Urbanisation as the rise of census towns in India: An outcome of traditional master planning?

Cities 99 (2020) 102627

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Urbanisation as the rise of census towns in India: An outcome of traditional master planning?

T

⁎

Manisha Jaina, , Artem Korzhenevycha,b a b

Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Business and Economics, Helmholtzstr. 10, 01062 Dresden, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: India Urbanisation Census towns Mixed-methods approach Strategic spatial planning Infrastructure Urban governance

The urbanisation process in the Global South is characterised by the blurring of the boundaries between urban and rural areas and the lack of institutional capacity, which have made the process highly unsustainable. In India, an example of such development is the rapid growth of “census towns”. These settlements are not acknowledged as urban by the state, but they play an important role in accommodating population growth. This paper aims to elucidate and understand the process and characteristics of Indian urbanisation better in light of relevant theoretical discourses by using a mix of statistical analysis and field survey. It argues for moving from traditional master planning, which originated from the Global North to a more participatory and strategic approach in order to achieve infrastructure integrated development.

1. Introduction Urbanisation is a process by which the population in urban areas increases relative to that in rural areas, leading to changes in land use and a transformation from rural to urban patterns of organization and governance. This concentration of population in urban areas is the result of social, economic and political developments (WB, 2015). However, countries of the Global South have not been able to maximise on the benefits of urbanisation, as rapid pace of growth surpasses the institutional capacity for infrastructure delivery (UN, 2014; UN, 2017a; UN-Habitat, 2016). Consequently, scholars have termed the urbanisation process in the Global South as ‘over-urbanisation’ (Hoselitz, 1957), ‘pseudo-urbanisation’ (Desmond, 1971) and specifically for India as ‘shock urbanisation’ (Rode et al., 2008), indicating decoupling of urban growth with infrastructure provision. India needs to accommodate 1.66 billion people by 2050 (UN, 2017b), and providing this population with adequate infrastructure remains a challenge. Over the recent years, a consensus has formed amongst urban studies scholars (such as Roy, 2005; Watson, 2009a), that although current urbanisation is associated with the countries of the Global South, most theories to understand this process and planning systems to manage growth still originate from the Global North. The lack of understanding of how to manage and govern these rapidly growing regions has led to a two-pronged acknowledgement: First, there is a need for new theoretical and methodological frameworks for understanding new and

⁎

daunting challenges of urbanisation in the Global South (Roy, 2009a; Brenner & Schmid, 2015; UN-Habitat, 2016; Storper & Scott, 2016). Second, there is a need to move away from traditional colonial style master planning towards new approaches for addressing the needs of the Global South (Clarke, 1992; Watson, 2009b; Todes, 2012). The present paper aims to contribute to this literature by i) empirically testing how the current urban development in India relates to the contemporary theories of urbanisation, and ii) by suggesting evidence-based policy reforms for a more participatory and strategic approach in order to achieve infrastructure integrated development. The paper is divided into six sections, the first of which is the introduction. This is followed by a description of the study area and planning and governance situation in India in the second section, and an illustration of the research approach and data in the third section. The fourth section presents the main findings, followed by a discussion of results in the fifth section before concluding the paper. 1.1. Urbanisation theories applied in the Global South with focus on India Recent theories originating from the Global South revolve around two important features: the merging of urban and rural, and unplanned growth. In Asia, experts of exclusionary urbanisation (such as Kundu (2009, 2014)) stress the failure of planning to accommodate rural migrants into urban areas, which pushes population growth into peripheral areas of the large metropolises. Migrants settle in these peripheries

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Jain), [email protected] (A. Korzhenevych).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102627 Received 21 January 2019; Received in revised form 12 December 2019; Accepted 26 January 2020 0264-2751/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Cities 99 (2020) 102627

M. Jain and A. Korzhenevych

settlements remain under rural administration called ‘Gram Panchayat’, except for Delhi state, where rural governance has been abolished. Settlements possessing a municipal status2 are called statutory towns and are governed by urban local bodies for economic development, social justice, land use planning and regulation (GoI, 2018). Compared to urban local bodies, the gram panchayats are only responsible for preparation of plans for economic development and social justice, and for implementation of the plans as may be entrusted to them (GoI, 2018). However, they are not empowered to oversee land use planning and regulation. Thus, census towns are growing in an unplanned manner. That is why, the growth of census towns has been referred to as non-recognised growth (Samanta, 2014), unacknowledged urbanisation (Pradhan, 2013), denied urbanisation (Denis, Mukhopadhyay, & Zérah, 2012) and unregulated growth (Jain, 2018a). Against this background, it becomes imperative to understand, how the entitlement of a municipal status or its deprivation influences the urbanisation process in rapidly growing regions. Therefore, one aim of this paper is to empirically elucidate the similarities and differences between the census and statutory towns. In terms of the description of the phenomenon of census towns, Denis et al. (2012) and Bhagat (2005) confirm political reasons to retain a settlement under rural governance and not notify it with a municipality (such as access to grants from central government, change in taxation due to urban classification, lack of uniform implementation of 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) of decentralisation). Guin and Das (2015a) explain the emergence of census towns in West Bengal as an outcome of agrarian distress, which increases the rural non-farm sector and makes rural settlements gain census-relevant urban features. To date, however, little empirical work has been undertaken to study the phenomenon of census towns. Pradhan (2013) identifies a rapid increase in the number of census towns between 2001 and 2011 due to reclassification of rural areas. Many of these settlements emerged in close proximity to large statutory towns and in developed states. Guin and Das (2015b) in their work on West Bengal, by drawing buffers around existing urban centres, establish concentration of census towns in close proximity to urban centres and their dispersion from main urban centres in more peripheral areas. Mukhopadhyay, Zérah, Samanta, and Maria (2016), using field surveys in eastern states of India (such as Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and West Bengal), found that the majority of census towns serve the function of market towns, providing trade and other local services to a growing rural market. More recently, Roy and Pradhan (2018) using census data establish that non-farm activities, such as self-employment, are high in census towns, and that new census towns are emerging near large statutory towns or in the vicinity of older census towns. Concerning the aspect of urban amenities, Samanta (2012) investigates the levels of infrastructure and service provision based on household surveys in Singur City (West Bengal) and finds that infrastructure and services remain poor under the administration of rural authorities due to the lack of financial resources. Jain (2018b) using field survey and interviews concludes that small census towns offer diverse employment opportunities and attract migrants, and that census towns once governed by municipalities (declassified towns in the 2011 census enumeration) are better managed in terms of urban services compared to villages newly transformed into census towns. Nonetheless, other important aspects have yet to be studied. Taking the National Capital Region as a case study and using a mixed-methods approach, this research aims to answer the following questions: How does the urbanisation process and the development of census towns in

