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 extensħons 1961-71, and 0.46 in 1951-1961. urban population itself. rlPis paper of boundaries. This is done by com- The slowing down of urbanisation utilises the first, second and fourtlh puting growth rates excluding towns during 1951-61 has sometimes been measures to illuminate the process of newly classified as such. Similarlv, in explained in terms of the declassifica- urbanisation that is taking place. Thc computing growth rates of cities, citY tion of about 800 towns in 1961 as a third measure could not be computed size is kept constant - either within result of a stricter application of the because those data are not yet avail- the earlier boundaries or within the criterion for urban places.7 Indeed, it able for 1921. new boundaries. This information is is only since the 1961 census that the not available yet for 1981, so only definition of urban areas has been A problem generic in any interpre- somae approximations can be made. systematised and made uniform across TABLn 4! PATTERN OF GROvrrH OF CLASS I CIIIrs, 1961-1981 1961-19711 1971- 9812. Category Number Populdtion Annual Number Popul,.tion Anoiual of Rate of Cf Rate of Towns 1961 1971 Growth Towns 1971 1981 Growth 1961 (000) 1971 (000) 4 million +1 2a 9,887 13,001 2.82 23 13,001 17,392 2.95 1-4 million 54 7,983 12,006 4.14 76 14,417 21,318 3.99 1/2-1 million 55 3,616 4,787 2.82 107 6,679 8,919 2.93 250,000-500,000 21 7,378 10,256 3.35 33 12,022 17,858 4.04 100,000-2,50,000 71 10,772 15,190 3.71 93 14,003 20,314 3.79 Total 14 39,636 55 540 3.43 145 60,122 85,801 3.62 Notes: 1 Data for individLial towns for 1961-71 taken from Ashish Bose (1978) pp 509-511. 2 Dita from Government of India, Census of India 1981 -Provisicnal Population Tables Paper 2 of 1981, Government of India, Census of India, 1971, Series I Part I1 A (I). General Population Tables, New Delhi, 1975. 3 Boomhay and Calcutta. 4 Delhi, Madras, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Bangalore. 5 Kanpur, Poona, Nagpur, Lucknow, Agra. 6 D.lhi, Madras, Hyderab d, Ahmedabad, Baangalore, Kanpur, Poona. 7 Nagpur, Liucknow, Coinhbatore, Madurai, Jailpur, Agra, Varanasi, Indore, Jabalpur, Allahabad. all states. Moreover, as we have towns at every level, and not nearly continue to grow and move up in already mentioncd, the classification because of the addition of new towns. size. The entry of new towns being itself has art element of arbitrariness This implies that the majority of limited, the proportion of the urban and is subject to administrati7e and settlements now classified as tow'ns population residing-in large-size towns political pressures. have exhibited urban /characteristics above any population cut-off point This problem would be particularlyr for a very long time. Keeping in mlind will then tend to increase continuous- severe in the classification of towvns in the very large number of villages at ly. As shown in Table 1, the propor- the lower end of the scale, since at the border line it must be remarked tion of total urban population in towns this level the distinction between that it is only a very small number of in c&ass III and above has ncreased village and town would necessarily them which have 'gradua.ed' into town stead1ily from about 53 to 86 per cent involve judgment and discretion even status. between 1901 and 1981. By the same in applying the more rigorous defini- The majority of regions in India token, the proportion in class I cities tion of urbanisation.8 Since the urban have had settled cultivation for a has continued to increasc. This fact character of bigger towns is more very long tirne. The spalial distribu'ion has often bcen used to indicate the easily recognisable, classification pro- and number of settlem2nts therefore allegedly increasing dysfunctiondl. or blems are not likely, to be as impor- reflects this long history. Furtlhermore lopsided nature of the size distribution tant for them. We have, therefore. the total population was also quite of urban arehs. Tn reality, the increas- recomputed the rate of growth of stable until well into this cen'ury. It ing proportion of the urbin population urban population 'for a more restric- is only in the last 50 years tlhat the in larger cities is merely a result cf tive definition of urban areas as towns total population of the country has progressive accretion to existing over 20,000 population (that is Class grown at significant rates. Hence, the settlements of all sizes vhich are