Urbanisation in India

Urbanisation in India Introduction Urbanisation is an index of transformation from traditional rural economies to modern industrial one. It is progressive concentration (Davis, 1965) of population in urban unit. Quantification of urbanization is very difficult. It is a long term process. Kingsley Davis has explained urbanization as process(Davis,1962) of switch from spread out pattern of human settlements to one of concentration in urban centers. It is a finite process--- a cycle through which a nation pass as they evolve from agrarian to industrial society (Davis and Golden, 1954). He has mentioned three stages in the process of urbanization. Stage one is the initial stage characterized by rural traditional society with predominance in agriculture and dispersed pattern of settlements. Stage two refers to acceleration stage where basic restructuring of the economy and investments in social overhead capitals including transportation, communication take place. Proportion of urban population gradually increases from 25% to 40%, 50%, 60% and so on. Dependence on primary sector gradually dwindles. Third stage is known as terminal stage where urban population exceeds 70% or more. At this stage level of urbanization (Davis, 1965) remains more or less same or constant. Rate of growth of urban population and total population becomes same at this terminal stage. The onset of modern and universal process of urbanization is relatively a recent phenomenon and is closely related with industrial revolution and associated economic development. As industrial revolution started in Western Europe, United Kingdom was the initiator of Industrial Revolution. Historical evidence suggests that urbanization process is inevitable and universal. Currently developed countries are characterized by high level of urbanization and some of them are in final stage of urbanization process and experiencing slowing down of urbanization due to host of factors (Brockerhoff, 1999; Brockerhoff and Brennam 1998)). A majority of the developing countries, on the other hand started experiencing urbanization only since the middle of 20th century Study Objective This paper endeavours to illuminate on the process of urbanization in India with emphasis on level, tempo of urbanization and urban morphology using Indian Census data during 19012001. It will try to trace pattern of urbanization, urban problems and related policy issues. 2 Indian Census Definition of Urban Area In Census of India, 2001 two types of town were identified (R.G,2001): a) Statutory towns : All places with a municipality, corporation, Cantonment board or notified town area committee, etc. so declared by state law. b) Census towns : Places which satisfy following criteria :i) ii) iii) a minimum population of 5000 ; atleast 75% of male working population engaged in non agricultural pursuits; and a density of population of atleast 400 persons per sq km Urban Agglomeration : Urban agglomeration is a continuous urban spread constituting a town and its adjoining urban outgrowths (OGs) or two or more physical contiguous town together and any adjoining urban out growths of such towns. Examples of out growths are railway colonies, university campus, port area, military campus etc.that may come up near a statutory town or city. For census of India, 2001 it was decided that the core town or atleast one of the constituent towns of an urban agglomeration should necessarily be a statutory town and the total population of all the constituents should not be less than 20,000( as per 1991 Census). With these two basic criteria (R.G 2001) having been met the following are the possible different situations in which urban agglomerations could be constituted. i) ii) iii) a city or town with one or more contiguous outgrowths; two or more adjoining towns with or without their outgrowths; a city or one or more adjoining towns with their out growths all of which form a continuous spread World Urbanisation The urban population (UN, 1993) was estimated to be 2.96 billion (table 1) in 2000 and 3.77 in 2010 . It was estimated that nearly 50 million people are added to the world's urban population and about 35 million to the rural population each year. The share of world's population living in urban centers has increased from 39% in 1980 to 48% in 2000. The developed countries have higher urbanization level (76% in 2000) compared with developing countries(40% in 2000) The urbanization level has almost stabilized in developed countries. Africa and Asian countries are in the process of urbanization. 