Urban India 2011 Evidence dan Indonesia

Urban India 20 11: Evidence

Original publication: Novem ber 22, 20 11. Second Edition: Decem ber 22, 20 11. Third Edition: J anuary 21, 20 12

Urban India 20 11: Evidence

U RBAN IN D IA 2 0 11: EVID EN CE

We would like to thank the several contributing authors in particular: Professor Martha Chen of Harvard University and Dr. Govindan Raveendran for generously sharing their analysis of 1999-20 0 9 NSS data on urban em ploym ent; Som ik Lall and the World Bank team working on the India Urbanisation Review for sharing their results on India’s econom ic geography and in particular the distribution of em ploym ent. Dr. J yotsna J ha and Madhusudan B.V. of the Centre for Budgetary and Policy Studies, Bangalore provided intriguing data on Municipal Finance.

IU C AU TH OR AN D PROD U CTION TEAM

PH OTO CRED ITS:

Arom ar Revi, IIHS

Cover Im age - Red Fort : F.S. Shazuddin

Charis Idicheria, IIHS

Urban Dynam ics: IIHS Geospatial Lab

Garim a J ain, IIHS Econom ic Geography - Gurgaoun High Rises: F.S. Shazuddin Geetika Anand, IIHS

Migration - Old Delhi Railway Station: Kavita Wankhade, IIHS Dr. H.S. Sudhira, IIHS

Urban Poverty & Livelihoods - Okhla: Garim a J ain, IIHS Dr. J essica Seddon, IIHS

Social Safety Nets - Abul Fazal Enclave: Garim a J ain, IIHS Kavita Wankhade, IIHS

Urban Infrastructure - Metro Gurgaon: F.S. Shazuddin M.K. Rashm i, IIHS

Urban Finance - Public Investm ents: Him anshu Dhandha, IIHS Priyadarshini Shetty, IIHS

Revati Dhoble, CDF, IFMR Shashikala Gowda, IIHS Shriya Anand, IIHS Sujatha Srinivasan, CDF, IFMR

COPYRIGH T AN D U SE

All the content created by the author(s) for the purpose of the IUC is copyrighted. For perm ission to reproduce copyrighted m aterials, contact the author(s) of the copyright, noted as the "Source" on each page. You are free to share, to copy, distribute and transm it the work under the following conditions: Attribution -You m ust attribute the work in the m anner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you / or your use of the work). Non-com m ercial -You shall not use this work for com m ercial purposes. With the understanding that: Public Dom ain -Where the work or any of its elem ents is in the public dom ain 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 lim itations; • The author's m oral rights; • Rights other persons m ay have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights. • Tradem arks: The logos and nam es of sponsors and organizers on the IUC briefing are tradem arks of these organisations. Use, reproduction, copying or redistribution of tradem arks, without the written perm ission

of the logo/ nam e's respective owner is prohibited. The IIHS graphics in the IUC content are also considered tradem arks of IIHS.

This report is produced by Autum n Worldwide | www.autum nworldwide.com

India’s urban transition, a once in history phenom enon, has the potential to shift the country’s social, environm ental, political, and econom ic trajectory. It could catalyse the end of calorie poverty if post-1989 China is any exam ple. It could deepen dem ocracy and hum an developm ent, enabling m ore Indians to live better quality, healthier, and better-educated lives. It could enable the country's transition to a less resource- Intensive developm ent, with lower throughputs, footprints and environm ental im pacts that could reshape global trends because of India’s dem ographic and econom ic size. But these are only aspirations. Hard evidence indicates that m uch work needs to be done to realise these opportunities over the next twenty to thirty years.

India’s urbanisation will interact with the country’s ongoing dem ographic evolution to shape the extent of the “dem ographic dividend” as a young labour force m oves into m ore or less productive em ploym ent with unknown opportunities for econom ic and social m obility. The process will help redefine India’s im agination as a country that lives prim arily in its villages with lim ited m ovem ent across geographies. We will need to understand and deepen the linkages that enable sm all urban centres to becom e catalysts for rural non-farm em ploym ent, sites of opportunities, and a foundation for elim inating rural poverty and exclusion.

The spatial patterns of urbanisation will also affect the possibilities for the country to pioneer new, less resource-intensive form s of developm ent. India has lower m easured em issions per unit of output than m any other countries at the m om ent, but the em erging econom ic geography will determ ine whether this pattern can be sustained as growth continues and consum ption increases. Will road transport continue to dom inate shipping or will rail and inland waterways em erge

as convenient linkages between econom ic hubs? Will cities grow as com pact, efficient densely populated areas or continue to spread out over larger and larger territories? Will m ore people connect to the electricity grid or will diesel generators continue to power the em erging suburbs – this is an im portant question for em issions and energy security, above and beyond the m ore prom inent discussion about the m ove from coal to renewable energy.

Third, urbanisation will, for better or for worse, play an enorm ous role in social transform ation and econom ic m obility. It m ay exacerbate inequalities, create new opportunities, or both. Cities could be engines of poverty reduction, both within their boundaries and through the financial, people, and goods flow between urban and rural India. They could also replicate existing social stratification and exacerbate the m isery of poverty by concentrating the poor in sm aller, m ore polluted, m ore m arket-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 20 11), a series of events designed to raise the salience of urban challenges and opportunities in the ongoing debate on India’s developm ent. The series, com prising an academ ic conference in New Haven, CT, USA, an ideas-forum and discussion of em erging evidence and research in Mysore, a policy conference in Delhi, and

a national student challenge seeking innovative proposals for urban solutions, was convened by the Indian Institute for Hum an Settlem ents (IIHS), J anaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Dem ocracy (J CCD), and the South Asian Studies Council at Yale University, in collaboration with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and the Ministry of Urban Developm ent of the Governm ent of India. The events also

