Urbanisation and Urban Policies in South Asia

Abstract

Abstract: Urbanisation has emerged as a global force associated with rising GDP, transformation of agriculture to non-agricultural sector, expansion of infrastructure and changes in the characteristics of population. Urbanisation embodies the forces of agglomeration shaping place and space economy through density, distance and diversity. It is the single most important factor explaining regional development and disparities in quality of life. Cities are manifestations of urban agglomerations and centres of economic growth and innovation. However, South Asia produced only 8 percent of global GDP with a share of the global urban population of 14 percent (a ratio of 0.57). Several studies show that South Asia has been much less successful than East Asia in leveraging urbanisation for gains in productivity and prosperity, and its performance is similar to Sub-Saharan Africa. Urbanisation in South Asia is characterized by higher poverty, slums, pollution and crowding and congestions. Thus the forces of congestion and diseconomies is higher in South Asia and there exists an obvious challenge to formulate suitable urban policies and programmes which can leverage urbanization for economic development.

The level of urbanization is low in South Asia ranging from 38 % in Bhutan to 18 % in Nepal. However, the countries follow diverse definition of urban and also the criteria of determining the boundaries of cities and their population. It is alleged that urbanisation is messy and hidden- i.e., the level of urbanisation is estimated to be low and also there is a large population residing outside the city limit which is not counted as urban. Messy urbanisation is characterised by the presence of large squatter and slum population and the urban sprawl difficult to be regulated and planned. Paradoxically, we also find that migration is a weak force in urbanization in south Asia as it has been occurring in the context of high population growth. As a result, the contribution of net rural to urban migration is not the dominant force of urbanisation as found in the West European countries during 19th and early 20th centuries. The contribution of natural increase remains high, and there has been an Increasing contribution of net rural to urban classification of settlements i.e. defined as in situ urbanisation. The process of in situ urbanisation is associated with emergence of large number of census towns in India in recent times and their role is being debated. Some researchers call this process of in situ urbanisation as subaltern urbanisation delinked from the dominance of globalisation and the influence of metropolitan cities. Notwithstanding, urbanisation in South Asia is regionally lopsided dominated by big cities, and several countries have been experiencing premature deindustrialisation since the early 1990s. Due to low contribution of manufacturing and jobless economic growth, several countries of South Asia including India have been facing huge agrarian crisis and rural distress. The paper argues that urbanisation should not be seen as a problem but has a huge potential to solve both rural and urban problems through integrated spatial policies and programmes. It also requires strengthening of local bodies and decentralisation of planning and governance in the countries of South Asia.

Full text


1


UrbanisationandUrbanPoliciesinSouthAsia
R. B. Bhagat
Professor and Head
Department of Migration and Urban Studies
International Institute for Population Sciences,
Mumbai-4000 88, India
E-mail: rbbhagat@iips.net
Paper presented in the National Symposium on “Regional Disparity of Development in South Asia
with Special Reference to North-east India”, held on 12-13 October, 2018, Department of Geography,
Guwahati University, Guwahati.


2

UrbanisationandUrbanPoliciesinSouthAsia
R.B.Bhagat
ProfessorandHead
DepartmentofMigrationandUrbanStudies
InternationalInstituteforPopulationSciences
Mumbai‐400088
E‐mail:rbbhagat@iips.net

Introduction:
Urbanisationhasemergedasaglobalforcewith55percentpopulationofthepresentworldlivingin
urbanareas.ItisassociatedwithrisingGDP,transformationofagriculturetonon‐agriculturalsector,
expansionofinfrastructureandchangesinthecharacteristics of population. Urbanisation embodies
the forces of agglomeration shaping place and space economy through density, distance and
diversity. It is the single most important factor explaining regional development and disparities in
qualityoflife.Citiesaremanifestationsofurbanagglomerationsandcentresofeconomicgrowthand
innovation.However, South Asiaproduced only8 percent of globalGDPwithashareoftheglobal
urbanpopulationof 14 percent(aratio of0.57)(Ellis and Roberts2016). Severalstudies showthat
South Asia has been much less successful than East Asia in leveraging urbanisation for gains in
productivity and prosperity, and its performance is similar to Sub‐Saharan Africa. Urbanisation in
SouthAsiais characterized byhigherpoverty, slums,pollutionand crowding andcongestions. Thus
the forces of congestion and diseconomies is higher in South Asiaandthereexistsanobvious
challengetoformulatesuitableurbanpoliciesand programmeswhichcanleverageurbanizationfor
economicdevelopment.