without basic services and in an unplanned manner. The factors contributing to this are the employment opportunities offered by the industries in these zones, but also rising costs and lack of affordable housing inside the cities due to regulated and controlled growth. Consequently, urban areas are not limited to administrative boundaries of cities and towns but are spreading over these (Bhagat, 2014). In fact, it is the “rural-urban matrix” or the “rural-urban interface” where the urbanisation is taking place (Roy, 2016). A similar effect is also caused by in-situ urbanisation, whereby rural activities are replaced by urban activities without substantial migration between the settlements, as observed in China by Zhu (2004) or in India by Pradhan (2013). This merging of the rural with the urban is also explained by the proponents of planetary urbanisation as a process, in which the relationship between rural and urban has largely been internalised, that is, rural is no longer separate from urban. In this process, the socioeconomic and socio-ecological linkages and infrastructural networks that lie well beyond traditional city cores in the rural areas, have become integral parts of urban areas. It is not that the non-urban realm has disappeared, but rather that it has become thoroughly engulfed within the variegated patterns and processes of urbanisation (Brenner & Schmid, 2014, 2015). As a consequence, much of the urban development in the Global South is happening in an unplanned manner. As explained by the postcolonial urbanism discourse (such as Roy, 2005; Yiftachel, 2009), this is an outcome of the urban planning system (especially in South Africa, India, Palestine, Sri Lanka), in which large areas are not subject to planning procedures. One can call it a state of deregulation, in which the ownership, use, and purpose of land is not fixed and mapped according to law (Roy, 2005, 2009b). Such a development is not restricted to a bounded space; instead, it connects the separated geographies of wealthy urbanites and slum dwellers (Roy, 2011). This development is a result of state government's vested interests and creates a territorial impossibility for governance (Roy, 2009b). Scholars unanimously agree that these problems are an outcome of the prevalent traditional master planning (land use planning) approaches, which are based on colonial legacy and are inadequate to address contemporary issues prevalent in the Global South. The planning systems and the approaches have remained unchanged, whereas the context in which they operate has changed significantly (Clarke, 1992; Roy, 2009b; Todes, Karam, Klug, & Malaza, 2010; Watson, 2009b). In contrast to master planning, approaches with a strong emphasis on inclusive stakeholder participation and planning focusing only on key strategic elements are argued for (Healey, 2006; Watson, 2008). There are calls towards a dynamic and comprehensive approach for countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh (Clarke, 1992), and towards alternative forms of strategic spatial planning with regard to South Africa and India (Ansari, 2004; Jain, Korzhenevych, & Sridharan, 2019; Todes et al., 2010; Watson, 2009b). These alternative approaches may be useful, as they are more flexible, address issues beyond land use plans to integrate different sectors (such as socio-economic, infrastructure, environment) and institutions, and involve a wide range of stakeholders (UN-Habitat, 2009). 1.2. Urbanisation as census towns in India In India, the rapid growth of census towns has drawn substantial attention amongst scholars. These settlements accounted for > 30% of total urban population growth between 2001 and 2011, but only for 8% between 1991 and 2001 (Pradhan, 2013, 2017). Census towns are settlements that, despite fulfilling the census criteria1 for being urban are not entitled with an urban local body. Consequently, these

2 As per Article 243Q, every State should constitute three types of municipalities in urban areas: Nagar Panchayat for an area that is in transition from a rural area to an urban area, Municipal Council for a small urban area, and Municipal Corporation for a large urban area (GoI, 2018).

1

Census of India declares an area urban, if it qualifies the criteria of having > 5000 people, a density of > 400 people per square kilometre and > 75% of males working in non-agriculture activities. 2

Cities 99 (2020) 102627

M. Jain and A. Korzhenevych

The National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi is one of the world's largest rural-urban regions with an area of 55,144 km2 and a total population of 58.03 million (Jain, 2018b). It is the only region in India that is composed of four states with the National Capital Territory Delhi (both, city and state, and hereon Delhi) in the centre. Delhi is located between the states of Haryana to the west and Uttar Pradesh to the east. A small portion of Rajasthan forms the northwest part of the region (Fig. 2). According to the Census of India 2011 enumeration, the urbanisation rate is 55% in the NCR, compared to the national average of 31%. The NCR hosts 5% of all census towns in India, but 13% of census towns' population. Moreover, the NCR accounts for 7% of India's GDP and houses 3.8% of the population on only 1% of India's land area (NCRPB, 2013). The 2013 revised regional plan projected a population increase by 2021 to 61.7 million in the NCR, including 20.2 million in Delhi (NCRPB, 2013). Given the above background, Mookherjee, Geyer, and Hoerauf (2014) consider the NCR as a laboratory for future development planning.

