rural areas in the year

20 0 7-0 8 from NSS. Step 3 - Estim ating Inter-state and Intrastate m igrants (R-R, U-R, O-R, R-U, U-U, O-U) using proportions given in NSS. Step 4 - Estim ating an average m igrant population per year between 20 0 1 and 20 0 8 (FLOW) to arrive at the total m igrant population

between 20 0 1-20 11. Step 5 - Corrections m ade for circular m igrants: Less than 12 m onths counted once; 12 m onths or m ore counted for 5 years out of 10 ;

Perm anent counted all 10 tim es. Increase in the size of urban agglom erations: This is the residual of the total increase in urban population as presented in the Census

of India 20 11 data.

Page s 4 4 , 4 5, 4 6 | Map s fo r Es tim ate d Migratio n ( 2 0 0 1-11)

IIHS Analysis is based on the inter-state m igration rates presented in Table 24 of the NSS 64th round for the year 20 0 7-0 8. Population was extrapolated for this year using Census of India’s population data from 20 0 1 and 20 11. Data from Reserve Bank of India, 20 0 7-0 8 has been used for m apping the state GDP.

Page 51, 52 | U rban In fo rm ality an d Jo b typ e s

Urban Inform ality and J ob types is: Chen, M. and Raveendran, G., 20 11. Urban Em ploym ent in India: Recent Trends and Patterns, Mim eo.

Page 53 | U rban an d Ru ral Po ve rty tre n d s

Governm ent of India, Planning Com m ission (20 0 8). Eleventh Five-Year Plan, Volum e III. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pgs 79-80 .

Page 54 , 55 | Cas te -w is e Ru ral & U rban D is tribu tio n o f W e alth

For details of com putation of wealth, see Zacharias, A., & Vakulabharanam , V. Caste Stratification and Wealth Inequality in India, World Developm ent (20 11), doi:10 .10 16/ j.worlddev.20 11.0 4.0 26, Table 3.

Page 56 | City Size -w is e U rban Po o r & Slu m s

This chart is based on city size as of the 20 0 1 census. It groups cities into different size classes in order to com pare analysis from the two reports. Although Mathur reports slum population for the six city size classes in the census, Lanjouw and Murgai note that 20 0 4-5 NSS data do not perm it detailed differentiation. Lanjouw, P. and R. Murgai (20 11). Perspectives on Poverty in India: Stylized Facts from Survey Data. Washington, D.C: World Bank and Mathur, O.P. (20 0 9). “Slum -Free Cities: A New Deal for the Urban Poor,” NIPFP.

Page 58 | In te n d e d Be n e fits fo r Targe t Gro u p s

This infographic depicts intended benefits for target groups in urban India. Program s were selected if they reported urban intervention in either the 20 10 -11 annual m inistry report or on the website of the respective m inistry. If urban intervention was unclear or unlisted, the program m e was not included. Program m es were also only chosen if their budgets indicated that at least a pilot had been launched. Intended benefits are those that the m inistry positions as a functional or adm issible com ponent in each program m e. This m ap does not indicate whether or not beneficiaries are receiving these benefits or the extent of coverage but m erely highlights a scenario of intent in the tenets of program m es in urban India. AAY: Antyodaya Anna Yojana APL: Above Poverty Line BPL: Below Poverty Line EWS: Econom ically Weaker Sections LIG: Lower Incom e Group SC: Scheduled Castes ST: Schedules Tribes

Page 6 0 | Pro gram m e s fo r In te n d e d Targe t Gro u p s

This infographic depicts program s for target groups in urban India. Program s were selected if they reported urban intervention in either the