3

ThelevelofurbanizationislowinSouthAsiarangingfrom38%inBhutanto18%inNepal.However,
thecountriesfollowdiversedefinitionofurbanandalsothecriteriaofdeterminingtheboundariesof
cities and their population.  It is alleged that urbanisation is messy and hidden‐ i.e., the level of
urbanisationisestimatedtobelowandalsothereisalargepopulationresidingoutsidethecitylimit
whichisnotcountedasurban.Messyurbanisationischaracterisedbythepresenceoflargesquatter
andslum populationand the urban sprawl difficult to be regulated and planned. Paradoxically, we
alsofindthatmigrationis a weak forceinurbanizationinsouth Asia asithasbeenoccurring in the
contextofhighpopulationgrowth.Asaresult,thecontributionofnetruraltourbanmigrationisnot
thedominant forceof urbanisation as found in the West European countriesduring 19thandearly
20thcenturies.Thecontributionofnaturalincreaseremainshigh, and there has been an Increasing
contributionofnetruraltourbanclassificationofsettlementsi.e.definedasinsituurbanisation.The
processofinsituurbanisationisassociatedwithemergenceoflargenumberofcensustownsinIndia
inrecent times andtheir roleisbeing debated(Zhu 2001).Some researcherscallthis process ofin
situ urbanisation as subaltern urbanisation delinked from the dominance of globalisation and the
influence of metropolitan cities (Denis, Mukhopadhyay and Zérah,2012). Notwithstanding,
urbanisationinSouthAsiaisregionallylopsideddominatedby big cities,andseveralcountrieshave
been experiencing premature deindustrialisation since the early 1990s. Due to low contribution of
manufacturing and jobless economic growth, several countries ofSouthAsiaincludingIndiahave
beenfacinghugeagrariancrisisandruraldistress.Thepaperarguesthaturbanisationshould notbe
seen as a problem but has a huge potential to solve both rural and urban problems through
integrated spatial policies and programmes. It also requires strengtheningoflocalbodiesand
decentralisationofplanningandgovernanceinthecountriesofSouthAsia.
Thetwentiethcenturywitnessedarapidshiftofpopulationfromruraltourbanareasinmostofthe
countriesof the world.A merely 13 per centof theglobal population livedin urban areasin 1900,
whichincreasedto29percentin1950andcrossedthe50percentmark(50.1percent)in2009(U.N.
2009).However,thepatternofurbanizationisfoundtobeveryunequalbetweenthemore
developedandless developed world.Seventyfivepercentofpopulationofdevelopedworldlivesin
urbanareascomparedto45 percent in the lessdevelopedworld. In Asia andAfricaonly4 out 10
personsliveinurbanareas.Ontheotherhand,inIndiaonly3out10personsliveinurbanareas.In


4

mostof the partsofAsiaandAfrica,notonlyhaveverylow level of percapitaincome,butalsothe
paceofurbanizationhasbeenmodestintherecentpast(Cohen2004).
In most of the countries of south Asia, the role of urbanization in general and the role of cities in
particular has been well recognized for balanced and sustainable development (Ellis and Roberts
2016).Thispaperpresentsanassessment ofthe emerging pattern of urbanizationandurbanpolicy
issuesinsouthAsia.
DefinitionofUrbanandDefinitionofCities:

Historically, the process of urbanisation got intensified in thewake of industrial revolution in the
western world which led to the expansion of infrastructure suchas transport and communication
andpropelledincreased rural to urban migration. The agglomerationofpopulation,predominance
of non‐agricultural activities and better provision of social amenities including health and
educational infrastructure emerged as distinguishing features of settlements following the
industrialisation of agrarian economies (Bhagat 2005). In the contemporary times, however, the
settlementshavebecomeincreasinglycomplex.Thus,inthestudyof urbanisationitispertinentto
knowhowurbanareasaredefinedbecause,fromthedemographicpointofview,thelevelof
urbanisationismeasuredintermsofpercentageofpopulationlivinginurbanareas(Davis1962).An
areaisclassifiedasruralandurbandependinguponvariouscriteriasuchaspopulationsize,density,
occupationalcompositionandcivicstatus.Thereisnothumbruletodivideruralandurban,andthe
practiceisfolloweddiverselyacrossthecountriesoftheworld. For example, an UN study shows
that 97 out of 228 countries use administrative criteria to make distinction between urban and
rural; in 96 cases the criteria used to characterize urban include population size or population
density.Theeconomiccharacteristicswereusedtodefineurbanareasonlyin25countriesand15
countries have applied the functional criteria like paved streets, water supply system, sewerage
systemsandelectriclightingetc.Lastlyin22casesnourbandefinitionwasavailableandinfurther8
allthepopulation wasconsideredeitherurbanorruraldependinguponthecircumstances(Zlotnik
2002). Thus, in the study of urbanisation at the global level, one should not lose sight of the
definition of urban followed in each country and the changes therein in order to understand the
urbandynamicsappropriately.


5


The definition of urban followed in south Asian countries is presented in Table 1. For example, in
Nepalsizeofpopulation(morethan9000population)istakentodeclareasettlementasurbanalong
withinfrastructureandannualrevenuegeneratedbyeachsettlement.
It is not only but cities and towns are also defined differentlyinvariouspartsoftheworld.The
countries of south Asia also define cities and towns differently.AccordingtoUN,citiesshouldbe
definedbasedontheconceptof Urban Agglomeration(UA)whichdifferentfrom administrative city
thatisdefinedanditsboundariesarefixedbyadministrativeandpoliticalprocessforthepurposeof
urban/municipalgovernance(cityproper).

Table1:DefinitionofurbaninSouthAsianCountries








6



Table2:DefinitionofCityinDifferentCountriesofSouthAsia

An UA is defined as a continuous urban spread constituting an urban centre and its adjoining
outgrowths (OGs), or two or more physically contiguous urban centres together with or without
outgrowthsofsuchtowns.InthecontextofIndiaUAmustconsistofatleastastatutorytownandits
totalpopulation(i.e.alltheconstituentsputtogether)shouldnotbelessthan20,000asperthe2001
Census.Invaryinglocalconditions,thereweresimilarothercombinationswhichhavebeentreatedas
UAsatisfyingthebasicconditionofcontiguity.TheconceptofUAisfurtherexpandedtoincludesome
oftheurbanizingruralareas/villagesadjoiningtothecitybesidescontiguousurbancentres.Sucharea
isknownasmetropolitanregion.Howcitiesaredefinedindifferent south Asian countries for
comparablepurpose bythe PopulationDivision, Departmentof Economic and SocialAffairs, United
NationsisgiveninTable2.For purpose of comparison, uniformity of definition is desirable. It is
possibleatthecitylevelbutnotfordefininganurbanareaasshowninTable1.




7



Geographically Nepal is situated on mountainous terrain and economically it has low level of
industrialization and development. On the other hand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan apply
administrative criteria to declare a settlement urban. Any settlement with municipal corporation,
municipality,towncommitteeandurbancouncilsetc.aredeclaredasurban(UnitedNations,2006).
There exists a considerable difference in the way urban areas are defined in different countries.
However,India’sdefinitionofurbanseemstobemorestringentcomparedtoothersouthAsian
countries.Itisbecauseof this reason that India’slevelofurbanizationis much lowerthanPakistan
andseveralAfricancountries.