municipalities. However, these have not been formulated in several states and where these have been formulated, they are not empowered with resources. With regard to Delhi, its population has been increasing since India's independence in 1947. The phenomenal growth of the population in Delhi became a cause of concern for the Government of India, which required remedial measures at the regional level (DDA, 1962). The Master Plan of 1962 recommended planning for Delhi in the regional context, and the National Capital Region Planning Board was entrusted with the task of coordinating the development of rural and urban areas in the region within the framework of the regional plan (NCRPB, 1986: i). Since then, regional strategies have aimed to address regional urban growth and migration problems, while simultaneously avoiding the formation of unplanned development (see NCRPB, 1988, 2013). Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is the sole authority for making master plans and providing serviced land for accommodating future growth in Delhi. There is an envisaged hierarchy of physical development plans in the region. These are long term plans, which are prepared for 20 to 25 years. The regional plan encompassing participating states is followed by a sub-regional plan, which is formulated by respected participating states. Next in order are the master plans prepared for respective cities. A master plan is further divided into zonal plans, and the detail developments in the zones are carried in the layout plan. The zonal plan details out the policy of the master plan and is a link between the layout plan and the master plan. The development schemes/layout plans indicating land use should confirm to the master and zonal plans (DDA, 2006).

2.2. Planning and governance situation

3. Research approach and data

Since its independence, economic planning in India has been a topdown process, which was primarily performed through five-year economic plans prepared by the Planning Commission. After 2014, the Planning Commission was replaced by the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog, which is a think tank that advises the national and state governments on policy matters. Compared to the topdown approach of the Planning Commission, the NITI Aayog promotes greater involvement of the state3 governments in the planning. In fact, planning is to be conducted at the village level, and an aggregation of these inputs is to be used to formulate national-level plans and policies, thus, the intent is to move towards a bottom-up planning approach. However, spatial planning is still lacking at the national and state levels. There are guidelines for urban development (for example, Urban and Regional Development Plan Formulation and Implementation Guidelines 1999, revised in 2014) at the national level, whereas spatial plans are prepared only at the regional/metropolitan and city/town levels. While regional/metropolitan plans and master plans are used to guide spatial development, to date of the 7933 towns in India only approximately 2032 have master plans (Kshirsagar & Srinivas, 2014), and only a few large cities have regional and metropolitan plans. The 73rd and 74th CAA empowers local bodies (municipalities and gram panchayats) to play a crucial role in the local development, and implementation of development projects and programmes. It strengthened them through financial devolution, thereby enabling them to perform effectively as vibrant democratic units of self-government (Mathur, 2009; PC, 2013). However, the state governments have been reluctant to empower these (Vaidya, 2009). To address spatial planning for the larger area, the Act made a provision for a District Planning Committee and a Metropolitan Planning Committee with the goal of consolidating and coordinating plans prepared by the panchayats and

This research makes use of a mixed-methods approach, consisting of the following four main steps, to understand the characteristics of development and to link these to the theoretical discourse on urbanisation in the Global South.

India relate to the theories of urbanisation? What differences can be identified between census and statutory towns with regard to population dynamics, socio-economic characteristics and the provision of urban infrastructure? What evidence-based policy reforms could help steer growth towards infrastructure integrated development? 2. Study area: Composition and planning situation 2.1. The National Capital Region

3.1. Descriptive analysis In the first step, population dynamics in census and statutory towns is described. Indicators such as the town's population, civic status, population density and settlement area are used for the analysis, and the data is retrieved from the 2001 and 2011 Census of India Town Directories. The Census of India defines urban based on three criteria (Section 1.2), and there are several categories of urban settlements based on population size.4 Although the categorisation by the Census of India applies to statutory towns only, this paper applies the same categories to the census towns to enable comparison between the two types of settlements. In descriptive and spatial analysis, the sample size is 227 census and statutory towns in 2001, and 338 in 2011. Million-plus cities and megacities are excluded from the comparative analysis because there are no census towns of this size. For example, the municipality of Delhi is not considered, but the census towns inside the Delhi state are considered. 3.2. Spatial analysis The aim of the spatial analysis is to capture the location dynamics of the urban settlements between 2001 and 2011 with the focus on census 4 Megacities > 10, 000,000 inhabitants; million-plus cities between 1,000,000 and 9,999,999; cities between 100,000 and 999,999; large towns between 50,000 and 99,999; medium towns between 20, 000 and 49,999, and small towns between 5000 and 19,999.

3

The administrative structure of India divides the nation into states, the state into districts, the district into tehsils, and the tehsil into villages and urban areas. 3

Cities 99 (2020) 102627

M. Jain and A. Korzhenevych

(for towns outside Delhi - location along main highways, at main transport intersections, or in proximity to Delhi; for towns inside Delhi proximity to Delhi Municipal Corporation) were selected for the analysis. For further details on the selection process of census towns outside Delhi, refer (Jain, 2018a), and for census towns inside Delhi, refer Jain et al. (2019). In each of the census towns outside Delhi, the head of Gram Panchayat in each town was interviewed (that is seven Gram Panchayat heads in total). To overcome the problem of a public employees' bias, minimum ten households in each town were interviewed. Since rural governance is abolished inside Delhi, to understand the planning problems, a retired planning director in DDA, who was involved in the plan formulation process (Master Plan 2021) and the chief town planner in the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) were interviewed. The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured way, which consisted of open-ended questions on governance situation, basic service delivery, and citizen involvement in planning and implementation of the plans. The interviews were conducted and transcribed by the authors.