I, II and III towns) in column 9 of majority of settlements had remained well spread out spatially. There is Table 1. The picture is again broadly. the same size for long periods of time then less need for the emergence of similar to that of the usual definition, until recently. The function of most entirely new settlements. eqcept that the rates of change are. small towns is essentially that of somewhat higher. Two points stand serving the rural surroundings as III out. First, the deceleration in the market and service centres. Thus 1951-61 decade remains: it was not their number and spatial dikrribution Pattern of Growth of Towns and a purely declassification problem. It reflect the magnitude of demand for Cities appears that there must have been their services from the surrounding real deceleration in the pace df urbani- areas. There is then a lierarchy of S1ZE DxSTION OF TOWNS AND CES sation. Second, the rate of change in settlements in each region and sub- There is a' widespread erroneous the 1931 and 1941 period Was similar region, and it appears that this belief that large towns and cities have to that in 1961-71 and that in 1941-51 hierarchy has remained sta'ole for a been growing much faster than to 1971-Si. It is reassuring to observe long time. Urban growth that then smaller cities and towns in India and that the broad pattern of change is takes place is largely by accretion to that the latter have suffered and even not altered drastically by adopting, a existing towns rather than by emer- declined as a result. This is simply different definition. gence of new towns. In areas where not true. What is true is, as mention- Another feature which stands out thie distribution of existing towns is ed above, that the proportion of total from Table 1 is the very stable struc- sparse, a large number of new townb urban population which lives in cities ture of settlements. Whale total urban can be expected to appear as income and towns above any cut-off point population increased six-fold between and population growth takes place, continues to increase because of the 1901 and 1981, the number of settle- With such a stable structure of the relatively stable structure of the ments increased by only 80 Der cent. settlement system, it would be expect- Indian settlements. Thus most cf the Thus, most of the growth was be- ed that, with overall increases in urban growth takes place by accretio,: cauru oif the enlargement of existing population, towns of all sizes would to existing towns and only a smaLl 4 TABLE 5: FREQUENCY DiSTEMu7ior OF ANNUAL CRowTu RATES OF Towns general statement can be made on the AND CrtiES BErTWEEN 1971 A.CTI 1981 groNwth trends of different sized towns and cities. Similar results were found Annual Rate of Class V All in an earlier study by M K Tain Growth Cla~,s,ses (1977), which showed that there was ' / / '° -- no appreciable difference between the Less than 1 14 19 21 17 growth rates of different size cities 2 to 3 % 30 33 33 32 32 32 between 1951 and 1961 and between 3 to 4% 30 25 23 23 21 23 1961 and 1971. There has, however, 4 to 5% 19 16 13 11 7 11 been an acceleration in the overall S to 7% 11 7 8 5 6 7 rate of growth of population in each 7 %and above 3 2 3 3 5 3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 size class between each census since Total n-mber of 1951. toWi4s in size cl ss 145 178 560 818 594 2295 Since about 60 per cent of the total Notes: I Cla=s acc rumg to 1971 census classific,ti0n. urban population now resides in class I 2 For details on towns omited from the 1971 census list be 'ause nf non- cities, it is useful to disaggregate this availability of da!a in 1981. The number of towns cm .tted by size cl&ss class further. Table 4 gives the results are: class 1-3 cities, class I1-3 ciJies. class 1I-5 towns, class 111-22 towns, for 1961-71 and 1971-81. Once 'again, class IV-56 towns, class V-84 t(wns. there is no striking pattern of growth 3 Constituent towns of urban aggiomerations are not counted as separated accrd ing taggegated siz units. according to the disaggregated size classes. It cannot be said that the proportion by the reclassification of are growing much faster than the metropolitan cities (million-plus cities) villages into towns in general, although smaller ones. have been growing much faster there is naturally a great variety of Table 3 gives the tabulation that than the smaller cities, nor vice versa growth experience between cities and should be used in comparing the