20 10 -11 annual m inistry report or on the website of the respective m inistry. If urban intervention was unclear or unlisted, the program m e was not included. Program m es were also only chosen if their budgets indicated that at least a pilot had been launched. Intended benefits are those that the m inistry positions as a functional or adm issible com ponent in each program m e. This m ap does not indicate whether or not beneficiaries are receiving these benefits or the extent of coverage but m erely highlights a scenario of intent in the tenets of program m es in urban India. Moreover, m any program m es indicate a single budget for urban and rural operations. All RE estim ates are till Decem ber 20 10 unless otherwise specified. Where inform ation on RE was not available, BE for 20 10 -11 were used. For budgets that did not report whether the financial progress was an RE or BE figure, the reported outlay for 20 10 - 11 are indicated. Finally, cum ulative figures as well as expenditure from 20 0 9-10 were used if none of the figures above were available. The abbreviations for the schem es are below:

BSUP: Basic Services to the Urban Poor

NSAP: National Social Assistance Program m e

DDRS: Deendayal Disabled Rehabilitation Schem e

RAN: Rashtriya Arogya Nidhi

ICDS: Integrated Child Developm ent Services

RNTBCP: Revised National TB Control Program m e

ICLS: Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Schem e

RSBY: Rashtriya Swasthya Bim a Yojana

ICPS: Integrated Child Protection Schem e

RSEAG: Rajiv Gandhi Schem e for Em powerm ent of

IDESS: Inclusive Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage

Adolescent Girls

IGMSY: Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana

SHWW: Schem e of Hostel for Working Wom en

IPOP: Integrated Program m e for Older Persons SJ SRY: Swarna J ayanti Shahri Rozgar YojanaSSA: Sarva Shikha Abhiyan

ISHUP: Interest Subsidy Schem e for Housing Urban Poor

TCE: Top Class Education

J SY: J anani Suraksha Yojana

TPDS: Targeted Public Distribution System

MDMS: Mid-Day Meal Schem e

UFWS: Urban Fam ily Welfare Services

NCLP: National Child Labour Project UHCSDHBP: Urban Health Check-up Schem e for Diabetes

NPCCDCS: National Program m e for Control of Cancer,

and High Blood Pressure

Diabetes, CVD and Stroke

UTBSD: Urban TB for Slum Dwellers

NS: Not Specified

Page 6 6 | U rban Se w e rage & D rain age

“Sacosan (20 11)” refers to Governm ent of India (20 11). Enhanced Quality of Life Through Sustained Sanitation. Paper developed by Ministry of Rural Developm ent Departm ent of Drinking Water and Sanitation and Ministry of Urban Developm ent for the IV Annual South Asia Conference on Sanitation, Colom bo, Sri Lanka. HPEC 20 11 refers to the Report on India Urban Infrastructure and Services of the Governm ent of India High Powered Expert Com m ittee chaired by Dr. Isher Ahluwalia.

Page 6 7 | So lid W as te Man age m e n t

Data on the num ber of waste-pickers com e from The Alliance of India Waste-Pickers, which defines waste-pickers as “self em ployed workers in the inform al econom y who earn their livelihood from the collection and sale of recyclable scrap from urban solid waste for recycling. They collect discarded m aterials that have zero value and convert it into a tradable com m odity through their labour in extracting/ collection, sorting, grading and carrying/ transporting.” Other sources used in the text box are: Chintan Environm ental Research and Action Group (20 0 9)“Cooling Agents - An Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation by the Inform al Recycling Sector in India,” m im eo. Chikarm ane, Poornim a, Deshpande, Medha, and Lakshm i Narayan, (20 0 1) “Report on Scrap Collectors, Scrap Traders and recycling Enterprises in Pune,” m im eo

The data on waste generation for the top 10 m etros com es from as database collected by Ranjith Annepu of Colum bia University’s Earth Engineering Centre, using the CPCB-NEERI study “Assessm ent Of Status Of Municipal Solid Waste Managem ent In Metro Cities And State Capitals,” and a database published by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy for the "National Master Plan for Developm ent of Waste-to- Energy in India." The figures and som e explanatory notes on m ethodology are available at http:/ / swm india.blogspot.com / . Per capita data are based on 20 11 Census population figures.

Page 6 8 | Tran s p o rtatio n

Analysis is based on data from Road Transport Year Book of MoRTH, 20 11; MoUD and Wilbur Sm ith Report on Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India, 20 0 8; HPEC(20 11). Report on India Urban Infrastructure and Services of the Governm ent of India High Powered Expert Com m ittee chaired by Dr. Isher Ahluwalia.