towns. Here the objective is to examine the proximity of the census towns to the main transport routes and to major metropolises. For the analysis, village and town boundaries are digitised in the geographic information systems software ArcMap based on the Census of India 2011 Administrative Atlas for all participating states. The spatial data on road and rail network is assessed from DIVA-GIS open repository. The administrative boundaries of census towns for 2001 and 2011 are superimposed on the administrative boundaries of statutory towns and on the transport network, to capture the location dynamics of census towns. 3.3. Statistical analysis In the third step, the aim of the statistical analysis is to understand the difference in factors driving growth in census and statutory towns. The analysed factors include socio-economic characteristics as well as the provision of urban amenities in census and statutory towns. t-tests of the differences in the mean values of the indicators are used to infer differences between census and statutory towns. The quality of data limited the analysis of socio-economic characteristics to few indicators, such as population growth, literacy rate and share of other (non-agricultural) employment. The urban amenities include the number of electrical connections, number of water-borne latrines (an indicator that captures access to both piped water and modern sewage), length of permanent roads, number of hospital beds, number of primary schools and colleges (Table 1). Since > 50% of the census towns emerged in 2001, to capture their peculiarities they are analysed separately. Furthermore, the census towns inside the Delhi state have characteristics, which are different from the other census towns, therefore, the analysis has been performed without these towns. The statistical analysis is thus performed for three samples: i) all settlements within the NCR, ii) settlements belonging to large urban agglomerations outside Delhi, and iii) new settlements within the NCR. No separate statistical analysis is undertaken for settlements inside Delhi or in the rural periphery due to low sample sizes. The information on the socio-economic indicators is accessed from the Census of India, Primary Census Abstract for years 2001 and 2011, and Town Directories 2001 and 2011 are used for enumeration of urban infrastructure. The sample for the statistical analysis consists of 201 settlements in the NCR.

4. Key findings 4.1. Urban growth in the NCR The total urban population of the NCR comprised 31.7 million people in 2011. More than half of this population lives in cities and towns with populations of fewer than 1 million people (Fig. 1). In the latest decade 2001–2011, most of the urban growth occurred in small statutory and census towns (approximately 5.4 out of the total 7.8 million new inhabitants). Table 2 indicates rapid increase in the number of census towns between 2001 and 2011. Most census towns fall into small town category. With regard to settlement area, small census towns are of similar size as small statutory towns. Census towns in other categories are substantially smaller than statutory towns (roughly twice as small). In 2011, population densities in the cities and large town category of the census towns were roughly twice as high as in statutory towns. Since there are strong differences between the census and statutory towns, it is important to understand whether the location of the census towns play a role. This aspect is analysed in the next section. 4.2. Spatial dynamics of census and statutory towns

3.4. Field survey and interviews The location analysis (Fig. 2) of the census and statutory towns in 2001 and 2011 helps discern three groups of settlements. First, emergence of census towns within or close to Delhi state. Second, emergence of census towns in proximity to major statutory towns, such as Alwar, Panipat, Meerut, Palwal, and Muzaffarnagar, and between them, such as between Ghaziabad and Meerut, taking advantage of transportation networks. Finally, emergence of census towns in the rural hinterland. In order to understand whether there are important differences between census towns in these three locations, and between census and statutory towns in general, the population dynamics is further analysed. The census towns account for 37% (approximately 2.9 million new inhabitants) of the total population increase in the NCR. Population

The aim of the field visits and household interviews is to capture the peculiarities of the census towns, which are otherwise left uncovered by the secondary data analysis. The field visits and household interviews were conducted in the NCR in January and September 2017. Two sets of census towns were examined. Towns in the first group (such as Tosham in Haryana, Neemrana in Rajasthan and Aurangabad Gadana in Uttar Pradesh) are located within the region but outside Delhi state. The second group of towns (such as Khanpur Dhani, Nilothi, Quammruddin Nagar and Rani Khera) are within Delhi state. From the large number of census towns, towns with exceptional growth rates, diverse economic activities (such as industrial, mining, commercial) and diverse locations Table 1 Indicators of urban amenities provision. Source: Author. Infrastructure type

Indicators in 2001

Indicators in 2011

Physical Basic amenities

Pucca or permanent road length (in kilometres) Domestic electric connections (number), water-borne latrines (number) Primary schools (number), engineering colleges (number), medical colleges (number), hospital beds (number)

Permanent road length (in kilometres) Domestic electric connections (number), flush latrines (number)

Social

Government (govt.) primary schools (number), govt. college of art, science and commerce (number), govt. medical college (number), govt. engineering college (number), hospital beds (number), dispensary/health centre beds (number)