Urban India 20 11: Evidence

relied on the expertise and networks of Context Anchors including The Urban India 20 11: Evidence also m arks the initiation of a series Arghyam , Bangalore; DRONAH (Developm ent and Research

of them atic Urban Atlases in collaboration with leading scholars and Organisation for Nature Art and Heritage), Gurgaon; IFMR Finance

practitioners. The Indian Institute for Hum an Settlem ents is firm ly Foundation, Chennai; PHFI (Public Health Foundation of India), Delhi;

com m itted to furthering “basic research” - to borrow an academ ic term India Urban Space Foundation (IUSF), Bangalore; SPA (School

from the natural sciences - that helps civil society, academ ics, and policy of Planning and Architecture), Delhi; and Pratham , Mum bai and Delhi.

m akers at all levels of governm ent understand and reflect upon the ways The IUC series sought to contribute to building a strong and inclusive

that our society, culture, and econom y are changing every day. The Atlas knowledge foundation for this transition. The series of events sought

program m e will be a platform for collaboration between all to create a platform for research and dialogue am ong practitioners,

of the various stakeholders in data production - civil society and citizens academ ics, and citizens to identify priorities for policy, research, and

as well as surveyors, academ ics, and governm ents - as well as a m eans action by all stakeholders in India’s urban transition.

to dissem inate the inform ation that em erges from these exercise to a broad audience.

We hope to extend the discussion beyond that series through wider publication of the Urban India 20 11: Evidence briefing and the evidence behind it. This brief and intensive underlying analysis pulls together available evidence from national surveys, the Census of India, rem ote sensing data on urban spatial dynam ics, as well as published and grey literature. The picture created is far rem oved from the lived reality of urban India, and the aggregate sum m aries m ay be at odds with the varied circum stances that policym akers, entrepreneurs and civil society face as they seek to intervene in the urban transition. In som e cases these data m ay system atically m isrepresent the context and dynam ics of urban India. However, the analysis captures one of the views available to today’s policym akers and starts to place diverse individual experiences in som e sem blance of a broader context. It provides

a starting point for developing a shared understanding of the underlying trends behind the everyday and individual observations of how India and its urban areas are evolving. We hope that it will be challenged, augm ented, and im proved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ig ra tio n

1. rb Urban Dynam ics 3-26

2. Econom ic Geography

27-40

ve rt ya n

3. Migration

41-47

d L iv

4. Urban Poverty and Livelihoods

48-55

el ih o o

d 5. s Social Safety Nets 56-61

6. Urban Infrastructure & Services

62-68

ci a lS a

7. fe Urban Finance 69-76

ty N

et s U

Endnotes & Explanations

77-84

rb a n n I

Abbreviations

85-86

a fr st ru ct u

re &

S er

vi ce s

U rb a n F

in n a ce

L Longitude "

N atio n al Cap ital Re gio n o f D e lh i: U rban Lan d Co ve r 2 0 11

Urban Dynam ics

Urban Dynam ics

This section provides an overview of India’s urban dynam ics in both spatial and dem ographic term s. The first set of m aps places India’s present settlem ent distribution in historic context and suggests one scenario of how this m ay evolve over the next two decades. India’s im pending urbanisation, particularly an acceleration of urbanisation in southern and parts of western India, are apparent and form idable. The next set of analyses disaggregates this overall pattern to show the broad spatial distribution of cities by size class. Insets on the pages sum m arize the current distribution of population as well as estim ates of land covered and econom ic output across cities of various sizes. This analysis shows how urban areas account for a disproportionately sm all am ount of India’s terrain when com pared with their significant and rising share of econom ic output. According to the Census of India

20 11 as well as calculations by the IIHS Geospatial Lab, the top 10 cities of India account for alm ost 8% of India’s population, produce 15% of total econom ic output but only occupy approxim ately 0 .1% of the total land area. Sim ilarly, the 53 m illion plus cities are estim ated to account for 13% of the population produce, about a third of total econom ic output and occupy approxim ately 0 .2% of the land. The top 10 0 cities are estim ated to account for 16% of the population, produce 43% of India’s total output and occupy approxim ately 0 .26% of the land. These estim ates are necessarily rough given the absence of reliable disaggregated data for urban areas but the em erging econom ic im portance of cities as well their increasing dem ographic presence is clear.

The next set of plates traces the evolution of India’s entire settlem ent structure – across villages, sm all towns and cities showing the changing distribution of India’s population since Independence. The distribution has a high concentration in the m illion cities and a very long decentralised tail – the 20 11 Census estim ated 8,0 0 0 urban centres, situated in a sea of over 6,60 ,0 0 0 villages. The graphs show a decline in the num ber of people and proportion living in ham lets and sm all villages, partially because of population growth, but also because of the clustering and agglom eration of settlem ents as m obility networks increased in coverage and settlem ent sizes grew. The analysis shows that the m ost significant change is in the proportion of the sm allest and the largest cities.

Two striking questions em erge: the distribution of both India’s urban and rural population across settlem ent size class over the next half

century as we m ove from a rural-agrarian to an urbanindustrial/ services-led econom y. The second is the im pact of the grey zone between Class IV to VI towns (<5,0 0 0 -20 ,0 0 0 ) population and the large fraction of rural population who live in villages that have m ore than 5,0 0 0 people and have an increasing urban character. There are between 80 -140 m illion people estim ated to be living in this zone.

