Morphology of urbanization in India

World Bank Reprint Series: Number 295 Rakesh Mohan and Chandrashekhar Pant M4orphology of Urbanisation in India Reprinted with permission from Economic and Political Weekly, Bombay, vol. 17, no. 38/39 (September 1982), pp. 1-16. L-  World Bank Reprints No. 253. Larry E. Westphal, "Fostering Technological Mastery by Means of Selective Infant- Industry Protection," Trade, Stability, Technology, and Equity in Latin America No. 254. Gershon Feder, "On Exports and Economic Growth," Journal of Development Economics No. 255. Mohan Munasinghe, "Third World Energy Policies: Demand Management and Conservation," Energy Policy No. 256. Keith Marsden and Alan Roe, "The Political Economy of Foreign Aid: A World Bank Perspective," Labour and Society No. 257. James A. Hanson, "Contractionary Devaluation, Substitution in Production and Consumption, and the Role of the Labor Market," Jouirnal of International Economics No. 258. Christiaan Grootaert, "The Conceptual Basis of Measures of Household Welfare and Their Implied Survey Data Requirements," The Revieuw of Income and Wealth No. 259. Guy Pfeffermnann and Richard Webb, "Poverty and Income Distribution in Brazil," The Review of Income and Wealthl No. 260. Pradeep K. Mitra, "A Theory of Interlinked Rural Transactions," Jouirnal of Public Economics No. 261. David L. Lindauer and Richard H. Sabot, "The Public/Private Wage Differential in a Poor Urban Economy," Journal of Development Economics No. 262. J. B. Knight and R. H. Sabot, "Labor Market Discrimination in a Poor Urban Economy," Journal of Development Studies No. 263. Carl Dahlman and Larry Westphal, "Technical Effort in Industrial Development: An Interpretative Survey of Recent Research," The Econiomics of New Technology in Developing Countries No. 264. Michael Bamberger, "The Role of Self-Help Housing in Low-Cost Shelter Programs for the Third World," Built Environment No. 265. Bela Balassa, "The Adjustment Experience of Developing Economies after 1973," IMF Conditionality No. 266. Bela Balassa, "Outward Orientation and Exchange Rate Policy in Developing Countries: The Turkish Experience," The Middle East Journial No. 267. Dipak Mazumdar, "Segmented Labor Markets in LDCs," American Economic Review, No. 268. Stephen P. Heyneman and William A. Loxley, "The Effect of Primary-School Quality on Academic Achievement across Twenty-nine High- and Low-Income Countries," The American Journal of Sociology No. 269. James R. Follain, Jr., Gill-Chin Lim, and Bertrand Renaud, "Housing Crowding in Developing Countries and Willingness to Pay for Additional Space: The Case of Korea," Journal of Development Economics No. 270. Bela Balassa, "Policy Responses to Extemal Shocks in Sub-Saharan African Countries," Journal of Policy Mudeling No. 271. Jaime de Melo and Sherman Robinson, "Trade Adjustment Policies and Income Distribution in Three Archetype Developing Economies," Journal of Development Ecoinomics N o. '272. J. B. Knight and R. H. Sabot, "The Role of the Firm in Wage Determination: An African Case Study," Orford Economic Papers >X 273. William G. Tyler, "The Anti-Export Bias in Commercial Policies and Export Perfor- mance: Some Evidence frorn Recent Brazilian Experience." IA li wirtech iftlich^ Archliv  Morphology of Urbanisation in India Some Results from 1981 Census Rakesh Mehan Chandrashekhar Pant Tlhe Provisionall Population Totals of ttie 1981 Census reveal a marked acceleration in the pqce of ulrbanisation in India during the decade 1971-81. This paper seeks to place this development in its pro- per perspective, both in relation to past trends in India as well as in relation to the urbanisation experience of other developing countries. Further understanding of the emerging pattern of urbanisation is sought by the disaggregation of trends upto the state and sub-regional level. It is evident that there has been a marked acceleration in the rate of urban growvth in India according to all convenitional measurements but that it is still slow as compared withl the rest of the world. It is striking thlat India exhibits a very stable settlement structure such that much of the urban growuth that has occurred has been because of the accretion to existing towns and settlements and only marginally because of the