Urbanization in India - Trends:
lndia is on a clear
upward trajectory of urbanization, with its urban population steadily
increasing. According to projections by the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare for the period 2011—2036, urban India is expected to house 507 million
people in 2ii25, accounting for 35.7% of the total population—up from 31% in
2011. By 2036, this figure is projected to rise to 600 million, comprising
around 40% of the total population.
Key Urbanization Trends (2001—2011):
Emergence
of New Urban Agglomerations: Eluting this period, 90
new urban agglomerations (UAs) emerged, indicating rapid urban expansion.
Growth
of Million-Plus Cities: The number of cities with
populations exceeding one million increased from 35 to 52, representing 42.3%
of the total urban population.
Rise
in Census Towns: There was a phenomenal increase of 2,530
new census towns, driven largely by economic growth and rural transformation.
This trend has likely accelerated post-201 I due to ongoing infrastructure
expansion and urban-centric development policies.
Challenges and Economic Implications:
Despite rapid urban growth, infrastructure and basic
urban services have srtuggled to keep pace with the rising demands of
population and businesses. This mismatch is hindering India's ability to fully
leverage the economic potential of its urban areas.
A
comparative analysis illustrates this gap clearly:
● East Asia and the Pacific region contributes 29% of
global GDP with 32% of the global population-a GDP-to-population ratio of 0.91.
● In contrast, South Asia, with 14% of the global
urban population, produces only 8% of global GDP—a significantly lower ratio of
0.57.
This disparity indicates that congestion effects and
infrastructure bottlenecks in Indian cities are limiting productivity and
economic returns, making urbanization a double-edged sword.
Current Institutional Landscape:
(i)
Central Government Initiatives:
Encourage devolution of 18 functions (Schedule 12 of
the Constitution) to ULBs. These fonctions include:
• Water supply
• Public health
• Sanitation
• Urban forestry
• Slum improvement
• Fire services, etc.
(ii)
State Government Initiatives (Observed Trends):
Functional
Fragmentation:
Despite the call for devolution, many states have
created parallel bodies, instead of empowering ULBs directly:
Ø Boards and Corporations manage key
services like:
• Water supply
• Sewerage and sanitation
• Often in mega-cities, these are outside the control
of municipal bodies (e.g., Jai Boards, Sewerage Boards).
Ø Urban Development Authorities (UDAs):
• Handle urban planning, land use regulation, building
permissions.
• These often function independently of ULBs, reducing
local planning authority.
Ø State Nodal Agencies:
• Created for pooled procurement or project
implementation, especially under central schemes like AMRUT or Smart Cities.
• Often act as intermediaries, again bypassing ULBs.
(iii)
Mission Mode Implementation:
• Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) or Project
Management Units (PMUs):
• Created for programs like Smart Cities Mission.
• Though efficient in project delivery, they often
sideline ULBs in decision-making.
(iv)
Oversight Mechanisms:
• Regional Commissioners or Additional District
Magistrates:
• Provide supervisory control over urban settlements.
• This can dilute ULBs' autonomy, keeping power with
district-level officers.
(v)
Institutional Integration Attempts:
• Merging Rural and Urban Departments at the State
level:
•This seeks to harmonize service delivery across
rural-urban boundaries.
•Usefiil for managing peri-urban areas, but can create
administrative confusion if not clearly delineated.
(vi)
Single Operator for Water Suppiy:
• Entrusting water supply to a single
district/city-level operator:
• Can enhance service quality, efficiency.
• But raises concerns about ULBs losing control over a
critical local function.
Assessment:
While these initiatives aim to improve urban
governance and service delivery, many of
• Reinforce centralized or state-level control.
• Bypass or weaken ULBs, contrary to the spirit of the 74th Amendment.
• Reduce accountability to elected local representatives.
Way Forward
• True devolution of the 18 functions must be backed by financial, functional, and administrative autonomy.
• Strengthen ULB capacity (technical, financial, human resources).
• Encourage convergence, not bypassing, of initiatives.
• Define clear roles for state-level bodies vs. ULBs.
• Create accountability mechanisms involving local elected officials.