A shift toward defining these areas as urban would m ean a rise in India’s level of urbanisation to 40 % or above, but a loss of rural entitlem ents and an increased burden of urban taxation – both of which have m ajor policy im plications. It is between the m edium and sm all towns and this grey zone of large villages that the success of India’s new m anufacturing, livelihood and skill building policies will be sorely tested. The next series focuses in on the patterns of urbanisation as deduced from changes in land cover over tim e. The short sum m ary is that cities are sprawling. As they expand past their form al adm inistrative boundaries, city densities lower over tim e as population growth rates lag behind the rate of the growth of built-up areas. The drop in built-up area densities is greater in the top 10 0 cities when com pared to the top 10 or the m illion plus cities but sprawl is happening in large and sm all cities alike. This is hardly an unusual pattern when seen from a global perspective, but it does have obvious and possibly unfortunate consequences for urban governance, regional planning, and the sustainability of India’s cities. Urbanisation has the potential to be an environm entally sustainable way to work and live – life in com pact settlem ents requires less transport, less energy for cooling and heating, and directly alters less terrain than m ore spatially dispersed living patterns. Increasing sprawl challenges these possibilities.

While the extent of land under urban cover rem ains sm all, the effects of urban land dynam ics m ay be m ore significant. For one, location of the land m atters – we m ay be urbanising in productive and eco-sensitive areas. Second, spatial size m atters. Globally, cities typically sprawl and disturb land area twice their built up area – this relationship is unstudied for India. Third, low density urban expansion affects energy use for transport, the prospects for and costs of resource-efficient infrastructure, the extent of disruption to watersheds and albedo, and other aspects of urbanisation that in turn affects extraction of water, energy and m aterial resources from the hinterland for the construction and operation of these cities

U rb an

D yn am ic s

U rb an

Urban India: 1951 D

yn am s ic

In 1951, there were only

5 Indian cities with a population greater than 1 m illion and only

41 cities greater than 0 .1 m illion population. Much of India effectively lived in 0 .56 m illion villages.

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

U rb an

D yn am

Urban India: 20 11

ic s

In 20 11, there are 3 cities with population greater than 10 m illion and 53 cities with population greater than 1 m illion. Over 833 m illion Indians live in 0 .64 m illion villages but 377 m illion live in about 8,0 0 0 urban centres.

Source: IIHS Analysis of Census data, 20 11. (Satellite Map, Google Inc.)

U rb an

Urban India: 20 31 D

yn am s ic

By 20 31, it is projected that there will be 6 cities with a population greater than 10 m illion. A key question is how m any Indians would live in how m any m edium and sm all towns - the bridge between a transform ing rural and urban India?

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

India's Largest Cities: 20 11

Source: Census 20 11

To p Te n

Greater Mum bai Delhi Kolkata Chennai Bangalore Hyderabad Ahm edabad Pune Surat J aipur (M Corp.)*

Millio n Plu s

Greater Mum bai Delhi Kolkata Chennai Bangalore Hyderabad Ahm edabad Pune Surat J aipur (M Corp.)* Kanpur Lucknow Nagpur Ghaziabad Indore Coim batore Kochi Patna Kozhikode Bhopal Thrissur Vadodara Agra GVMC (MC)** Malappuram Thiruvananthapuram Kannur Ludhiana (M Corp.)* Nashik Vijayawada Madurai Varanasi Meerut Faridabad (M Corp.)* Rajkot

J am shedpur Srinagar J abalpur Asansol Vasai Virar City (M Corp.)* Allahabad Dhanbad Aurangabad Am ritsar J odhpur Ranchi Raipur Kollam Gwalior Durg-Bhilainagar Chandigarh Tiruchirappalli Kota (M Corp.)*

To p H u n d re d

Greater Mum bai Delhi Kolkata Chennai Bangalore Hyderabad Ahm edabad Pune Surat J aipur (M Corp.)* Kanpur Lucknow Nagpur Ghaziabad Indore Coim batore Kochi Patna Kozhikode Bhopal Thrissur Vadodara Agra GVMC (MC)** Malappuram Thiruvananthapuram Kannur Ludhiana (M Corp.)* Nashik Vijayawada Madurai Varanasi Meerut Faridabad (M Corp.)* Rajkot J am shedpur

Srinagar J abalpur Asansol Vasai Virar City (M Corp.)* Allahabad Dhanbad Aurangabad Am ritsar J odhpur Ranchi Raipur Kollam Gwalior Durg-Bhilainagar Chandigarh Tiruchirappalli Kota (M Corp.)* Mysore Bareilly Guwahati Tiruppur Solapur (M Corp.)* Hubli-Dharwad *(M Corp.)* Salem Aligarh Gurgaon Moradabad (M Corp.)* Bhubaneswar J alandhar Warangal Bhiwandi Dehradun Saharanpur (M Corp.)* Siliguri Gorakhpur Guntur

Cuttack Puducherry J am m u Bikaner (M Corp.)* Am ravati (M Corp.)* Noida (CT) Mangalore Belgaum Bhavnagar Firozabad (NPP) J am nagar Durgapur Malegaon Nellore Bokaro Steel City Kolhapur Raurkela Ajm er Nanded Waghala (M Corp.)* J hansi Gulbarga Erode Ujjain (M Corp.)* Sangali Tirunelveli Muzaffarnagar Vellore Rajahm undry

(List in descending order of population of Urban Agglom erations)

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

U rb an

D yn am ic s

U rb an

Ten Largest Cities D

yn am s ic

The top 10 cities are estim ated to produce about 15% of the GDP, with

Ten Largest Cit ies

8% of the population and just 0 .1% of the land area.

Land

Populat ion

Out put

0 10 20 30 40 50 Est imated Pr opor t ion for all-India

Average Density in Built -up Area of Top Ten Cit ies, people per sq km

Source: IIHS Analysis 20 11(built-up area); Census 20 11 (population); Planning Com m ission 20 11 (DPP Estim ates 20 0 5-0 6). See endnotes for m ethod of calculating urban output and built-up area.

U rb an

D yn

Cities with Populations over 1 Million

am s ic

The 53 Million-plus cities are estim ated to produce about 32% of

Cit ies w it h Populat ions

the GDP, with 13.3% of the

over 1 M illion

population and just 0 .2% of the land area.