emergence of new towns. As a result, the proportion of urban population residing in towns above a certain population cut-off point ccntinues to increase, but there is little evidence of correlation between city size and rates of population groatth. Examin1ation of regional and state level data are quite illuminating. The relatively poorer states 7have urbanised faster than the old industrially advanced states like West Bengal, Tamilnadu and Maha- rashtra. There are diversities within the large poor states such as UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. The sub-regions with heavy industrial investmnents such as southern Bihar and eastern Madhya Prades' show very high urban growth rates and correspondingly low rural growth rates. Agriculturally stagnat- ing regions like eastern- UP and northern Bihar in the Northern Gangetic Plain also show high rates of urban grou-th but along with relatively high rural growtth rates as well. Agriculturally prosperous regions like Punjab, Haryana and Western UP exhibit marked declines in rural population growth rates along with an acceleration in urban growth. Hence the phenomenon of overall acceleration in *irban growth in India has rather diverse causes which have to be tunderstood at the regional level. I growth. Has it occurred in certain has been particularly large: of about regions more than in others? Has it 50 million people. The increase itself Problems of Interpretation occurred in large cities more than in is larger than the total urban popula- THE provisional population totals Of smaller towns? Is it merely because tion of most countries3 and the total the 1981 census reveal a significant of classification differences? Once tbe urban population of. India in 1981 is acceleration in the speed of urbanisa- morphology of the growth that has larger than the urban population oi tion in the country. This is true occurred is clear, better attempts all countries except China, the USSR whether comparison is made with the may be made at understanding the and the USA. Indeed, by 1985. India's historical record since the beginning causes of the emerging pattern. urban population is likely to surpass of this century, or with what was Table 1 gives the record since 1901.2 those of both the US and the USSR expected as recently as in 1979.1 The The facts are essentially familiar. India (each about 170 million people). Sixth Five Year Plan projected the has had a relatively slow but stable Hence, even though India's level of level of urban population to be about rate of growth in its urban population urbanisation continles to be low and 148 million in 1981 and the level of since about 1921, during which the its rate of growth is also not high by urbanisation to be 22.04 Der cent. In level of urbanisation has slowly in- contemporary world standards, it is fact, the 19F1 census shows that the creased from about 11.3 per cent of important to understand the pheno- level is about 156 million (but this total population to about 23.7 per menon of u :banisation in India. number excludes Jammu and Kashmir cent now. During the same time, One of the problems in the inter- and Assam not enumerated at the however, because of overall increases pretation of data related to urbanisa- time of publication of the census re- in population, the population residing tion is that the growth of the urban sults). in urban areas has increased almost population, as revealed in any census, This paper attempts to map out the six-fold In absolute numbers. In the has three distinct components. First, components of this unexpected urban last decade, in particular, the increase is the natural growth of population I  TABI.E 1: GROWIS OF URBAN POPULATION IN INDUI 1901-1981 Census Year Number Total Population Level Annual Annual URGD4 Annual of Urban . in of Growth Growth (Col 6- Growth Towns2 Population Towns Urbani- Rate of Rate of Col 7) Rate of (in mn) above sation3 Total Rural Population 20,000 Urban Population in Towns (in mn) Population (per cent above (per cent per year) 20,000 per year) (per cent p-r year) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1901 1834 25.6 13.5 11.0 - - - 1911 1776 25.6 13.8 10.4 0.0 0.61 -0.61 0.22 1921 1920 27.7 15.5 11.3 0.79 -0.18 Q.97 1.16 1931 2049 33.0 19.6 12.2 1.77 0.94 0.83 2'37 1941 2210 43.6 28.7 14.1 2.82 1.11 1.71 3.89 1951 2844 61.6 43.2 17.6 3.52 0.82 2.70 4.17 1961 2330 77.6 61.4 18.3 2.34 1.88 0.46 3.58 1971 2531 107.0 89.6 20.2 3.26 1.97 1.29 3.85 1981 3245 156.2 134.9 23.7 3.86 1.75 2.11 4.14 Source: CQnbus of Indi, 1981-Provi,iinat Population Total Series I-Paper 2 of 1981. Notes: I Excludmig Assam ztnd Jammu & Kashmr. 