4

Cities 99 (2020) 102627

M. Jain and A. Korzhenevych

renting of commercial and residential spaces (in Khanpur Dhani) to mining and crushing zones (in Tosham) to industries (in Neemrana). Also, land use conflicts were identified. For instance, in Aurangabad Gadana residential complexes have been built on agricultural land, used for sugar farming. Higher non-agricultural employment and higher literacy rates in census towns make them more urban than statutory towns. Since the majority of the census towns in 2011 are new towns that are reclassified from rural to urban by the Census of India, it can be concluded that rural agriculture-cultivation activities in these towns have made way for non-agricultural employment, which is an indicator of transformation. The provision of domestic electrical connections is significantly higher in census towns than in statutory towns (in all locations), whereas latrine provision is significantly higher only in census towns inside Delhi. The high provision of electricity in census towns is an outcome of the government polices of rural electrification, which provide free electricity to people below poverty line, while other inhabitants have to pay minimum cost of INR 500 in ten instalments (Nhalur, Josey, & Mandal, 2018). A different picture emerges when analysing publicly provided social and physical infrastructure. Census towns, on average, lag behind statutory towns with respect to the provision of permanent roads, primary schools and colleges (Table 4, column 2). For the towns formed after 2001, significant differences that favour statutory towns are identified in the provisions for hospital beds and primary schools (column 4). Furthermore, in the agglomeration areas outside Delhi state, significant differences are identified in the provision of roads and colleges (column 3). With respect to public infrastructure, such as paved roads, hospitals and colleges, the statutory towns are provided better than census towns. One reason for this is that the Government of India guidelines (GoI, 2015) include population thresholds for social infrastructure provision in statutory towns. Also, public infrastructure requires major funding and government approval, which is difficult under the administration of gram panchayats, as they do not have the power to tax properties and have a limited revenue base. These factors seem to have resulted in the identified lower provision of public infrastructure in census towns.

Fig. 1. Population in the National Capital Region, 1971–2011. Table 2 Urban settlement characteristics in the National Capital Region, 2001–2011. Source: Own calculations based on census data. Categorisation adopted from Census of India categories

2001 Census

Statutory

15 22 34 124 195

23 18 53 49 143

38 40 87 173 338

Cities Large towns Medium towns Small towns

Average settlement area, sq. km. 16.1 26.2 23.5 12.1 4.2 11.1 8.2 4.1 4.6 8.0 6.8 5.3 5.8 5.5 5.6 5.0

38.3 8.4 9.7 5.3

28.0 6.1 8.0 5.1

Cities Large towns Medium towns Small towns

Population density, inh. per sq. km 10,338 11,340 11,164 16,697 17,185 6552 8849 16,835 7443 3839 4685 5900 1737 2507 2190 2026

6661 8348 3113 2772

8378 11,516 3838 2246

Cities Large towns Medium towns Small towns Total

Census

8 11 23 44 86

Statutory

2011 All

Number of settlements 19 27 15 26 42 65 65 109 141 227

All

4.4. Stakeholders' role in shaping the developments in census and statutory towns

Note: The list of urban settlements in each category may change from year to year. For example, of the 109 new census towns in NCR in 2001, nine could not be identified in 2011.

The interviews with gram panchayats reveal that for census towns like Tosham, Neemrana and Aurangabad Gadana, no spatial plans have been formulated and the governance is limited to sanitation, conservancy and drainage, provision of drinking water, and preparation of annual budgets and development plans. The funding received from the state government is not sufficient to cater to the growing infrastructure demand. With regard to Delhi, the planning official from the DDA reveals that Delhi (including the census towns) is governed as per Delhi Master Plan 2021 proposals by the DMC. However, as per the chief town planner of DMC, there is no planning for rural areas in Delhi, and there is a lack of staff and resources to pay the salaries. The DDA official argues that the whole of Delhi has been declared urban and all the developments in Delhi have to follow the regulations of the land use plan or face necessary sanctions. The field visit in the census towns within Delhi reveals substantial peripheral developments, such as self-constructed low income residences, shopping complexes, high-end hotels and industries, which were not included in the master plan proposals. This is an outcome of availability of cheap land on urban periphery (Datta, 2009), which transfers the growth pressure from municipal areas into peripheral rural areas, transforming latter into urban areas. These developments are an integral part of Indian urbanisation as they do not only support employment generation, but also provide an opportunity for affordable housing for urban poor and for rural migrants. The planning for Delhi state seems to be limited to directing

growth rates in census towns are much higher than those in statutory towns between 2001 and 2011 (Table 3). With regard to settlement transformation, between 2001 and 2011, the number of census towns doubled. The main part of the increase is registered in small town category, and most of the census towns have emerged inside Delhi state. The emergence of census towns (that is, rural to urban transformation), and the transformation of smaller towns into larger towns is rapid, particularly in and around Delhi, and near other urban agglomerations. Fig. 2 confirms this finding. The cumulative population growth between 2001 and 2011 in census towns is rapid, for instance, 90% for Delhi and 150% in other locations. Specifically in small town category, the growth rate is above 170% in all locations. In contrast, the growth dynamics of statutory towns is slower and the emergence of new towns is sluggish. 4.3. Socio-economic characteristics and infrastructure provision Statistical analysis (Table 4, column 2) reveals that in census towns, compared to the statutory towns, the share of other (non-agriculture) employment is significantly high. Also, population growth rates and literacy rates are significantly higher in census towns. This difference is significant for the whole NCR and for the subsample of new census towns that emerged in 2001.The field visits established diverse nonagricultural employment potentials in the census towns, ranging from 5

Cities 99 (2020) 102627

M. Jain and A. Korzhenevych

Fig. 2. Locations of statutory and census towns in the National Capital Region in 2001 and 2011.

authorities (both, municipalities and gram panchayats), the governance situation is dismal in census towns with regard to fresh water supply, sanitation and solid waste disposal. The field visits reveal disparities inside the census towns, where high-end facilities such as international schools or factories have private provision of water and sanitation, whereas developments with poor migrants are reliant on the public service delivery. In the absence of provision by the state, poor residents in the census towns have invested in constructing private toilets and hand pumps for fresh water access. The interviews with residents of the census towns reveal

growth as per land use regulations of the master plans (land use planning), and is unable to acknowledge the growing demand for land. In Tosham, which was a municipality in 2001 and as per 2011 census is a census town, the head of the Gram Panchayat is promoting the construction of shops by conversion of agriculture land. This is done, on the one hand, to accommodate the growth pressure, and on the other hand, to generate more tax revenue. Thus, both in statutory towns (Delhi state) and census towns growth is as per demand and not as per plans. Due to limited funding and administrative capacity of the local 6