Land

Populat ion 13%

Out put

0 10 20 30 40 50 Est imated Pr opor t ion for all-India

Average Density in Built -up Areas of M illion Plus Cit ies, people per sq km

E 0 1990s

2000s 2010s

Source: IIHS Analysis 20 11(built-up area); Census 20 11 (population); Planning Com m ission 20 11 (DPP Estim ates 20 0 5-0 6). See endnotes for m ethod of calculating urban output and built-up area.

U rb an D

Hundred Largest Cities

yn am s ic

The top 10 0 largest cities are estim ated to produce about 43% of

Hundred Largest Cit ies

the GDP, with 16% of the population and just 0 .24% of the land area.

Land

Populat ion

Out put

0 10 20 30 40 50 Est imated Pr opor t ion for all-India

Average Density in Built -up Areas of Top m Hundred Cit ies, people per sq km

Source: IIHS Analysis 20 11(built-up area); Census 20 11 (population); Planning Com m ission 20 11 (DPP Estim ates 20 0 5-0 6). See endnotes for m ethod of calculating urban output and built-up area.

U rb an

D yn

Distribution of India’s Population by Settlem ent Size (Urban & Rural): 1951-20 11*

am ic s

Depending on the definition of urban, m ore settlem ents shift from the rural into the urban category.

Est . 2011

Megacities (> 10 m)

C Large Metropolitan Cities (5-10 m)

I Million + Cities (1 - 5 m)

Other Class I Cities (0.1 to 1 m)

Class II (50-1,00,000) , Class III (20-50,000), Class

n s rb

112 m IV (10-20,000) r U

a o Class V & VI (<5-10,000) 14% n ti

o Very Large Villages (>10,000) , Large Villages 200 m g rg

ill a a L

s e e (>5,000)

A 23%

f Medium Sized Villages (2-5,000)

d Small Villages (1-2,000)

Hamlets (500-1,000)

Small Hamlets (<500)

D e fin itio n o f U rban ( Ce n s u s 2 0 11) : All statutory

(est imat e)

places w ith a m un icipality , corporation , can ton m en t

All In d ia: N u m be r o f Se ttle m e n ts ( 19 71-2 0 11) board or n otified tow n area com m ittee. A place satisfy in g

the follow in g three criteria sim ultan eously : a m in im um

population of 5,0 0 0 ; at least 75 per cen t of m ale w orkin g population en gaged in n on -agricultural pursuits; an d

a den sity of population of at least 40 0 per sq. km .

Rural

Source: Census, 20 11

*The break-up of sm aller cities

Source: IIHS Analysis based

+ for 20 11 is an estim ate

on Census 1951 to 20 11

U rb an D

Largest 20 Urban Agglom erations by Population: 20 11

yn am ic s

The rapid growth of the largest m etropolitan cities in the 20 th cen tury, is n ow begin n in g to slow down , whereas the sm aller cities are expan din g.

Great er M umbai UA

Delhi UA

Kolkat a UA

Chennai UA

Bangalore UA

Hyderabad UA

Ahmedabad UA

n o 12

li il

Pune UA

mn

Surat UA

i 10

no ti

Jaipur (M Corp.)

Kanpur UA

la u

Lucknow UA

Nagpur UA

Ghaziabad UA

Indore UA

Coimbat ore UA

Kochi UA

Pat na UA

Kozhikode UA

Bhopal UA

Source: IIHS Analysis based on Census of India, 20 11

U rb an

Population and Built up Area: Inside and Outside India’s 10 Largest Cities D

Great er Delhi

Surat Jaipur M umbai

Kolkat a

Chennai

Bangalore Hyderabad Ahmedabad

Great er

Delhi

Kolkat a

Chennai

Bangalore Hyderabad Ahmedabad

Pune

M umbai

Populat ion

Built - up area

Populat ion

Built - up area

India’s largest cities have a significant portion of both

io n o

f 250

population and built-up areas outside ULB boundaries. In

o rt y ro p

m ost cases, the proportion of built- up area outside ULB

pl a s

ca l

boundaries is greater than the proportion of population

rb a n

outside the adm inistrative boundaries, im plying relatively

l ca h e u o

low-density sprawl. Com parison over tim e (highlighted in

a a n si rb d u i

the next page) shows that this spatial expansion has

accelerated between 20 0 0 and 20 10 .

Source: H.S. Sudhira (20 11)

Great er Delhi

Kolkat a

Chennai

Bangalore Hyderabad Ahmedabad

and IIHS Analysis

M umbai

See endnote for explanation

Populat ion

Built - up area

on m ethodology for calculating built-up area

U rb an

D yn

Urban Growth: Population vs. Built up Areas

am ic s

Percentage Change in Population and Built-up Area

Percentage Change in Population and Built-up Area

for 10 Largest Cities, 1990-2000

for 10 Largest Cities, 2000-2010

Hyderabad Ahmedabad Pune Surat Jaipur M umbai

Great er

Delhi

Kolkat a

Chennai

Bangalore

Hyderabad Ahmedabad

Great er

Delhi

Kolkat a

Chennai

Bangalore

M umbai

Percent age Change in Populat ion

Percent age Change in Built- up Area

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

Source: H.S. Sudhira (20 11) and IIHS Analysis See endnote for explanation on m ethodology for calculating built-up area

U rb an

D yn

Urban Growth: Density

am ic s

Built-up Densities inside Administrative Boundary Built-up Densities outside Administrative Boundary

Pune Surat Jaipur M umbai

Great er Delhi

Kolkat a

Chennai

Bangalore

Hyderabad Ahmedabad

Great er

Delhi

Kolkat a

Chennai

Bangalore

Hyderabad Ahmedabad

M umbai

Built-up density, estim ated as population over built-up area, is decreasing for m ost of the core areas of the

ten largest cities. The evolution of density outside the urban local body boundaries varies m ore, but density is lower than in the city cores.