2 Consti.uent towns of urban agglomerations are not counted as separate units. 3 Proporti.-n of urban to total population. 4 Urban-Rural GTrowth Differential. TABLE 2: DISTIiUTION AND GROWTH OF URBAN POPULATION BY STLE CLASSES IN INDIA' Town. Classification Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Growth Rate -Population Population Population in Size in Size in Size 1961-71 1971-81 Class' Class' Class' Per Cent Per Cent 1961 1971 . 1981 Per Year Per Year Class I 50.8 56.2 60.4 4.32 4.60 1 lakh+ (102) (145) (216) Class' II 11.0 11.2 11.6 3.49 4.22 (50,000 to 1,00,000) (129) (178) (270) Class III 17.4 16.3 14.4 2.60 2.53 (20,0 to 50,000) (449) (570) (739) Class IV 13.0 11.2 9.5 1.74 2.18 (10,000 to 20,000) (732) (732) (1048) Class V 7.0 4.6 3.6 -1.09 1.45 (5,000 to 10,000) (739) (641) (742) Class VI 0.8 0.5 0.5 -2.18 4.86 (Less than 5,000) (179) (150) (230) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.27 3.86 (2330) (2531) (3245) Total Urban Population 77.6 107.0 156.2 (in million) Notes: 1 Excluding Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. 2 C 'nstituent towns of urban agglomerations are not counted as separate units. 3 Figuires in brackets are the number of towns in each size class. Source Census of India 1981, Provisional Population Totals. Series I-Paper 2 of 1981 already residing in urban areas. fied as 'urban'. The Indian census sity of at least 400 people per Second, is the net rural-urban in- now has a relatively strict definition sq km and (iii) at least 75 pe' nigration that takes place. Third, is of places classified as urban areas. cent of their male .abour forcc the reclassification as 'urban areas' The key ideas underlying the con- in non-agriculture. of settlements hitherto classified as cept 'urban' are: (i) high density Of The arbitrariness arises as a result 'rural areas'. This happens in two population and (ii) dominance of non- o dminitive asiwe as pulit ways. Large towns and cities extend agricultural pursuits. The census com- to admgnistrative as well as pulitocal their boundaries to include villages. bines these two ideas, and settlements vagariese Definmtional probl,nisi only Secondly, with population increases, are classified as urban areas if either: arise at the margind but it in impor- as large villages grow and acquire tant to keep them in mind in the urban characteristics', they get re- (a) they have a municipajity, cor- interpretation of data - especialiy at 'ub n c arceitis, tey gt r-poration, cantonment board, the regional level. classified as towns. It is important to notifled town area comcmittee, disaggregate these three components etc, Urbanisation can be measured in a in order to understand the process or number of different ways. The first is underlying urbanisation,i e, the rises ) they have (i a minimum popu- to examine the changes in the level in- the proportion of population classi- lation of 5,000 and (ii) a den- of urbanisation - i e, changes in the 2  TABLE 3: ANNvAL GROWTHR RATE oF URBAN POPULATION BY SIZE TowN, 1971-1981 Urbanisation Record since 1901 Size lassIt must be recognised that, despite Size Class Number Total Total Growth Rate" the recent acceleration in the rate of T owns 1971 1981 1 growth of urbanisation in India, it is 1971 (in (in Per Cent Per Cent still one of the .slower in the world. thou- thou- over Year over Of 124 countries tabulated, the level sands) sands) Decade of urbanisation (23.7 per cent) in Class ad a145 60,122 85,801 3.62 42.7 India in 1981 is 91st in rank - ie, (l lakhand abo-e) only 33 countries have levels of Class o1 178' 12,030 16,874 3.44 40.3 urbanisation lower than ours.5 Of (50,000 to 100,000) tee 7-r"onre nteIo"n Class III 560' 17,170 23,712 3.28 38.1 these, 27- are eountries in the low in- (20,000 to 50,000) come group with per capita incomes Class IV 8184 11,656 16,107 3.29 38.2 less than about $ 400. The urban-ruiral (10,000 to 28,000) growth