Indeed, between 1971 and 1981, the regions. The belief about faster growth experience of differenlt sized fastest growth was recorded by the growth of larger cities persists, be- cities and towns. Table 3 takes towns group of 33 cities in the 250.,000 to cause tabulations are usually based according to their classification in 500,000 population range. It must be no, on individual cities but on size 1971, and computes growth rates by concluded that there are no startling classes. comparing the total populatLon. of differences beween the rates of growth Table 2 is an example of the kind towns in bach class in 1971, with the beween small and large towns and of table that is usually used to shiowv total population of the same towyns in between small cities and metropolitan that larger cities are growing faster 1981, irresoective of their classifica- cities. Moreover, it is of interest that than smaller towns. It may be observ- tion in the 1981 census. (All towns in the share of million-plus cities in the ed that the number of cities in each Assam and Jammu and Kashmir have total populatioh of class I cities has size class changes between censuses. had to be excluded from these tabu- not increased appreciably since 1951. Naturally, in tae highe,t s:ze class lations since they have not been re- The proportions have been (class I cities), no cities devolve out ported yet.) 1951 42.7 per cent of it while many graduate into it. In the lower size classes, particu- 1961 45.3 per cent Hence an illusion is created that cities larly classes, IV and V, there are a 1971 45.6 per cent in the highest size class are groNving number of towns that could not be 1981 44.6 per cent very fast. Thus, in comparing growth traced in the 1981-census: 56 in class This is despite the fact that the rates of any size class of cities across IV and 84 in class V. Of 56 in class number of million-plus cities has in- decades we are in effect comparin3 IV, 27 were accounted for b' Assam creased progressively from five in 1951 non-como'rable entities. For example, and Jammu and Kashmir and 7 in to 12 now. It is, therefore, incorrect the growth rate computed for class I Kerala. There seems to have been a to say that the Indian settlement cities is between the population of 145 large-scale reclassification of towns structure is becoming top heavy: in cities in 1971 and the nopulation of in Kerala so that these missing towns particular that metropolitan cities are 216 cities in 1981. It will then natur- are either declassified or amalgamated growing much faster than others. ally be high. For each lower si-.e into larger units. There are no details These results are not very different classes it is true some towns gra- availabie on this at present. Since the for thle world as a whole. The share duate into them and some devolve total population of the missing class of million-plus cities in all cities over out into the next higher class. But the IV towns was about 3 per eent of thc 100,000 population was about 51 per new additions to the lower size ones tabulated and for class V about cent in 1975 (Renaud, 1979, o 28). Tne classes are at the bottom of the 7 per cent, their non-inclusion would Indian settlement structure is, there- population range, and hence add much nr-t alter the results appreciably. fore, better distributed. Preston less to the class than is lost by the Table 3 gives the results for the (1979) tabulated the growth pattern graduation of towns to upper cize 1971-81 experience and it s clear that of all 1'90,000-plus cities for the o asses. Over a long period of time, the picture emerging is quite different world as a whole and classified by thete is also the phenomenon that from that in Table 2. While the different regions in the world-9 The all the fast-growing towns coTI- class I cities have grown somewhat overall pattern observed was a tinue to graduale into the higher faster than the smaller .owns, the U-shaped pattern, indicating that cities size classes, while only the s1ow differences are not very large in between 100,000 and 500,000 and g,rowing ones remain behind. Thus general. Moreover, class V towns those above 4 million grew fast, while the uise of stuch tables gives the show the highest rate of growth on those in between grew somewhat illusion that larger towns and cities average. Hence it is clear that no more slowly. TABLE 6: GRONTH OF LARGE CITIES A:SD THEIR HiNTE iN' ently low - about at par with the ,_ ,growth rate of the population of the Population (1000) Annual