3 Table 1 : Percentage of world Population Residing in Urban Areas by Region World/Re gion World More develope d region Less Develope d region Africa Asia Latin America 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 % in billion % in billion % in billion % in billion % in billion 39.4 70.2 1.752 .797 41.2 71.5 1.997 .838 43.1 72.7 2.282 .880 47.6 75.8 2.962 968 52.8 79.1 3.779 1.060 28.8 .954 31.5 1.159 34.3 1.401 40.3 1.993 46.8 2.717 27.3 26.2 65.0 .130 .678 .233 29.6 28.6 68.4 .164 .813 .273 32.0 31.2 71.5 .205 .974 .315 37.6 37.1 76.6 .322 1.369 .400 44.2 43.8 80.4 .493 1.845 .482 Volume and Trend of Urbanisation in India India shares most characteristic features of urbanisation in the developing countries. Number of urban agglomeration /town has grown from 1827 in 1901 to 5161 in 2001. Number of total population has increased from 23.84 crores in 1901 to 102.7 crores in 2001 whereas number. of population residing in urban areas has increased from 2.58 crores in 1901 to 28.53 crore in 2001. (table 2) This process of urbanization in India is shown in Fig 1 . It reflects a gradual increasing trend of urbanization. India is at acceleration stage of the process of urbanization. Table 2 : Population of India by Residence 1901-2001 Census years 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 Number of Urban agglomerat ion/town 1827 1825 1949 2072 2250 2843 2363 2590 3378 3768 5161 Total population Urban population Rural 238396327 252093390 251321213 278977238 318660580 361088090 439234771 598159652 683329097 844324222 1027015247 25851873 25941633 28086167 33455989 44153297 62443709 78936603 109113977 159462547 217177625 285354954 212544454 226151757 223235046 245521249 274507283 298644381 360298168 489045675 523866550 627146597 741660293 4 Fig 1: Process of Urbanisation in India population 1200000000 1000000000 Total population 800000000 Urban population 600000000 400000000 200000000 0 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 Year According to 2001 census (Table 3), in India out of total population of 1027 million about 285 million live in urban areas and 742 million live in rural areas. Sex ratio, defined as number of female per 1000 male, for urban, rural and total India are 900, 945, 933 respectively. Table 3: Population of India by sex and residence : 2001 India Male Female Total Person Urban Rural Total 150135894 381141184 531277078 135219060 360519109 495738169 285354954 741660293 1027015247 Sex ratio 900 945 933 Degree of Urbanisation The degree or level of urbanization is defined as relative number of people who live in urban areas. Percent urban [(U/P)*100] and percent rural [(R/P)*100 and urban-rural ratio [(U/R)*100 ] are used to measure degree of urbanisation These are most commonly used for measuring degree of urbanization. The ratio U/P has lower limit 0 and upper limit 1ie. 0< U/P < 1. The index is 0 for total population equal to rural population. When whole population is urban, this index is one. When 50 percent of the population is rural, it means that there is one urbanite for each rural person. The urban-rural ratio has a lower limit of zero and upper limit ∝ i.e 0 rgtp > rgrp, (table 5) where rgup = rate of growth of urban population, rgtp = rate of growth of total population, rgrp = rate of growth of rural population. This fact is supported in case of Indian urbanisation also since 1911. Table 5 Annual Growth rate of Population by Residence year Annual growth Annual growth Annual growth rate(%) of total rate(%) of urban rate(%) of rural population(rgtp) population(rgup) population(rgrp) 1901-1911 .51 .03 .62 1911-1921 -0.03 .79 -0.13 1921-1931 1.04 1.75 .95 1931-1941 1.33 2.77 1.12 1941-1951 1.25 3.47 .84 1951-1961 1.96 2.34 1.88 1961-1971 3.09 3.24 3.05 1971-1981 1.33 3.79 .69 1981-1991 2.12 3.09 1.80 1991-2001 1.96 2.73 1.68 Tempo of urbanization refers to speed of urbanization and is measured as change registered in the level or degree of urbanization over the years. From the following table 6 it is clear that tempo or speed of urbanization is not uniform over the years. It shows a fluctuating trend over the years 1901-1981 and a declining trend during 1981-91, 1991-2001. Again it is required to mention tempo of urbanization measured as a per cent will tend toward zero as the urban population reaches the 100 percent level, since the urban and total population growth would become the same. Table 6: Tempo of Urbanisation 1901-2001 year Growth rate of Growth rate of percent percent rural (PR) urban(PU)(tempo) (tempo of PR) 1901-1911 -0.5240 .06184 1911-1921 0.8250 -0.0099 1921-1931 0.7054 -0.0924 1931-1941 1.4444 -0.2139 1941-1951 2.2160 .-0.4072 1951-1961 0.3846 -0.0823 1961-1971 0.1492 -0.0329 1971-1981 2.4629 -0.6434 1981-1991 0.9734 -0.3161 1991-2001 0.7714 -0.2815 Tempo of PU = 1/n [ l n (PU t+n /PU t )]* 100, where l n = natural log, PU t+n and PU t = percent urban in t+n th census and t th census respectively, n = census interval=10. *Tempo of PR = 1/n [ l n (PR t+n /PR t )]* 100, where l n = natural log, PR t+n and PR t = percent urban in t+n th and t th census respectively, n= census interval=10 7 Fig 3 : Tempo of Urbanisation : 1901-2001 Growth rate of Percent Urban and Rural 3 Growth rate of percent urban Growth rate of percent rural 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 19011911 1911- 19211921 1931 19311941 1941- 19511951 1961 19611971 1971- 19811981 1991 