differential in India for 1971-81 Class V 594' 4,300 6,264 3.83 45.6 was about 2.1 per cent, which Total 2295 105,2,8 148,758 3.52 41.3 places India at about the 97th rank in 124 countries.6 In terms of the rate Notes: 1 Excluding Srinagar Gauhati, Jammu not yet reported of growth of urban population, India (Total 1971 population 0.78 million), is placed about 70 to 75th in rank. Of 2 Excluding Dibrugarh, Jorhat, Nowgong, Tinsukia and Silchar not yet the 50 odd countries which have reported (Total 1971 population 0:32 million). lower rates of urban population 3 Excluding 22 towns 9 in Assam, 3 in Jamrnu & Kashmir, 15 in Kerala growth, about 30 are developed in- andT '1 in Puniab. (Total 1971 popuation 0.63 million). dsraie onre,weetelvl 4 Exc,uding St towns, 24 in Assam, 3 in Jammu & Kashmir, 15 in Kerala dustriaised countries, where the levels 5 in Tamil Nadu, 3 in Karnataka, 3 in Maharashtra and I eacb in Haryana, of urbanisation are so high and fert- Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. lity so low that urban and total 5 Excluding 84 towns, 25 in Assam, 14 irFJamnmu & Kashmir, 7 in Kreala. population growth rates are both very 6 in Gujarat, 4 in Maharashtra, 3 in West Bengal, 6 in Ta,mil Nadu, 3 low. Another 15 are what might be in Madhya Pradesh, 3 in Karnataka, 2 in Uttar Pradesh and 1 each in termed 'high-middle-income' countries Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab and Haryana. - er c 6 The Growth rates are calculited by comparing the total population of with annual per capia income higher towns in each size class according to their classification in the 1971 census, than $ 1,500. India is one of the 5-'0 as compared with the total population in the 1981 census. For example slowest urbanising countries. the growth rate of 3 .62 per cent per year for Class I towns in 1971 refers A glance at the different indices to the growth between 1971 and 1981 of the 145 towns classified as class given in Table 1 indicates that the T in 1971. 7 Government of India : Census of India General Population Tables pace of urbanisation accelerated 1971 -Series 1, Part 11 New Delhi, 1975. gularly fronh the turn of the century 8 Government of India : Census of India, Provisional Population Tables, until about 1951. [It then decreased in kaper 2 of 1981, New Delhi, 1981. the 1951 to 1961 decade. The latest census shows an acceleration once proportion of population living in tation of urbanisation trends is that again. Although the nicture revealed urban ar-eas. A second rmeasure is growth rhtes of urban population are by the different measures is broadly the 'urban-rural growth differential' usually computed between two quan- similar, there are some differences be- (URGD). This is merely the difference tities that have somewhat different tween the measures that are worthy of between the rates of annual popula- bases. To illustrate: the urban popu- note. Because of the large variation tion growth between urban and rural lation of India in 1971 resided in in the rate of growth of the rural areas. Since urban and rural natural 2,531 towns (see Table 1) while in population between the decades, the population growth rates are not very 1981 it resided in 3,245 towns. Thus URGD measure (column 8) also different now, this measure gives a the base for 1981 is different from shows large variations between good sense of the magnitude of the that in 1971. Similarly, when thc decades. According to this measure, rural-urban transformation that is growth of big cities is computed, it tie pace of urbanisation was higher in taking place. A third measure cf often includes the addition due to the 1941 to 1951 decade than in all the urbanisation is the share of net migra- extension of boundaries. In this paper, others. The acceleration 1n urbanisa- tion in the total growth in urban we attempt to distinguish increases in tion that has occurred in the past population. This, of course, is a direct urban population as a result of pOpu- decade is also brought out much measure of the transfer of population lation increases in already existing more sharply by this measure: 2.11 from rura. to u,ban area.. jIle towns and that which result from for 1971-81, as compared with 1.29 in fourth measute is the growth ot additions of new towns or extens