LevelofUrbanisation:
TheaveragelevelofurbanizationinsouthAsiaisjust33 percentcomparedwiththeworldaverage
55percent. Thelow level of urbanization also reflects lowerper capitaincome andhigher poverty
concentratedin south Asia. Only comparableregion in the worldmapisAfricawhereurbanization
levelisalsolowwithmanycountriesshowingacutefoodinsecurityandunderdevelopment.Figure1
showstheworldlevelpatternofurbanizationin2015.



8


Figure1:Percentageoftotalpopulationlivinginurbanareas, 2015
(https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization).

ComparedtosouthAsiaandAfrica,mostofthecountriesofEurope and North America showing
urbanizationlevelmorethan80percent.Inasignificantstudy,Henderson(2010)hasfoundastrong
positiverelationshipbetweenlevelofurbanizationandpercapita income across the countries
globally. Further, the history of economic growth vindicates that no country has achieved high
income level or rapid economic growth without substantial urbanization. Thus, the low level of
urbanizationemergesacorrelateofunderdevelopmentandbackwardnessofsouthAsiancountries.
Thusan appropriatepolicy andprogramme centred towards urbanization and promoting rural and
urbanlinkagesandbalancedregionaldevelopmentwouldbehelpful.
AmongthesouthAsian countries,the level of urbanization variesfrom18percentinSriLankaand
Nepalto39percentinBhutan(Fig 2).Thevariationinthelevelofurbanizationisnotreflectingthe
levelofsocio‐economicdevelopmentofthecountriesduetovariationsinurbandefinition.However,


9

acomparison within acountry maythrow light on theups and downs in theeconomic growth and
employmentopportunities.




Figure2:LevelofUrbanizationinSelectedSouthAsianCountries,2015


Source:UNWorldUrbanizationProspect:2018Revision;AverageinSouthAsiaisabout33%


UrbanStructure:

It is not the level of urbanization but the structure of urbanization also matters in the process of
regional development and human wellbeing. Urban structure denotes to what is proportion of
populationlivesinbigcitiesbecausebigcitieshavegreaterdominanceon the national and spatial
economy.Bigcitiesaredefinedasmetrocitiesormegacitiesdepending upon their size of


10

population.Metro cities aregenerally knownas Million Pluscitieshaving populationofone million
andmore.InIndiathereare53millionpluscitiiesasper2011censuswhichharbours about 42 per
centurbanpopulationofthecountry.Similarly,megacitiesaredefinedasthosecitieswhichhave10
millionandmorepopulation.















Figure2:MegacitiesinSouthAsia,2016





Source:UNWorld’sCities2016:DataBooklet.



11




South Asia is home of several prominent mega cities of the world. Delhi is the second largest city
afterTokyo with apopulation of 26million according toUN estimate. Mumbai, Dhaka, Karachiare
otherleadingmegacitiesofsouthAsia.



Figure3:PrimacyIndexinCountriesofSouthAsia



Source:UNWorld’sCities2016:DataBooklet.

PrimacyIndexmeasuresthedominanceofacityintheurbanstructure.Ahigherprimacy
showsthaturbanstructureislopsidedandthereexistsahugeregionalinequalityinthecountry.As
suchurbanplannerandpolicymakersneedtotakeinaccountthisaspectwhileformulatingaplanfor
balancedregionaldevelopment.

Figure3showsurbanprimacyinthecountriesofsouthAsia.UrbanPrimacyIndexismeasuredasa
ratioofthelargestcityrankingonetothesecondlargestcity.Iftheratioismorethan2,thereexists


12

aprimacyasperRankSizeRule.Itmaybenotedthaturbanprimacyisveryhighinsmallercountries
likeBhutan,NepalSriLankaandBangladesh.Thishasimportantimplicationforregionaldevelopment
policyandforthepolicyofurbanizationfollowedinthesecountries.