19912001 -1 Year From Fig 3 fluctuating tempo of urbanization can be easily verified. Growth rate of percent rural being negative, the corresponding curve for it moves down the horizontal axis. Growth rate in urban-rural ratio also shows a fluctuating trend over the years as is evident from the following table 7 . Table 7 : Growth rate of urban -rural ratio year 1901-1911 1911-1921 1921-1931 1931-1941 1941-1951 1951-1961 1961-1971 1971-1981 1981-1991 1991-2001 Growth rate of urban - rural ratio .59 .92 .80 1.66 2.62 .47 .18 3.11 1.29 1.05 Exponential growth rate of U/R ratio = 1/n *[ l n (UR t+n /UR t )]* 100 where l n = natural log, U/R t+n and UR t = urban-rural ratio in t+n th and t th census, t = census time, n = census interval=10 8 The major advantage of measuring tempo of urbanization is by taking urban- rural ratio is that it does not tend to zero when the country approaches the 100 percent level of urbanization ; however it does regress toward the growth rate of the urban population. Urban Morphology The following table 8 shows number of towns and percentage of urban population by size class of city during 1901- 2001. The pattern of urbanization in India is characterized by continuous concentration of population and activities in large cities (Kundu, 1983). This is manifested in a high percentage of urban population being concentrated in class I cities and its population has systematically gone up over the decades in the last century. As per 1901 census percentage of population in class I, IV, V were 26%, 21%, and 20 percent respectively. According to 1991 Census, about two third (65%) of the countries urban population lived in Class -1 cities with more than 100, 000 population. In 2001 it has increased to 69% . Over the years there has been continuous concentration of population in class I towns. On the contrary the concentration of population in medium and small town (Kundu, 1994) either fluctuated or declined. Indeed basic reason for the increasing dominance of class I cities is graduation of lower order towns into class I categories. It may be observed that in 1901 there were only 24 class I cities that has gone up to393 in 2001 which explains largely the increase in the share of population in this size category over the years. The graduation of number of urban centers from lower population size categories to class I cities has resulted top heavy structure of urban population in India. However in addition to factor of increase in number of large cities , the importance of a faster demographic growth, poverty induced (Mukherjee,1995) migration to urban informal sector should be taken into account in making urban structure top heavy. Table 8 :Number of towns and percentage of Urban population by size class Census years I II No of Towns by size class III IV V VI Percentage of urban population by size class I II III IV V VI 1901 24 43 130 391 744 479 26.0 11.2 15 6 20.8 20.1 1911 23 40 135 364 707 485 27.4 10.5 16.4 19.7 19.3 1921 29 45 145 370 734 571 29.7 10.3 15.9 18.2 18.6 1931 35 56 183 434 800 509 31.2 11.6 16.8 18.0 17.1 1941 49 74 242 498 920 407 38.2 11.4 16.3 15.7 15.0 1951 76 91 327 608 1124 569 44.6 9.9 15.7 13.6 12.9 1961 102 129 437 719 711 172 51.4 11.2 16.9 12.7 6.8 1971 148 173 558 827 623 147 57.2 10.9 16.0 10.9 4.4 1981 218 270 743 1059 758 253 60.3 11.6 14.3 9.5 3.5 1991 300 345 947 1167 740 197 65.2 10.9 13.1 7.7 2.6 2001 393 401 1151 1344 888 191 68.6 9.67 12.2 6.8 2.3 Class I : Greater than 1,00,000 population Class II : 50,000--1,00,000 population Class III : 20,000---50,000 population Class IV : 10,000--- 20,000 population Class V : 5,000---10,000 population Class VI : less than 5000 population 6.1 6.5 7.0 5.2 3.1 3.1 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 9 Fig 4 : Growth of city by size class percent of population by city size 80 70 60 50 40 Percentage of urban population by size class I 30 Percentage of urban population by size class II 20 Percentage of urban population by size class III 10 Percentage of urban population by size class IV 0 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 year Percentage of urban population by size class V Percentage of urban population by size class VI From the trend (Fig 4) in urban population by size class over the last century one can presume an increase in inequality in the urban structure, along with regional imbalance in the next decades. The distribution of population in different size class is likely to become more and more skewed. The share of class I towns or cities, with population size of 100,000 or more, has gone up significantly from 26 per cent in 1901 to 69% per cent in 2001. The percentage share of class IV, V and VI towns, having less than 20,000 people, on the other hand, has gone down drastically from 47 to 10 only. This is largely due to the fact that the towns in lower categories have grown in size and entered the next higher category.