Page 6 9 | Po w e r

The World Bank Enterprise surveys com prise a m ixed sam ple of 4,234 urban and rural firm s, but the focus is on non-agricultural business activities and the country sam ples are therefore clustered around urban areas.

Page 73 | In ve s tm e n t Allo catio n in th e 11th Plan - Ch ap te r D e tails fo r Plan Allo catio n s

The consolidation of sectoral allocations for each of the five year plans have been extracted from the Planning Com m ission website. These appear within chapters of the plan docum ent. The chapter details for each of the plans is as listed below. For the 11th Five Year Plan, under chapter 3 titled ‘Financing the Plan’, Annexure 3.1 Sectoral Allocations of Public Sector Resources - Tenth Plan Realizations and Eleventh Plan Projections has been considered.

The consolidation of sectoral allocations for each of the five year plans have been extracted from the Planning Com m ission website. These appear within chapters of the plan docum ent. The chapter details for each of the plans is as listed below. For the 11th Five Year Plan, under chapter 3 titled ‘Financing the Plan’, Annexure 3.1 Sectoral Allocations of Public Sector Resources - Tenth Plan Realizations and Eleventh Plan Projections has been considered.

For the 10 th Five Year Plan, under chapter 3 titled ‘Public Sector Plan: Resources and Allocations’, Annexure 3A (Pg 87)-Sectoral Allocations of Public Sector's Resources - Ninth Plan Realizations and Tenth Plan Projections has been considered.

For the 9th Five Year Plan, under chapter 3 titled ‘Public Sector Plan: Resources and Allocations’, Annexure 3.2 Public Sector Outlay by Major Heads of Developm ent in the Ninth Plan (1997-20 0 2) has been considered.

For the 8th Five Year Plan, under chapter 5 titled ‘Financing the Plan’, Table 3.17 Public Sector Outlay by Major Heads of Developm ent - Eighth Plan (1992-97) has been considered.

For the 7th Plan, under Chapter 3 titled ‘Objectives, Strategies and Pattern of Growth in Seventh Plan’, Table 3.4 (a) Public Sector Outlays - Seventh Plan has been considered.

For the 6th Five Year Plan, under chapter 4 titled ‘Public Sector Outlays’, Annexure 4.3 Sixth Five Year Plan - Public Sector Outlays has been considered.

For the 5th Five Year Plan, under chapter 5 titled ‘Plans Outlays and Program m es of Developm ent’, Table: Fifth Five Year Plan Outlay (1974-

79) has been considered. For the 4th Five Year Plan, under chapter 3 titled ‘Plan in Outline’, Table 1 Fourth Plan Outlay and Investm ent Public and Private Sectors has

been considered. For the 3rd Five Year Plan, under chapter 3 titled ‘Third Plan in Outline’, Table 2 Financial provisions has been considered. For the 2nd Five Year Plan, under chapter 3 titled ‘The Plan in Outline’, Table: Distribution of Plan Outlay by Major Heads of Developm ent

has been considered. For the 1st Five Year Plan, under chapter 4 titled ‘The Five Year Plan in Outline’, Section on Priorities and the Pattern of Outlay, Distribution

of Expenditure in the Developm ent Program m e of the public sector has been considered.

D e tails o n co n s o lid atio n o f p lan allo catio n s

For the 1st Five Year Plan, Rs. 51.99 crores under ‘Others’ was consolidated to ‘General Services’. ‘Irrigation and Power’ was a category under only the 1st Plan, a new m ajor head ‘Irrigation and Flood Control’ replaced this as of the 2nd Plan. Hence, the 1st Plan am ount under Irrigation/ Power was labeled as ‘Irrigation & Flood Control’. Rs. 85 crores under ‘Rehabilitation’ was consolidated under ‘Social Services’ For the 1st Five Year Plan, Rs. 51.99 crores under ‘Others’ was consolidated to ‘General Services’. ‘Irrigation and Power’ was a category under only the 1st Plan, a new m ajor head ‘Irrigation and Flood Control’ replaced this as of the 2nd Plan. Hence, the 1st Plan am ount under Irrigation/ Power was labeled as ‘Irrigation & Flood Control’. Rs. 85 crores under ‘Rehabilitation’ was consolidated under ‘Social Services’

For the 3rd Five Year Plan, Rs.20 0 crores under ‘Inventories’ was added to ‘General Services’. Rs. 264 crores under ‘Village & Sm all Industries’ was added to ‘Rural Developm ent’.