UrbanPolicyandWayForward:

Urbanisationin south Asiahas been occurringina differenthistorical contextwhere rural tourban
migrationisnotthedominantfactor,butcharacterizedbyin‐situurbanizationinmostofcountriesof
southAsia.Yet,ruraltourbanmigrationisofgreatconcerninmostofthecitiesofsouthAsiadueto
lackofeconomicgrowth,shortagebasicamenities,lackofhousingandlargepopulationlivingslums
andsquattersettlementandincreasingcongestionandairpollution(EllisandRoberts2016).Atthe
sametime,policymakersandplannersareeithersilentonissueofmigrationorevenhostiletothem.
AsustainableandinclusiveurbanpolicyisneededintheentiresouthAsianregiontoboosteconomic
growthandachieveredistributivejustice.
Manyhave argued thatit would beinappropriate to preventmigration as itplays a veryimportant
role in development and fulfilling human aspirations. Preventing migration could even be
counterproductive(World Bank, 2009;UNESCO,2013;Foresight, 2011).TherecentUNESCO (2013)
publication highlighted that thepolicies and programmes facilitating integration of migrants at the
destination remain weakat bestor non‐existentand suggestedtenkeyareasfortheinclusionand
integrationofmigrantsindevelopment(seeBox1).


13




































Migrationpolicy, however,should not beviewed merely asa part oflabour policy butneeds to be
embeddedinurbandevelopmentpolicyandplanningasruraltourbanmigrationisthepredominant
formofmigration.Socialsecurityisaveryimportantaspectoflabourpolicyasapproximately90per
cent of the workforce is employed in the informal sector. Although poverty is a yardstick of many
policiesand asegmentofmigrantsisindeed poor,theconsiderationofpovertyastheonlystatusis
not adequate. The migrant status of labourers needs to be incorporated very explicitly because it
Box1:KeyStrategiesforIntegrationandInclusionofMigrantsinUrbanAreas–UNESCO
(2013)
i) Registration and Identity ‐ There isanurgentneed to ensure that internal migrants are
issuedwith a universally recognizedand portable proof of identity that can enable
themtoaccesssocialsecurityprogrammesanywhereinIndia.
ii) Politicaland CivicInclusion‐Special provisionsareneeded toensurethevotingrightsof
internal migrants, and their inclusion in decision making processes and urban
planning.
iii) Labour Market Inclusion ‐ Negotiate opportunities with employer including training,
placementandskillupgrade withthehelp ofNGOs.Incaseofuneducatedandpoor
migrants,createawarenessabouttheirrightsandsupportthem.
iv) Legal Aid and Dispute Resolution ‐ Internal migrants should be able to access legal aid
andcounselingtoprotectthemselvesagainstworkandwagerelated malpractices
and provide grievance and dispute handling mechanisms to negotiate with
employers/contractors.
v) InclusionofWomenMigrant‐ Fill upknowledgeandresearchgaps in genderdimension
ofmigration.Preventdiscrimination,exploitationandtraffickingofwomen.
vi) InclusionthroughAccess to Food ‐ The public distribution system (PDS) should be made
portabletoincludemulti‐locationalmigrantpopulations.
vii) Inclusionthrough Housing ‐Providedormitoryaccommodation,rental housing and also
enableprivatehousing.Upgradesluminsituandprovidebasicservices.
viii) EducationalInclusion‐Provideseasonalhostelsatthesourceregiontoretainleftbehind
childreninschoolsandalsoworksiteschoolsatdestination forchildrenmovingwith
parents.
ix) Public Health Inclusion ‐Avoidstigmatizationofmigrantsascarriersofdiseasesand
infections and recognize women and children migrants vulnerabletohealthrisks.
Strengtheninterventionandout‐reachhealthservicestothem.
x) Financial Inclusion ‐ Extendbanking facilities to promote savingsandsecure transfer of
remittancesinthesourceanddestinationareas.