Growth Rates (% Per Yeau) country as a whole, i e, not very dif- City ferent from the natural population City2 Hinterland City Hinterland growth rate, specially when definitional 1981 1951-61 1961-71 1971-81 adjustments are accounted for. In 1981, - - in particular, it appears that about Calcutta 9165 1377 2.26 2.05 2.69 3.04 20 towns which were listed indepen- Bombay 8277 1273 5.08 4.45 3.26 5.83 dently in 1971 have been included in Madras 4276 972 2.33 5.01 3.04 2.93 the urban agglomeration of Calcutta. Bangalore 2913 1127 4.42 3.27 5.82 3.40 Their totaL population was about Hyderabad 2528 642 1.03 3.71 3.42 5.08 400,000 in 1971, and about 500,000 in Notes: (1) The hinmerl.and for each city is taken as all towns with 20,000 or more 1981. Thus with the 1971 definition, papulation in 1971 within roughly a 100 km radius of the city measure the corrected 1981 population for as straigilt ibne distancL. Ca'cutta would be about 8.6 million. (2) 'City' ref,'rs to arbin :,ggl.)meration. Tegot aewudb utoe Source (1) Census of Irilij 1931 TPr.visional Population Totals', Series I-Paper 2, Per ;rcent a year - a rateus o 1981-N'w Delhi, 1981. e similar to (2) Cen,us of Inalia 1971 General `3opulation Tables', 1971 Series I Part the 1961 to 1971 growth rate. Alter- II A (i)-New DI)hi. 1975. natively, if the 1981 definition is taken, rhe 1971 poPula ion would be about One more method of analysing the ture. Thbus. 'he v-ariance of growth rates 7.45 million (7.03 million according to differential growth pattern of diffe- is much higher at the low end of the 1971 definitioa) and the growth rate rent sized cities is to observe the settlement scale. would be about 2.1 per cent per year. f requency distribution of xowns a-idInhspe-,inClut' cities according to ranges of growth GRow-TH EXPERtIENCE OF THE SIX any case, the peed- in Clcutta' rate. Table 5 tabulates this frequency LARGEST CIIES growth in the past decade is illusory, distribution. In may be noted that Since particuilar attention is usually not possible to make similar adjust- there is a higher proportion of class I gi,n to the largest metropolitan cities ments for the other cities with the cities in the higher growth ranges, in the urbanisation process, it is of data at hand. but that the distributions of towns int:rest to examine .he growth experi- in the other size classes Lre remark- nc-. of the six largest cities (given in Hence, as compared with the previ- ably similar to one another. Although Table 6). As with the problems of ous decade, among the six largest the differences between the distribu- dassificaion of the urban population citles in the country, it is only Banga- tions of the growth rates of towns in as a whole, the an,ilysis of cities also lore which has grown at a rate signifi- cantly higher than in the Previous classes II, III, IV and V are not statis- s;flers from cimilar problems. The decade. Ther per in ye re tically significant, there is a slight ten- boundaries of large cities are characte- ofc -The 5.82 per ient a year rate dency for a larger proportion of small riNtically extended as they grow. Thus an standards, and itaers hat tow'ns to be s'ow-g-owing. In fact, the the popti'a'ioin in 1981 may be for an by any standards, and it appears that variances of the Class IV and Cjass V, area much larger than the area covered boundary changes would explain only towns are somewhat higher. Thus, .n 1971. The corr2ct growth rate a small part of this high rate. On the although on average there are no signi- -;. uld be for the population in the whole then, it would be wrong to con- ficant differences between the growthiof samrn- area 'or both the years --- either clude that the largest metropolitan large towns and cities, the frequency 1971 or 1981. These details, howeve, cities are prowing atypically fast Given distributions reveal a slight tendency are available only much latbr when the national population grow h of for larger towns and cities to grow ,he fina, popula!ion totals ara pub- about 2a per cent a year, it is only somewhat faster. This is consistenit l; hed. Even theui it is not easy to De hi and Bangalore which would ap- with the idea of a stable settlement ciisentangle these definitional problems. pear to be growing because of atypi- structure suggested earlier. The towns Ti'he ac ual error caused is often not cally high levels of migration which are now large (class I and Much becaus- the newly urbanised One manifestation of the concern class II) are essential'y those which area is usually almost uninhabited in wvith city bigness has been repeated might be called 'success stories' the prex ious census year. Errors are suggestions for greater attention to over the ages. It is those small towns iai-e when b6,undaries are shifted to the small and medium to'wns in the which grew fast over sustained periods include existing towns on the periph- immediate hinterland of these ci:ies. of time that are now large towns and ery. 