Source: H.S. Sudhira (20 11) and IIHS Analysis See endnote for explanation on m ethodology for calculating built-up area

U rb an D

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

yn am ic s

Mum bai

Delhi

Built -up Vegetation Water bodies Others

Source: H. S. Sudhira (20 11). Urban Land Cover and Land Cover Change Dataset of Indian Cities. IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

rb D

yn

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

ic s

Kolkata

Chennai

Built -up Vegetation Water bodies Others

Source: H. S. Sudhira (20 11). Urban Land Cover and Land Cover Change Dataset of Indian Cities. IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

U rb an

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

yn am ic s

Bangalore

Hyderabad

Built -up Vegetation Water bodies Others

Source: H. S. Sudhira (20 11). Urban Land Cover and Land Cover Change Dataset of Indian Cities. IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

U rb an D

yn

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

am s ic

Ahm edabad

Pune

Built -up Vegetation Water bodies Others

Source: H. S. Sudhira (20 11). Urban Land Cover and Land Cover Change Dataset of Indian Cities. IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

U rb an

Change in Urban Built-up Area & Land Cover: Surat & J aipur D

yn am ic s

Surat

J aipur

Built -up Vegetation Water bodies Others

Source: H. S. Sudhira (20 11). Urban Land Cover and Land Cover Change Dataset of Indian Cities. IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

rb D m a

yn

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

ic s

Agra

Chandigharh

Built -up Vegetation Water bodies Others

Source: H. S. Sudhira (20 11). Urban Land Cover and Land Cover Change Dataset of Indian Cities. IIHS Working Paper, Mim eo.

U rb an

Spatial Variation in District-wise Distribution of Sectoral Output: 20 0 5-0 6 D

yn am ic s

All the districts of India are arranged in ascending

order of level of urbanisation, and the lines

Agricult ure

represent the cum ulative distribution of sectoral

u t 90%

output. As expected, we see that som e econom ic

tp u

Forest ry an d

O 80%

Logging

activity like banking, insurance and real estate is

ia

m ore concentrated in urban areas, whereas

-I n d 70%

M ining and

forestry, logging, agriculture, m ining and

ll

Quarrying

quarrying are less concentrated in urban areas.

ta 60%

M anufact uring

f To e o g 50%

Trade, Hot els

e n ta 40%

and Rest aurant s

rc e

Banking and

Real Est at e

m Sect oral Composit ion of All India GDP, 2005-06 u

Ot her Ser vices

Dist rict s, ordered by Level of Urbanisat ion

Agricult ure

Forestry 1%

Real Estat e

Fishing 1%

9% Banking

M ining 2%

This chart shows the sectoral com position of the econom y. Shades of green M anufact uring

represent the prim ary sector, shades of blue represent the secondary sector 14%

Communicat ion

and shades of pink and purple represent the tertiary sector.

Ot her Transport 4%

Elect ricit y 2%

Const ruct ion

Source : District-level data on econom ic output from the Planning Com m ission

U rb an

D yn

Spatial Variation in District-wise Distribution of Output for Select States: 20 0 5-0 6

am ic s

The districts of a particular state are lined up in increasing order of level of urbanisation

on the horizontal axis, and the vertical axis

depicts the cum ulative percentage of the state’s

u 80% tp

output accounted for by these districts. For m ore

u O 70%

details, refer to endnotes. From this figure, we can

te

Utt ar Pradesh

see that som e states like Maharashtra and

S ta f 60%

M aharasht ra

Karnataka have a greater spatial concentration

Karnataka

of output in highly urbanised districts, whereas

ta 50%

Andhra Pradesh

in som e states like Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and

Bihar

Rajasthan, output is distributed m ore evenly

across the districts of the state.

Rajast han

ti 30% la

Tamil Nadu

u m u 20%

All India

Per Capita GSDP

s) e Dist rict s, ordered by Level of Urbanisat ion All India Per Capita GDP e p 25,000

u in 20,000 R P ( D

S 15,000

a it G p 10,000 C a r

e There is a great deal of variation in per capita GSDP (Gross State Dom estic 5,000 P Product) between the states in our sam ple.

Source : District-level data on econom ic output from the Planning Com m ission

U rb an D

Distribution of Sectoral Output by Districts for Select States: 20 0 5-0 6

yn am s ic

Rajast han

M aharasht ra

Per Capita GSDP

Proport ion Rural

Proport ion Rural

u 30,000 t 90% u t 90% tp u 80%

in 20,000 R

All India Per Capita GDP

e 50%

e c 50%

u la 20%

Cumulat ive Populat ion, Dist rict s Ordered

Cumulat ive Populat ion, Dist rict s Ordered

by Level of Urbanisat ion 0 by Level of Urbanisat ion

Rajast han

Karnataka

Punjab

M aharasht ra

Primary Secondary

Tert iary

Total DDP

Sectoral com postion of state output : 20 0 5-0 6

Districts in a particular state are lined

Rajast han

M aharasht ra

up in increasing order of the level

Ot her Ser vices 8%

of urbanisation, and these charts are

Public Admn 4%

Public Admn. 4%

Ot her

scatter plots of the cum ulative percentage

Services

M ining

Agricult ure

of population against the cum ulative

Real Estat e 6%

Agricult ure

proportion of output in the prim ary,

Banking 4%

Real Estat e

secondary and tertiary sectors of the

Communicat ion 3%

M anufact uring

econom y. The black vertical line indicates

Forest ry 2%

the overall level of urbanisation in the

Ot her

M ining 2%

Transport Trade

M anufact uring

state. It does not indicate that the

population above the line is com pletely

Communicat ion 4%

Trade

Elect ricit y 3%

Railways 1%

Const ruct ion

urban: Districts above the line are

Const ruct ion 5%

Ot her Transport 5%

Elect ricit y 3%

som ewhat m ore rural and districts below the line are som ewhat m ore urban.