Cities 99 (2020) 102627

M. Jain and A. Korzhenevych

Table 3 Number and population of urban settlements in the National Capital Region by location. Source: Own calculations based on census data. Categorisation adopted from Census of India categories

Inside Delhi

In other agglomerations Census

In the rural hinterland

Census

Statutory

Statutory

Census

Statutory

Number of settlements in 2001 Cities Large towns Medium towns Small towns Total

7 10 19 23 59

1 1 0 0 2

1 1 3 13 18

10 4 5 12 31

0 0 1 8 9

Number of settlements in 2011 Cities Large towns Medium towns Small towns Total

12 21 23 54 110

2 0 0 0 2

3 1 9 45 58

10 3 9 5 27

Population in 2001, thousand inh. Cities Large towns Medium towns Small towns Total

1023 694 653 230 2599

337 90 0 0 427

305 94 100 141 640

Population in 2011, thousand inh. Cities Large towns Medium towns Small towns Total

2108 1457 770 631 4966

368 0 0 0 368

929 68 251 391 1639

Total Census

Statutory

8 10 37 53 108

8 11 23 44 86

19 15 42 65 141

0 0 2 25 27

11 15 44 44 114

15 22 34 124 195

23 18 53 49 143

2887 291 160 161 3500

0 0 34 74 108

1352 709 1119 741 3920

1328 788 787 445 3347

4576 1090 1279 902 7847

3617 268 260 72 4217

0 0 45 226 271

1886 1001 1341 644 4872

3037 1525 1066 1248 6876

5871 1269 1601 716 9457

Note: The list of urban settlements in each category may change from year to year. Over time, smaller towns may grow larger but may also be reclassified as villages.

5. Discussion

dissatisfaction amongst the residents with regard to governance and lack of awareness or involvement in the planning process. In Delhi, limited capacity for governance forced the state government to introduce public participation in local governance called ‘Bhagidari System’ basically to improve the quality, efficiency and delivery of public services. The residents form Resident Welfare Associations, a form of non-governmental organization, which addresses the day-today issues of the residents. They also maintain some facilities such as garbage collection, however, interviews reveal that such organisations are not prevalent in census towns. The local bodies are thus not empowered and citizens are not involved in planning, which to some extent hinders the delivery of infrastructure in census towns. The involvement of local bodies and citizens in planning would have the potential of coproducing serviced land and other infrastructure. It is with this background that the next section argues for moving from traditional planning towards more participatory strategic spatial planning in addressing the issues of urbanisation.

5.1. Evidence-based policy reforms: From master planning towards strategic spatial planning The planning officials confirm the use of master plans as an instrument to regulate growth (Section 4.4). Despite the availability of this instrument, the provision of basic services is dismal in statutory towns (Section 4.3). One of the reasons is the long-term nature of the plans, which lack evaluation and thus are not appropriate for managing rapid growth (Jain, 2013). The growth in census towns caters to the demand for affordable housing and industrial expansion (Section 4.4). However, limited capacity of the governing bodies constrains infrastructure delivery, while escalating developments in these towns (Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4). Given the limited capacity of the state to fund infrastructure, Watson (2009a) argues for new forms of planning which rather rely on community and informal providers. Coproduction is one way, by which poor urban communities are able to improve their living conditions, when governments are either unwilling or unable to deliver services

Table 4 Differences in the means of variables between census and statutory towns, 2011. Source: Own calculations based on census data. Variable

All towns

Towns in agglomerations outside Delhi

New towns (formed after 2001)

Population growth Literacy rate Non-agricultural employment share Electricity connections per household Water born latrines per household Permanent roads per km2 Hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitant Primary schools per 10,000 inhabitant Colleges per 10,000 inhabitant

0.24 0.07 0.17 0.24 0.41 −3.26 −1.00 −3.43 −0.34

0.01 0.05 0.09 0.16 0.07 −6.29 −0.25 −1.31 −0.39

0.41 0.16 0.21 0.44 0.14 −2.01 −1.85 −4.14 −0.35

(0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.65) (0.00) (0.00)

Note: P-values in parentheses (two-sample t-test with equal variances). 7

(0.96) (0.10) (0.12) (0.06) (0.63) (0.01) (0.96) (0.19) (0.02)

(0.04) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.30) (0.66) (0.05) (0.00) (0.12)

Cities 99 (2020) 102627

M. Jain and A. Korzhenevych

not only rearticulated the interdependencies between rural and urban, but also internalised the relationship between them.

(Watson, 2014). Coproduction to deliver basic services (such as sanitation system, roads and schools) has been beneficial in Brazil and in Africa (Watson, 2014, 2009a). The state has resources and technical expertise, whereas communities have local skills and time. Thus, the state can, for example, produce trunk infrastructure and communities can produce feeder services resulting in synergies between the actions of the state and communities. This process is already underway in census towns (Section 4.4). However, the lack of citizen involvement in planning and implementation processes (Section 4.4), coupled with weak local bodies, and constrains the potential of coproduction in India. In alignment with the claims of urban studies scholars (such as Watson, 2009b; Todes et al., 2012), there is a need to design alternative approaches to planning in the Global South. Here, the framework by Albrechts (2004) can be useful, who vouches to move from traditional planning based on controlling growth via land use plans towards a planning via short term action plans, which serves as a guideline for integrated development, is about negotiated governance and considers interests of various stakeholders. In India and in similar regions of the Global South, there is a need to adopt such a new approach for planning, which should be about managing the change, formulating comprehensive guidelines for integrated development, and empowering stakeholders (such as local bodies and citizens) for planning and implementation process, especially for coproducing infrastructure and serviced land delivery. Success of such an approach will require short term actions plans, which are evaluated and reformed as per growth dynamics. These initiatives can help move towards strategic spatial planning in order to achieve infrastructure integrated development.