14

addsto their vulnerabilityalongwithpovertyandsocialdisadvantagesassociatedwithcaste,ethnic
andminoritystatus.Vulnerablemigrantsneedtobeprotectedagainst exploitation, long working
hours,lowwagesandrestrictionofmovementafterworkinghours.Accesstodecentlivingconditions
shouldalsobeincludedinmigrationpolicyensuringthatmigrantsarenot denied access to housing
and basic services. Although poverty and migrant status overlap, they cannot be treated as
synonyms. This is perhaps the strong tacit assumption in India’s urban policies and programmes
mostlyformulatedintheFiveYearPlanspreparedbythePlanningCommissionofIndia.Asaresult,
rural to urban migration is looked upon as ‘distress migration’ arising out of poverty and rural
developmentprogrammesareformulatedtocontainruraltourbanmigration(PlanningCommission,
2013;de Haan,2011).Theimplicitassumptionnegatesthevery fact thatruraltourbanmigrationis
alsotheresultofincreasingaspirationandabilitytomigrateasincomeandeducationallevelsrisein
ruralareas. The positivevaluesofmigrationcouldfaroutweighitsnegativeimpactsifsupportedby
properpoliciesandprogrammes.
Manyhave argued thatit would beinappropriate to preventmigration as itplays a veryimportant
role in development and fulfilling human aspirations. Preventing migration could even be
counterproductive(World Bank, 2009;UNESCO,2013;Foresight, 2011).TherecentUNESCO (2013)
publication highlighted that thepolicies and programmes facilitating integration of migrants at the
destination remain weakat bestor non‐existentand suggestedtenkeyareasfortheinclusionand
integrationofmigrantsindevelopment(seeBox2).


15



Urbanareasfaceacuteshortageofcivicamenities.In ordertodealwiththerapidincreaseinurban
population and faster urbanization, south Asian countries have to push through several urban
reforms and policy changes that have been initiated in some of them in the early 1990s. In India,
urbandevelopmentis a state subject;howeverCentral Governmentusedtoprovideguidelinesand
alsopromiseincreasedfundsthroughcentrallyinitiatedurbandevelopment programmes like
Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) currently replaced by Smart Cities
MissionandAMRUT(AltalMissionforRejuvenationandUrbanTransformation).
Itmaybementionedthataseriouseffortofurbanplanningislackingandtherearemultipleagencies
responsible for the planning and governance in the metropolitanareas.Forexample,inMumbai,
there are a host of para statal bodies like Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
(MMRDA), Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), Slum Rehabilitation
Authority (SRA), City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) which are responsible for
variousactivities inthecityapartfromMunicipalCorporationofGreaterMumbai(MCGM).Further,
Mayorandelectedcouncilorsarenotthedecisivebodiesinthecivicadministrationcomparedtothe
role of Municipal Commissioner. Further in most cases, the state governments have not yet
constituted the Metropolitan Planning Committee as envisaged inthe74
th Amendment to the
Constitution effected in 1992. There is also a lack of local democracy and empowerment of urban
local bodies both politically and fiscally. Due to lack of local democracy, the city planning and
developmentislefttotheurbandevelopmentauthoritiesandparastatalbodieswhichmostlyserve
the business interest of builders, bankers, industrial houses and the politicians and elites. On the
otherhand,intheeventoffailures,migrantsareblamedforthewoesofthebigcities.Ontheother
hand, in small and medium towns, the conditions are even more deplorable in terms of access to
basic amenities. A large number of small and medium towns lack capacity in   planning and
governanceandmanyarestillundertheambitofrurallocalbodies. Arevamping ofthe municipal
governanceforexampletheimplementationofthe74thamendment to the constitution inIndiais
theneedofthehourtofacethedemographicchallengesunleashedbyfasterurbanisation.Thestate
governmentsarenotwillingtograntautonomytotheurbanlocal bodies. On the other hand, any