Railways 1%

Source : District-level data on econom ic output from the Planning Com m ission

U rb a n D

yn a m

Distribution of Sectoral Output by Districts for Select States: 20 0 5-0 6

Proport ion Rural

Proport ion Rural

Per Capita GSDP

t 30,000 90% u 90%

e e 25,000

O l 70%

O l 70%

ra All India Per Capita GDP 60%

ra to 60%

in 20,000 R

C r 10,000

Cumulat ive Populat ion, Dist rict s Ordered

Cumulat ive Populat ion ordered by Percentage Urban

by Level of Urbanisat ion 0

Rajast han

Karnataka

Punjab M aharasht ra

Primary

Secondary

Tert iary

Total DDP

Sectoral com postion of state output: 20 0 5-0 6

The pie charts show the sectoral

Karnataka

Punjab

com position of state output: shades

Ot her Ser vices 7%

Ot her Ser vices 8%

of green represent the prim ary sector, shades of blue represent the secondary

Public Admn 4%

Public Admn 5%

Agricult ure

Real Estat e 4%

sector and shades of pink and purple

Forestry 1%

Real Estat e

M ining 1%

Banking 5%

Agricult ure

represent the tertiary sector.

In Maharashtra and Karnataka, secondary

Communicat ion

Banking 7%

M anufact uring

and tertiary sector output is concentrated

in the m ore urbanised districts of the state,

Ot her

Trade

Communicat ion

Transport 3%

whereas prim ary sector output

M anufact uring

is concentrated in the m ore rural districts

Ot her Transport 4%

Elect ricit y 3%

Railways 1%

of the state. Output in Punjab and Rajasthan

Railways 1%

Const ruct ion 7%

Const ruct ion 7%

Elect ricit y 3%

is m ore evenly spread across districts.

Source : District-level data on econom ic output from the Planning Com m ission

Econom ic Geography

Econom ic Geography

India’s econom ic dynam ism varies dram atically across the country. Unfortunately no com parable official estim ates are available for city econom ic output, in spite of urban areas producing close to two-thirds of the GDP.

Hence, the series of m aps present the closest spatial approxim ation - district-level data on econom ic output, disaggregated by sector, that highlight the spatial distribution of econom ic activity for select sectors and in aggregate. The striking pattern is the concentration of econom ic output in districts that host som e of the largest cities, across m ost econom ic sectors especially services, but including m anufacturing. This is set in a highly unequal landscape in term s of natural resource endowm ents (som e of the poorest districts have high concentrations of energy, forest and m ineral wealth) and agricultural land-use and productivity.

The com pound annual growth rate (CAGR) m aps show where the changes are taking place over the early 20 0 0 s, during an accelerating period of econom ic reform . It is interesting to note that tertiary sector activity is concentrated in and around large urban centres, and its growth is strongest in the m ore urbanised regions of the country. From the CAGR m aps, one can observe that the rate of growth of agricultural output is lower than that of m anufacturing, which in turn is lower than that of trade related output. These trends point to an ongoing econom ic restructuring and shifts in the sectoral and spatial com position of the econom y, potentially m oving in the direction of divergence and urban prim acy.

To supplem ent the IIHS analysis on econom ic activity, this brief drew on work done for the World Bank’s as-yet-unpublished India Urbanisation Review on em ploym ent patterns and the concentration

of em ploym ent in cities disaggregated by city size. The results reinforce the general conclusion of concentrated (but slowly de-concentrating) econom ic activity.

Workforce participation rates, at least in em ploym ent captured in the Econom ic Census, are highest in the “m ajor m etros” (population

4 m illion plus), and em ploym ent in “high tech” sectors (ICT, high- technology m anufacturing, and fast-growing exports) is also highly concentrated in the larger cities. Manufacturing in general and low tech m anufacturing in particular is relatively well distributed across the country. Further, the pattern of em ploym ent growth around the India's largest cities shows that m anufacturing activity is shifting outwards from the city core. Manufacturing is shifting to a 10 -10 0 km radius from the city centre, with high tech m anufacturing shifting to a 10 -50 km radius from the city centre, and m edium high tech m anufacturing and fast growing export m anufacturing shifting to a 50 -10 0 km radius from city centres. The patterns around cities with at least a m illion persons as of the 20 0 1 census are som ewhat different: low tech m anufacturing is growing in the city core and in a 10 -50 km radius from the city core, and high tech and m edium high tech m anufacturing is declining in the sam e radius. Fast growing export m anufacturing is increasing in a 50 -10 0 km radius from the city centres.

The spread of m anufacturing and other em ploym ent away from the city core connects to the issue of sprawl, and raises questions related to the links between land use and transportation. The shifting spatial distribution of econom ic activity as well as infrastructure has im plications for the distribution of econom ic developm ent as well as poverty.

E co n o

m ic

G eo g

ra p h y

Distribution and Growth Rate of Total Output: 20 0 1-0 5

E co n o

Considerable concentration

Dist rict -w ise Dist ribut ion of Total GDP Out put - 2005

ic

of econom ic output around G

eo g

m ajor urban centers and

ra p

h urbanised states over the y early 20 0 0 s

NOTE: Data for Gujarat, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland, and Tripura is not available at the district level. Therefore, the value assigned to each district in these four states is the average of the state GDP.

Source: IIHS Analysis based on District-level econom ic data from the Planning Com m ission website and the Central Statistical Organization.

Distribution and Growth Rate of Prim ary Sector Output: 20 0 1-0 5

co ic

G Dist rict -w ise Dist ribut ion of Primary Sect or Out put - 2005

g eo h p

ra y

Major concentration of prim ary sector econom ic activities in 'Green Revolution', delta and irrigated areas apart from m ining-intensive districts.