In regard to the 4th Five Year Plan, am ounts under ‘Health’, ‘Fam ily Planning’, ‘Water Supply & Sanitation’, ‘Welfare of backward classes’, ‘Labor welfare & Craftsm en Training’ were consolidated under the m ajor head ‘Social Services’. Rs. 822 crores under ‘Education’ was also consolidated with ‘Social Services’. This was done because all this individual categories fall under the larger ‘Social Services’ head in the subsequent plans. Rs. 293 crores under ‘Village & Sm all Industries’ was added to ‘Rural Developm ent’. Rs. 192 crores under ‘Others’ was added to ‘General Services’ m ajor head.

For the 5th Five Year Plan, Rs. 450 crores allocated to ‘Hill & Trbal areas’ and ‘NEC schem es’ was consolidated under ‘Special Area Program m es’ m ajor head. Rs. 1284 crores under ‘Education’ was added to ‘Social Services’ m ajor head. Rs. 326.73 crores under ‘Sectoral distribution not reported’ was classified under ‘General Services’ m ajor head.

For all Five Year Plans from the 6th to the 11th, ‘Transport and Com m unications’ were a single m ajor head under the 5th Plan and were reported separately after the 6th Plan. For purposes of sim plification, these two categories were consolidated under all Plans. Likewise, ‘General Services’ and ‘General Econom ic Services’ were a single category until atleast the 8th Plan and was labeled as ‘Others’ until the 7th Plan. Hence, for purposes of sim plification, these two categories were consolidated as a single m ajor head across all Plans.

Page 74 | Fin an cin g U rban Exp e n d itu re - H PEC fin an ce

Figure sum m arizes the series of charts on page xxvii of the Governm ent of India High Powered Expert Com m ittee for Estim ating the Investm ent Requirem ents for Urban Infrastructure Services (20 11).

Page 75 | Jn N U RM

Per capita central assistance was calculated by dividing total central assistance released by total urban population of the state/ particular city size. Population data of Census 20 0 1 is used since 20 11 data for all 70 5 cities and towns is not released as yet.

Page 78 | Th e Ch alle n ge s o f Exp e n d itu re

The data on revenues and expenditures are drawn from a CBPS study covering 8 sm all and m edium size cities in Karnataka. Unspent balances are calculated here excluding the opening balances to have clearer picture of unspent balances from revenues that year. The unspent balances shown in this chart are calculated as the average unspent balance as a proportion of revenue for the three years covered in the study (20 0 5-0 6,

20 0 6-0 7, and 20 0 7-0 8).

Abbreviations

AMC: Ahm edabad Municipal Corporation IDESS: Inclusive Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage AMTS: Ahm edabad Municipal Transport Services

IFMR: Institute for Financial Managem ent and Research APSRTC: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transportation Corporation

IGMSY: Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana AUDA: Ahm edabad Urban Developm ent Authority

IHSDP: Integrated Housing and Slum Developm ent Program m e BBMP: Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

IIHS: Indian Institute for Hum an Settlem ents BDA: Bangalore Developm ent Authority

IPOP: Integrated Program m e for Older Persons BES&T: The Brihanm um bai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking

IPT: Interm ediate Public Transport

BSUP: Basic Services to the Urban Poor ISHUP: Interest Subsidy Schem e for Housing Urban Poor BWSSB: Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

IUC: India Urban Conference, 20 11

CC: Corporation of Chennai J nNURM: J awaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission CGWB: Central Ground Water Board