16

autonomytotheurbanlocalbodiesmustalsobeaccompaniedbyfiscalempowermentandtechnical
andhuman resources supporttothose particularly fallingunder the categoryof small andmedium
sizetowns.
InmuchofthesouthAsia,itisalsoseenthatthereisamoreemphasis onurbandevelopmentthan
on urbanization. Urban development emphasizes planning and development of city, whereas
urbanizationisastrategyofspreadingthebenefitstotheruralareas.InIndia,suchstrategyknownas
PURA(ProvidingUrbanAmenitiestoRuralAreas)(Kalam2003)orRurbanMissionisinnascentstage
which requires to be strengthened and up scaled because rural areas suffer from huge agrarian
distresstheforcesmanypeopletoseeklivelihoodin cities and towns. Urbanisationasastrategyof
ruraldevelopmenthasbeenlackinginmuchofthesouthAsia.

References

Bhagat, R. B. (2005) “Rural‐Urban Classification and Municipal Governance in India” Singapore
JournalofTropicalGeography,Vol.26,No.1,Pp.61‐74.

Bhagat,R.B.andMohanty,S.(2009)“EmergingPatternofUrbanisationandContributionofMigration
inUrbanGrowthinIndia”,AsianPopulationStudies,Vol.5,No.1,pp.5‐20.

Bhagat, R. B. (2013) “Urbanisation: Size Matters”, Infochange Agenda, August 2013;
http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/urbanisation/size‐matters.html,.
Brockerhoff, M. (1999) “Urban Growth in Developing Countries: A Review of Projections and
Predictions“,PopulationandDevelopmentReview,Vol.25,No.4,pp.757‐778.

CensusofIndia(1991)“EmergingTrendsofUrbanisationinIndia“,OccasionalpaperNo.1of1993,
OfficeoftheRegistrarGeneralandCensusCommissioner,India,NewDelhi.

Cohen,B.(2004)“UrbanGrowthinDevelopingCountries:AReviewofCurrentTrendsandaCaution
RegardingExistingForecasts”,WorldDevelopment,Vol.32,No.1,pp.23–51.
Davis,Kingsley(1961)“UrbanisationinIndia:PastandFuture”,inRoyTurner(ed.)India’s Urban
Future,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,pp.3‐26.
Denis,Eric, P. Mukhopadhyayand M‐H. Zérah(2012) ‘Subaltern Urbanisationin India’,Economic &
PoliticalWeekly,57(30):pp.52–62.


17

Ellis, Peter and Roberts, Marks (2016) Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia: Managing Spatial
TransformationforProsperityandLivability.WorldBank,Washington,D.C.
Henderson,JVernon(2010),“Citiesanddevelopment”,JournalofRegionalScienceVol50,No1,pp.
515–540.
Kalam, Abdul, A.P.J. (2003) Ignited Minds: Understandingthe Power within India, Penguin Books,
NewDelhi.
Kundu,A. (2007)“Migration and ExclusionaryUrban Growthin India” the6th Dr C.Chandrasekaran
MemorialLecture,InternationalInstituteforPopulationSciences,Mumbai.
Planning Commission, Govt. of India (2008) EleventhFiveYearPlan,VolIII:Agriculture,Rural
Development,Industry,ServicesandPhysicalInfrastructure,OxfordUniversityPress,NewDelhi.

United Nations (2006) World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2005 Revision, Population Division, UN,
NewYork.
UN (2009) The World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision, Department of Economic and
SocialAffairs,PopulationDivision,UN,NewYork.
Zhu, Y. (2001) “The transformation of township into towns and theirroles in China’s Urbanisation:
Evidence from Fujian Province”, paper presented at the 24thIUSSP General Conference,Salvador‐
Bahia,Brazil,18‐24August.

Zlotnik, H. (2002) “Assessing past trends and future urbanisation prospects: The limitation of
available data’, paper pre‐sented at the conference New Forms of Urbanisation: Conceptualising
and Measuring Human Settlement in the Twenty‐First Century, IUSSP Working Group on
Urbanisation,RockefellerFoundationStudyandConferenceCentre,Bellagio,Italy,11‐15March.