NOTE: Data for Gujarat, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland, and Tripura is not available at the district level. Therefore, the value assigned to each district in these four states is the average of the state GDP.

Source: IIHS Analysis based on District-level econom ic data from the Planning Com m ission website and the Central Statistical Organization.

Distribution and Growth Rate of Secondary Sector Output: 20 0 1-0 5

co

Dist rict -w ise Dist ribut ion of Secondary Sect or Out put - 2005

ic G g eo

ra y

The concentration of secondary activities continues in established centres and along growth corridors.

NOTE: Data for Gujarat, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland, and Tripura is not available at the district level. Therefore, the value assigned to each district in these four states is the average of the state GDP.

Source: IIHS Analysis based on District-level econom ic data from the Planning Com m ission website and the Central Statistical Organization.

Distribution and Growth Rate of Tertiary Sector Output: 20 0 1-0 5

co ic

G Dist rict -w ise Dist ribut ion of Tert iary Sect or Out put - 2005

g eo h p

ra y

High concentration of tertiary sector output in m etropolitan cities and state capitals.

NOTE: Data for Gujarat, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland, and Tripura is not available at the district level. Therefore, the value assigned to each district in these four states is the average of the state GDP.

Source: IIHS Analysis based on District-level econom ic data from the Planning Com m ission website and the Central Statistical Organization.

Distribution and Growth Rate of Agricultural Output: 20 0 1-0 5

E n co m o

Dist rict -w ise Dist ribut ion of Agricult ural Out put - 2005

ic G g eo

ra y

Agricultural Output

concentrated in Green Revolution and cash crop based districts. Much of sem i-arid, eastern and north-eastern India rem ain relatively 'backward'.

NOTE: Data for Gujarat, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland, and Tripura is not available at the district level. Therefore, the value assigned to each district in these four states is the average of the state GDP.

Source: IIHS Analysis based on District-level econom ic data from the Planning Com m ission website and the Central Statistical Organization.

Distribution and Growth Rate of Manufacturing Output: 20 0 1-0 5

co ic

G Dist rict -w ise Dist ribut ion of M anufact uring Out put - 2005

g eo h p

ra y

Manufacturing output rem ains highly concentrated in older industrial and m etropolitan centres in spite of 15 years of econom ic reform s.

NOTE: Data for Gujarat, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland, and Tripura is not available at the district level. Therefore, the value assigned to each district in these four states is the average of the state GDP.

Source: IIHS Analysis based on District-level econom ic data from the Planning Com m ission website and the Central Statistical Organization.

Distribution and Growth Rate of Trade Output: 20 0 1-0 5

co

Dist rict -w ise Dist ribut ion of Trade Out put - 2005

ic G g eo

ra y

Strong concentration of trade output in large m etropolitan centres state capitals and along growth corridors.

NOTE: Data for Gujarat, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland, and Tripura is not available at the district level. Therefore, the value assigned to each district in these four states is the average of the state GDP.

Source: IIHS Analysis based on District-level econom ic data from the Planning Com m ission website and the Central Statistical Organization.

Distribution and Growth Rate of Real Estate Output: 20 0 1-0 5

co ic

G Dist rict -w ise Dist ribut ion of Real Estat e Out put - 2005

g eo h p

ra y

High concentration of real estate share of output in large m etropolitan centres and m ore prosperous states.

NOTE: Data for Gujarat, J am m u & Kashm ir, Nagaland, and Tripura is not available at the district level. Therefore, the value assigned to each district in these four states is the average of the state GDP.

Source: IIHS Analysis based on District-level econom ic data from the Planning Com m ission website and the Central Statistical Organization.

Sectoral Em ploym ent by City Size: 20 0 5

E co o n m ic

Workforce Part icipat ion Rat e

M anufact uring

g eo

ra p h

100 y

Low Tech M ed Low

M ed High

High Tech

Fast-Grow ing

Tech

Tech

Export s

Business Service Employment r

Ot her Service Employment

ICT services Transport , t elecom

Financial services

Real est at e

M edium (0.05-0.1million) Large (0.1-1 million)

M illion+ (1-4million)

M ajor M et ro (>4 million)

Source: World Bank (20 11) India Urbanisation Review. Mim eo

Sectoral Concentration in Em ploym ent

co ic

G g eo

Spatial Clustering of “High Tech” Em ploym ent

M ajor M et ro (>4 million)

ti a 1

M illion+ (1-4million)

Large (0.1-1 million) 0.5

M edium (0.05-0.1 million) 0 Small (0.02-0.05 million)

Tow n (<0.02 million)

Sect or

Lo catio n Qu o tie n t is the share of a sector (s) em ploym ent in that region (r) divided by the national share of em ploym ent (e) in that sector: (e / E )/ (e / E ). Values greater than one signify a relative concentration of that sector’s em ploym ent in a particular region. sr r sn N The clusters of colum ns on this graph show the variation in geographic concentration of em ploym ent in particular sectors. The clusters with relatively uniform height - low-technology m anufacturing and m anufacturing in general - represent evenly dispersed jobs. Other sectors, m ost notably ICT, have a significant portion of jobs clustered in the larger cities.

Source: World Bank (20 11) India Urbanisation Review. Mim eo

Workforce and Em ploym ent around Major Metros: 1998-20 0 5

E co n o

m ic

ICT Services

e M anufact uring

rc

eo

fo

7 largest cit ies are as per 2001 census 7 largest cit ies are as per 2001 census

rural urban

e Ot her Services

fo

rc

Business Services

7 largest cit ies are as per 2001 census 7 largest cit ies are as per 2001 census

“Major Metros” are Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata, Chennai, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad in this analysis, which were the seven largest cities as of 20 0 1 Census.