(Kundu,1994) Million -Plus cities in India Number of million plus cities(table: 8) have increased from 5 in 1951 to 23 in 1991 and to 35 in 2001. About 37% of the total urban population live in these million plus/ UA cities. As per 2001 census the newly added million plus cities are 12 in numbers, they are Agra, Meerut, Nashik, Jabalpur, Jamshedpur, Asansol, Dhanbad, Faridabad, Allahabad, Amritsar, Vijaywada, Rajkot. 10 Table 8 : Million -Plus cities in India: 1951- 2001 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 City Bombay(Mumbai) Calcutta Delhi Madras(Chennai) Hyderabad Bangalore Ahmedabad Pune Kanpur Nagpore Lucknow Surat Jaipur Kochi Coimbatore Vadodara Indore Patna Madurai Bhopal Vishakapatnam Vanarasi Ludhiana Population (in million) 1951 1971 2.97 5.97 4.67 7.42 1.44 3.65 1.54 3.17 1.13 1.80 0.79 1.66 0.88 1.75 0.61 1.14 0.71 1.28 0.48 0.93 0.50 0.81 0.24 0.49 0.30 0.64 0.18 0.51 0.29 0.74 0.21 0.47 0.31 0.56 0.32 0.56 0.37 0.71 0.10 0.38 0.11 0.36 0.37 0.64 0.15 0.40 1991 12.57 10.92 8.38 5.36 4.28 4.09 3.30 2.49 2.11 1.66 1.64 1.52 1.52 1.14 1.14 1.12 1.10 1.10 1.09 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.01 2001 16.37 13.22 12.79 6.42 5.53 5.69 4.52 3.75 2.69 2.12 2.27 2.81 2.32 1.35 1.45 1.49 1.64 1.71 1.19 1.45 1.33 1.21 1.40 Component of Urban Growth Urban growth ( Bhagat, 1992 ) can be attributed to mainly three components 1) Natural increase, 2) Net migration, 3) Areal reclassification. These components have been estimated using residual method. Since separate information in wake of change in the area and population due to extension of municipal boundaries during the inter-censal period is not available either for total or for migrant population it is difficult to estimate decadal migration to urban areas. Besides migration data for new and declassified towns are not available separately and so there is a possibility error error in estimating contribution of migration in the share of urban growth. From table 9 it is evident that during 1971-81 about 41% of urban growth ( estimated by Jain, RG 1991 Census) can be attributed to natural increase which reflects the role of demographic momentum , 36% due to net migration and municipal 11 boundary changes and 19% due to reclassification of area . But urban growth due to natural increase has increased from 42% in 1971-81 to about 60% during 1981-91. Urban growth due to migration and changes in municipal boundaries has reduced from 39% in 1971-81 to 22% in 1981-91. But estimates (figures in parenthesis) by Pathak and Mehta for these components of urban growth reflects slightly different results(Pathak and Mehta, 1995). It is clear that urbanization process in India is not mainly "migration lead" but a product of demographic explosion due to natural increase. People migrate to cities not due to urban pull but due to rural push. Poverty led migration (Sen and Ghosh, 1993) has induced very poor quality of urbanization followed by misery, poverty, unemployment, exploitation, rapid growth of slum, inequalities, degradation in the quality of urban life. Table 9: Components of Urban Growth Percent share Natural increase Net Migration + Changes in municipal boundaries 1971-81 41.7 (45.1) 39.4(36.1) 1981-91 59.9 (58.7) 22.6 (23.7) Areal reclassification 18.8 (18.8) 17.4(17.5) Basic Feature and Pattern of India's Urbanisation Basic feature of urbanization in India can be highlighted as : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lopsided urbanization induces growth of class I cities Urbanisation occurs without industrialization and strong economic base Urbanisation is mainly a product of demographic explosion and poverty induced rural - urban migration. Rapid urbanization leads to massive growth of slum followed by misery, poverty, unemployment, exploitation, inequalities, degradation in the quality of urban life. Urbanisation occurs not due to urban pull but due to rural push. Poor quality of rural-urban migration leads to poor quality of urbanization(Bhagat,1992). Distress migration initiates urban decay The pattern of urbanization in India is characterized by continuous concentration of population and activities in large cities. Kingsley Davis used the term "over-urbanization (Kingsley Davis and Golden, 1954) "where in urban misery and and rural poverty exist side by side with the result that city can hardly be called dynamic" and where inefficient, unproductive informal 12 sector ( Kundu and Basu, 1998) becomes increasingly apparent. Another scholar (Breese, 1969) depicts urbanization in India as pseudo urbanization where in people arrive in cities not due to urban pull but due to rural push. Reza an Kundu (1978) talked of dysfunctional urbanization and urban accretion which results in a concentration of population in a few large cities without a corresponding increase in their economic base. Urbanisation process is not mainly "migration lead" but a product of demographic explosion due to natural increase. Besides rural out migration (Premi, 1991) is directed towards class I cities. The big cities attained