6. Conclusions The findings in this paper suggest that a mixed-methods approach is not only applicable, but also appropriate to understand and capture the characteristics of urbanisation underway in the Global South. The research establishes the following characteristics of the Indian urbanisation: (i) the contemporary theoretical discourse is valid for elucidating unplanned growth as census towns in India, (ii) census towns are more densely populated and have higher population growth rates, higher shares of non-agricultural employment and higher literacy rates than statutory towns, (iii) compared to statutory towns, census towns provide not only diverse employment opportunities, but also affordable housing for urban poor and rural migrants, (iv) census towns in Delhi and in close proximity to other agglomerations are better endowed with electricity and sanitation than statutory towns; however, the provision of social infrastructure and roads is much better in statutory towns, and (v) traditional master planning is inadequate to address the contemporary issues of urbanisation; instead, for India and similar countries of the Global South, there is a need for including stakeholders' concerns (such as residents and local governing bodies) and moving towards a more participatory and strategic approach to achieve infrastructure integrated development. CRediT authorship contribution statement Manisha Jain: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Artem Korzhenevych: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Visualization.

5.2. Validation of theoretical discourse and research contribution The use of mixed-methods approach not only helps elucidate the challenges of urbanisation, but also to validate the theoretical discourse on urbanisation in India. So far, research on census towns (such as Pradhan, 2013) identified a rapid increase in the number and population of census towns. This paper not only confirms this finding, but also adds by establishing high population densities in census towns compared to statutory towns (Sections 4.1 and 4.2). This research establishes that census towns not only provide diverse employment opportunities (as claimed by Mukhopadhyay et al. (2016), Samanta (2012) and Jain (2018b)), but also provide for affordable housing for the urban poor and rural migrants, and industrial and commercial developments (Section 4.4). Roy and Pradhan (2018) identify high non-farm activities in census towns, and this paper contributes further by establishing higher literacy rates and higher shares of non-agricultural employment (Section 4.3), providing evidence for rural to urban transformation, confirming the applicability of the theory of in-situ urbanisation by Zhu (2004) and Pradhan (2013) in census towns. The identification of urban peripheries with high end developments alongside settlements deprived of basic services and poor structure is in conformity with Roy (2011) stating that growth in urban peripheries connects the separated geographies of wealthy urbanites and poor dwellers. Previous studies (such as Guin and Das (2015a) and Pradhan (2013)) identify growth in proximity to large metropolises. This research contributes by identifying transformation of rural areas into census towns along the transport lines connecting major cities (Section 4.2). The results establish that, although census towns offer diverse employment opportunities, which attract migrants, these settlements are dependent on public infrastructure, such as hospitals, located in statutory towns (Section 4.3). Moreover, the finding that census towns are emerging in proximity to existing statutory towns and that urban agglomerations are being formed by the merger of statutory towns and census towns (Section 4.2 and Fig. 2), validates the claim of planetary urbanism experts (Brenner and Schmid, 2014, 2015) that economic linkages, inter-regional migration and infrastructure development have

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgements The author wishes to express her gratitude to the German Research Foundation (DFG) for funding this research under the grant GZ: JA 2567/2-1. References Albrechts, L. (2004). Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 743–758. Ansari, J. (2004). Time for a new approach in India. Habitat Debate, Dec 2005, 15. Bhagat, R. (2005). Rural-urban classification and municipal governance in India. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 26(1), 61–73. Bhagat, R. (2014). Urban migration trends, challenges and opportunities in India. World migration report 2015. Mumbai: International Organization for Migration. Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2014). The ‘Urban Age’ in question. International Journal of Urban Regional Research, 38(3), 731–755. Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2015). Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City, 19(2–3), 151–182. Clarke, G. (1992). Towards appropriate forms of urban spatial planning. Habitat International, 16(2), 149–165. Datta, R. (2009). Financing and management of infrastructure in peri-urban areas of Indian cities. Institute of Town Planners India Journal, 6(3), 26–34. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (1962). Delhi Master Plan, 1962. Delhi Development Authority, Planning Department, Government of India. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (2006). Zonal Plans. Government of India: Delhi Development Authority, Planning Department. Accessed from http://dda.org.in/ planning/zonal_plans.htm. Denis, E., Mukhopadhyay, P., & Zérah, M.-H. (2012). Subaltern urbanisation in India. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(30), 52–62.