Source: World Bank (20 11) India Urbanisation Review. Mim eo

Geography of Em ploym ent Growth: 1998-20 0 5

E n co m o

Employment Growth

Manufacturing

n Metros 0 %

g ta

g e c - (All India)

10-50km

50-100km

Tot al

M anufact uring Overall

rc

e P e 5% -40%

P e rc Low -t ech manufact uring

10-50km

50-100km

All India

M edium low -t ech

Radius from cent res of major met ros

Radius from cent res of major met ros

manufact uring M edium high -t ech

manufact uring

Employment Growth

Manufacturing Growth

High-t ech manufact uring

Fast grow ing export

manufact uring

10- 50km

50- 100km

e rc 0% P -10%

<10km

10-50km

50-100km

Tot al

-15% -20%

Radius from Cent res of M edium -Sized Cit ies

Radius from Cent re of M edium -Sized Cit ies

“Major Metros” are Mum bai, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata, Chennai, Hyderabad and Ahm edabad in this analysis. Medium -sized cities Source: Analysis of data from Econom ic Census (1998 & 20 0 5)

are cities of at least 1 m illion as of Census 20 0 1. The ring buffer analysis excludes areas within 10 0 km from seven largest cities. in World Bank (20 11). India Urbanisation Review. Mim eo

Migration

Migration

A com m only held perception is that explosive rural to urban m igration is the prim ary cause for the state of India’s cities. This is not borne out by the evidence. For the last 30 years, m igration has contributed about

a fifth of the population, natural urban population growth contributed about 60 percent, and the rest about equally split between new town form ation because of reclassification and urban boundary expansion or sprawl.

This section estim ates patterns of m igration in India, focusing on 20 11, in anticipation of the release of Census 20 11 data. Besides giving an overview of the contribution of net rural to urban m igration to the total increase in urban population, it also attem pts to trace the patterns of people’s m ovem ents between the states.

Using data from m ultiple sources, including recent results from Census and SRS 20 11 and the NSS 64th Round, three interesting trends em erge. First, the net m igration share in urban growth is up from 21 percent over the last decade to about 24 percent over 20 0 1-11. Dem ographic dynam ics, with dropping birth rates has led to a decline in natural population growth share in cities from 59 percent in 1991-20 0 1 to 44 percent over the last decade. The rem aining 32 percent is due to reclassification of Census towns and expansion of urban agglom erations. Census 20 11 saw the largest rise in new Census Town creation in history pointing to the m ovem ents of large villages in the grey zone into an urban classification. The growth in urban area is corroborated with satellite data in the section on Urban Dynam ics.

The m aps explore spatial trends in inter-state m igration over the

20 0 1-20 11 period, using NSS data as a proxy in advance of the release

of the Census 20 11 data. Not unsurprisingly, m uch of the m igration (fem ale+m ale; rural + urban) is concentrated around the dem ographically dom inant states of northern India along with the increasing concentration of investm ent, econom ic activity, wealth and jobs around particular centres.

Uttar Pradesh leads the country as an interstate m igration destination followed by Delhi, West Bengal, Tam il Nadu and Rajasthan. Delhi leads as a destination for net rural to urban m igration (from UP, Bihar and Haryana) followed by Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh. While com paring total urban to urban m igration, Delhi again leads other states as a destination followed closely by Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Karnataka. Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka also show significant m igration into urban areas.

The diagram represents 20 stream s of m igration that m ake up half of the estim ated total m igrants over the 20 0 1-10 decade. The m ost significant total m igration flows (urban & rural) are from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. Key destination states are Delhi, Tam il Nadu, Kerala, Haryana, UP and Bihar. Urban m igration is m uch m ore diverse, but the lead source states still continue to be UP, Bihar, Tam il Nadu, Karnataka and Haryana. Key destination states include Delhi, Kerala, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Tam il Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

M ig

ra tio n

Com ponents of Urban Population Growth: 1961-20 11

The m ajor com ponent of urban population growth

is still natural growth. While approxim ately

li o il

40 m illion of the 20 0 1-20 11 increase is due

to natural growth, only about 22 m illion is due to net

in (

rural to urban m igration.

Net Rural t o Urban m igrat ion

Expansion in urban area / agglom erat ion

rb U 10

New t ow ns less declassified t ow ns 0 Nat ural Grow t h

Tracing the rates of change of the com ponents of urban growth from 1961-71 to 20 0 1-11, the rate of natural

th

growth has declined from 59% in 1991-0 1 to 44%

ro

in 20 0 1-11, whereas the estim ated rate of net rural to

urban m igration has m arginally increased from 21%

o ti

in 1991-0 1 to 24% in 20 0 1-11.

Net Rural t o Urban m igrat ion

Expansion in urban area / agglom erat ion

% New towns less declassified t owns Source: IIHS Analysis based

Nat ural Grow t h

on Census of India, 20 11; NSS 64th

Round; Sivaram akrishnan, Kundu and Singh (20 0 5)SRS,

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

Vol.45 No.1, 20 11 See endnote for explanation on m ethodology for calculating net rural to urban m igration

Estim ated Major Inter-State Migration Stream s: 20 0 1-20 11

M ig

ra n tio

The 10 largest flows of inter-state m igration (including rural and urban m igration) are in the north (UP, MP, Haryana and Delhi) and east (Bihar and West Bengal) with significant flows between Tam il Nadu and Kerala.

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

M ig

ra n tio

Much of the m ajor m ovem ent is between the states in the north and eastern India, except for m ovem ent between Tam il Nadu and Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The top 10 m ovem ent stream s are estim ated to be as follows:

• UP to Delhi • Bihar to Delhi • UP to Maharashtra • Bihar to West Bengal • Tam il Nadu to Kerala • Bihar to UP • Haryana to Delhi

1 lakh persons

• UP to Gujarat • Kerala to Tam il Nadu

Stat e GDP (in Lakh Crores)

• Andhra to Karnataka

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