inordinately large population size leading to virtual collapse in the urban services and quality of life. Large cities are structurally weak and formal instead of being functional entities because of inadequate economic base. Globalisation, liberalization (Kundu and Gupta, 2000), privatization addressing negative process for urbanization in India. Under globalisation survival and existence of the poor are affected adversely. Liberalisation permits cheap import of goods which ultimately negatively affects rural economy, handicrafts, household industry on which rural poor survives. The benefits of liberalization (Despande and Despande, 1998 ) generally accrue to only those who acquire new skills. It is unlikely that common man and the poor will benefit from the liberalization. Privatisation cause retrenchment of workers. All these negative syndrome forces poverty induced migration( Mukherjee, 1993) of rural poor to urban informal sectors (Kundu, Lalitha and Arora (2001). Hence migration which is one of the components of urban growth occurs not due to urban pull but due to rural push. Problem of Urbanisation : Problem of urbanization is manifestation of lopsided urbanization, faulty urban planning, urbanization with poor economic base and without having functional categories. Hence India's urbanization is followed by some basic problems in the field of : 1) housing, 2) slums, 3) transport 4) water supply and sanitation, 5) water pollution and air pollution, 6) inadequate provision for social infrastructure ( school, hospital, etc ). Class I cities such as Calcutta , Bombay, Delhi, Madras etc have reached saturation level of employment generating capacity (Kundu,1997). Since these cities are suffering from of urban poverty, unemployment, housing shortage, crisis in urban infra-structural services these large cities can not absorb these distressed rural migrants i.e poor landless illiterate and unskilled agricultural labourers. Hence this migration to urban class I cities causes urban crisis more acute. 2 Most of these cities using capital intensive technologies can not generate employment for these distress rural poor. So there is transfer of rural poverty to urban poverty. Poverty induced migration of illiterate and unskilled labourer occurs in class I cities addressing urban involution and urban decay. 3 Indian urbanization is involuted not evoluted ( Mukherji, 1995). Poverty induced migration occurs due to rural push . Megacities grow in urban population (Nayak,1962) not in urban prosperity, and culture. Hence it is urbanization without urban functional characteristics. These mega cities are subject to extreme filthy slum and very cruel mega city denying shelter, 13 drinking water, electricity, sanitation ( Kundu,,Bagchi and Kundu, 1999) to the extreme poor and rural migrants. 4 Urbanisation is degenerating social and economic inequalities ( Kundu and Gupta, 1996) which warrants social conflicts, crimes and anti-social activities. Lopsided and uncontrolled urbanization led to environmental degradation and degradation in the quality of urban life---pollution in sound, air, water, created by disposal of hazardous waste. Illiterate, low- skill or no-skill migrants from rural areas are absorbed in poor low grade urban informal sector at a very low wage rate and urban informal sector becomes in-efficient and unproductive. Policy Implication : Redirection of investment is recommended to develop strong economic base for small and medium city neglected so far. Redirection of migration flows is required. Since the mega cities have reached saturation level for employment generation and to avoid over-crowding into the over congested slums of mega cities i.e Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Madras etc it is required to build strong economic sector (Kundu and Basu,1998) in the urban economy, growth efforts and investments should be directed towards small cities which have been neglected so far so that functional base of urban economy is strengthened. Then redirection of migration to these desirable destination will be possible. Policy should also relate to proper urban planning where city planning will consist of operational , developmental and restorative planning.Operational planning should take care of improvement of urban infrastructure, e.g roads, traffic, transport etc. Developmental planning should emphasize on development of newly annexed urban areas. Various urban renewal process can be used. Restorative planning should aim to restore original status of old building monuments which have historic value. In general urban planning must aim at : a)Balanced regional and urban planning (Mukherji, 2001) b)Development of strong economic base for urban economy c)Integration of rural and urban ( Kundu, Sarangi and Dash, 2003 ) economy-- emphasis on agro-based industry. Raw material should be processed in rural economy and then transferred to urban economy. d)Urban planning and housing for slum people with human face. 14