J SY: J anani Suraksha Yojana

CMDA: Chennai Metropolitan Developm ent Authority

KMC: Kolkata Municipal Corporation

CPCB: Central Pollution Control Board KMDA: Kolkata Metropolitan Developm ent Authority DDA: Delhi Developm ent Authority

KMWSA: Kolkata Metropolitan Water & Sanitation Authority DDRS: Deendayal Disabled Rehabilitation Schem e

LCV : Light-weight Carriage Vehicle

DJ B: Delhi J al Board

M Corp. : Municipal Corporation

DMTS: Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit System Ltd

MCD: Municipal Corporation of Delhi

DPCC: Delhi Pollution Control Com m ity MCGM: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mum bai DRTA: Delhi Road Transport Authority

MDMS: Mid-Day Meal Schem e

GHMC: Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation MMRDA: Mum bai Metropolitan Region Developm ent Authority HCV: Heavy-weight Carriage Vehicle

MOEF: Ministry of Environm ent and Forest Act HMDA: Hyderabad Metropolitan Developm ent Authority

MoUD: Ministry of Urban Developm ent

HMWS & SB: Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board MSEDC: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd HPEC: High Powered Expert Com m ittee

NCLP: National Child Labour Project

ICDS: Integrated Child Developm ent Services

NDMC: New Delhi Municipal Council

ICLS: Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Schem e NPCCDCS: National Program m e for Control of Cancer, Diabetes, ICPS: Integrated Child Protection Schem e

Cardiovascular disease and Stroke

NPP: Nagar Palika Parishad

SJ SRY: Swarna J ayanti Shahri Rozgar Yojana

NS: Not Specified

SSA: Sarva Shikha Abhiyan

NSAP: National Social Assistance Program m e

TCE: Top Class Education

NSS: National Sam ple Survey

TPDS: Targeted Public Distribution System

PDA: Pune Metropolitan Developm ent Authority

UA : Urban Agglom eration

PMC: Pune Municipal Corporation

UDA: Urban Developm ent Authority

PROOF: Public Record of Operations and Finance

UDD: Urban Developm ent Departm ent

RAN: Rashtriya Arogya Nidhi

UFWS: Urban Fam ily Welfare Services

RNTBCP: Revised National TB Control Program m e UHCSDHBP: Urban Health Check-up Schem e for Diabetes and High RSBY: Rashtriya Swasthya Bim a Yojana

Blood Pressure

RSEAG: Rajiv Gandhi Schem e for Em powerm ent of Adolescent Girls UIDSSMT: Urban Infrastructure Developm ent Schem e for sm all and Medium Towns

RU: Rural-Urban

UIG: Urban Infrastructure and Governance

SHWW: Schem e of Hostel for Working Wom en

UTBSD: Urban TB for Slum Dwellers

SRS: Sam ple Registration System

IN D IAN IN STITU TE FOR H U MAN SETTLEMEN TS

IIHS is a national education institution com m itted to the equitable, sustainable and efficient transform ation of Indian settlem ents. IIHS aim s to establish India’s first privately funded and m anaged National Innovation University focussed on the challenges and opportunities

of urbanisation in all its aspects. The University is intended to be a globally ranked institution. The IIHS University will host an integrated program m e of quality cam pus based education and research, practical training for working professionals,

distance and blended learning, and a whole array of consultancy services. The University will have a strong interdisciplinary orientation, incorporating both theory and praxis.

The Academ ic Program m e will consist of globally benchm arked Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral Degrees in Urban Practice based on a wide set of disciplines and practice areas central to India’s urban transform ation. The Masters and Undergraduate program m es of the University will provide

a deep understanding of a wide range of topics including the econom ic drivers of urbanisation, urban planning, the physical infrastructure, transportation system s, the social infrastructure and social justice, land and housing, public safety and disaster m anagem ent, the environm ent and sustainability, and law and urban governance.

The applied research program m e will help create a new generation of interdisciplinary researchers and a corpus of relevant India-centric knowledge. IIHS’s deep com m itm ent to the process of social transform ation in India by providing educational opportunities to deserving learners irrespective

of econom ic and social status, gender, age or disability.