8

Cities 99 (2020) 102627

M. Jain and A. Korzhenevych

Springer. Rode, P., Chandra, R., Kundu, A., Nayar, N., First, B., Sudhira, H. S., ... Vaidya, H. (2008). Connecting cities: India. 9th World Congress Of Metropolis, 22–25 October 2008, Sydney, Australia. Roy, A. (2005). Urban informality: Toward an epistemology of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 147–158. Roy, A. (2009a). The 21st-century metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies, 43(6), 819–830. Roy, A. (2009b). Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idom of urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–87. Roy, A. (2011). Slumdog cities: Rethinking subaltern urbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 223–238. Roy, A. (2016). What is urban about critical urban theory? Urban Geography, 37(6), 810–823. Roy, S., & Pradhan, K. (2018). Census towns in India: Current patterns and future discourses. Working paper. Center for Policy Research. Samanta, G. (2012). In between rural and urban: Challenges for governance of non-recognized urban territories in West Bengal. West Bengal Geo-Spatial Issues. The University of Burdwan44–57. Samanta, G. (2014). The politics of classification and the complexity of governance in census towns. Economic and Political Weekly, XLIX(22), 55–62. Storper, M., & Scott, A. (2016). Current debates in urban theory: A critical assessment. Urban Studies, 53(6), 1114–1136. Todes, A. (2012). Urban growth and strategic spatial planning in Johannesburg, South Africa. Cities, 29, 158–165. Todes, A., Karam, A., Klug, N., & Malaza, N. (2010). Beyond master planning? New approaches to spatial planning in Ekurhuleni, South Africa. Habitat International, 34, 414–420. UN-Habitat (2009). Planning sustainable cities: Policy directions. Global report on human settlement 2009. United Nations Human Settlement Program. London: Earthscan. United Nations (UN) (2014). World population prospects: Highlights. 2014 revision. New York: UN. United Nations (UN) (2017a). Urban governance, capacity and institutional development. UN: Quito. United Nations (UN) (2017b). World population prospects: Key findings and advanced tables. 2017 revision. New York: UN. United Nations Human Settlement Program (UN-Habitat) (2016). Urbanization and development: Emerging futures. World cities report 2016. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. Vaidya, C. (2009). Urban issues, reforms and way forward in India. Government of India: Ministry of Finance. Watson, V. (2008). Introduction, draft chapter for the global report on human settlements: Revisiting planning. (Report to the UN-HABITAT, Nairobi). Watson, V. (2009a). Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2259–2275. Watson, V. (2009b). “The planned city sweeps the poor away …”: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation. Progress in Planning, 72, 151–193. Watson, V. (2014). Co-production and collaboration in planning - The difference. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(6), 62–76. World Bank (WB) (2015). Uganda economic update: Fifth edition: The growth challenge: Can Ugandan cities get to work?- Fact sheet. Accessed on: 23.05.2019, Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/uganda/brief/uganda-economicupdate-fifth-edition-the-growth-challenge-can-ugandan-cities-get-to-work-fact-sheet. Yiftachel, O. (2009). Theoretical notes on “gray cities”: The coming of urban apartheid? Planning Theory, 8(1), 87–99. Zhu, Y. (2004). In situ urbanization in rural China: Case studies from Fujian Province. Development and Change, 31(2004), 413–434.

Desmond, G. (1971). Impact of national and regional policies on urbanisation. In L. Jakobson, & V. Prakash (Eds.). Urbanisation and national development (pp. 57–79). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Government of India (GoI) (2015). Urban and regional development plans formulation and implementation (URDPFI) guidelines. 1. Government of India: Ministry of Urban Development. Government of India (GoI) (2018). Local bodies: Chapter 42. Statistical year book India 2018. Government of India: Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. Guin, D., & Das, D. (2015b). Spatial perspectives of the new census towns, 2011: A case study of West Bengal. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 6(2), 109–124. Guin, D., & Das, N. (2015a). New census towns in West Bengal: Census activism or sectoral diversification? Economic and Political Weekly, 50(14), 68–72. Healey, P. (2006). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge. Hoselitz, B. (1957). Urbanization and economic growth in Asia. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 6(1), 42–54. Jain, M. (2013). Analyzing effectivity of urban growth management in the National Capital Region Delhi, India. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Jain, M. (2018a). Contemporary urbanization as unregulated growth in India: The story of census towns. Cities, 73, 117–127. Jain, M. (2018b). The effect of distance on urban transformation in the Capital Region, India. International Planning Studies, 23(1), 37–50. Jain, M., Korzhenevych, A., & Sridharan, N. (2019). Determinants of growth in nonmunicipal areas of Delhi: Rural–urban dichotomy revisited. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34(3), 715–7340. Kshirsagar, J., & Srinivas, R. (2014). Town planning and development laws: Evolution and current amendments. Town and Country Planning Organization, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. Kundu, A. (2009). Exclusionary urbanization in Asia: A macro overview. Economic & Political Weekly, 44(48), 48–58. Kundu, A. (2014). Exclusionary growth, poverty and India’s emerging urban structure. Social Change, 44(4), 541–566. Mathur, O. (2009). New Delhi, India. In E. Slack, & R. Chattopadhyay (Eds.). Finance and governance of capital cities in federal system (pp. 127–162). London: McGill-Queens University Press. Mookherjee, D., Geyer, M., & Hoerauf, E. (2014). Delhi and its peripheral region: Perspectives on settlement growth. In D. Donoghue (Ed.). Urban transformations: Centers, peripheries and systems (pp. 197–206). UK: Ashgate: Canterbury Christ Church University. Mukhopadhyay, P., Zérah, M.-H., Samanta, G., & Maria, A. (2016). Understanding India’s urban frontier: What is behind the emergence of census towns in India? The World Bank Group. National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB) (1986). Interim development plan 2001: National Capital Region. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India95. National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB) (1988). Regional plan 2001: National Capital Region. Delhi: Planning Department168. National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB) (2013). Draft revised regional plan 2021: National Capital Region. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India291. Nhalur, S., Josey, A., & Mandal, M. (2018). Rural electrification in India: From “Connections for All” to “Power for All”. Economic and Political Weekly, 53(45), 31–37. Planning Commission (PC) (2013). Twelfth five year plan (2012–2017): Economic sectors. volume II. Government of India. New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd. Pradhan, K. (2013). Unacknowledged urbanization: The new census towns of India. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVIII(36), 43–51. Pradhan, K. (2017). Unacknowledged urbanisation: The new census towns in India. In E. Denis, & M.-H. Zerah (Eds.). Subaltern urbanisation in India (pp. 39–66). Delhi:

9