'thus these growth rates have to In Di Ihi, in particular, a 'National cities. Hence it is likely that it is the be interpre'ed with caution. Capi'a! Region' has been identified. larger towns which have a comparative The main featur- of T'able 6 is that !he :ugg.c tion hat is made is that advantage in the settlement structure. the e\periencc h:.s been a varied one high,er pul;`ic investmi nts on these The sample of towns which are large and that no L-!eneral;ation can be sL,rrundirg towns would help theni irt that sense a biased sample of liloW3 ioi these cities taken as a group. to atfract mrgrants who would other- su!ccesses among all towns. 'Successes' 1' i;. only D>Ihi that has grown with XJwie go to the metropolitan city itself, keep on moving up while it is a :-onsis ently high rate of growth In order to assess the practicability anlv 'failures' and new 'sluccesses' ox,er the three decades. Despite the of these suggestions, Table 6 also which are found in the smaller size Uislhcati,ns caused in Bengal at the ĥ.hens the gr ,wth experienc-'s of the classes. At the lowest end, towns are time of partt ion and later in 1971 hlirterlands of these six cities. The nmore u.is'able and occupy a less im- lbecause of the Bangladesh war, the rate bin eriards has been defin2d as an area portart place, in the settlement struc- (f growh of Calcutta has been consist-: within a roughly 100 km radius of 6 the city. It is found that it is only in requires a mucs: more systematic study contrast, the rate of growth of rural the case of Bangalore that,'the rate of at the regional level. Such a study population has dec:ined in most states growth of the urban population in the would relate variables such as cha,n- during this period. These declines hinterland was significantly lower than ges in agricultural and industrial pro. have been significant in many cases that of the city itself. The rates of - ductivity to the conditions in the ur- (see Appendix' Table A-]). Only in growth of the hinterlands of Bombay, ban and rura,1 labour markets and Tamil Nadu has there been an appreci- Delhi and Hyderabad are very high - product markets, alongwvith a conside- able decline in the rate of urbartisa- all over 5 per cent a year, with Delhi ration of demographic variables. Only tion during the period. being almost 6 per cent. Any further then can a structurfal understanding In order to have a more complete acceleration of these surrounding towns of the process be achieved. Thnis paper picture of the urban growth experience would probably be difficult. merely sets out the trends as revealed of different states over the three One other feature of this issue that by the Census, but it does attempt to decades, * from 1951 to 1981, states n'eds consideration is the difference offer some interpretations which can have been grouped into four categories between ,he absolute sizes of the popu- only be verified by a more systematic in Table 8. The variation in' the ex- lation in the hiniterland as compared btudy. perience of the different groups of with the city. The ratio varies from As was pointed out earlier, Kerala states, referred to earlier is, immedi- about 15 per cent for Calcutta and poses particular problems in the defi- ately apparent. Thus, even in the Bombay to about 40 per cent for nition of urban areas. Its overall popu- richer states, two patterns that are Pangalo-e. It is about 35 per cent for lation density was about 550 people diametrically opposite are revealed. Delhi. Hence, in the case of Delhi, if per sq km in 1971, the rural density Thus, in the old industrially and com- it is desired to reduce the rate of itself being about 480. Further, merciaTly developed states of Maha- growth of popu'ation from 4.6 per about 80 per cent of the rural popula- rashtra and Gujarat, the urban growth cent to about 3.6 per cent, by divert- ti˘n lived in villages of over 10,000 rate increased initially but tapered off ing migrants to the surrounding towns, population and another 15 per cent in thereafter while in the, agriculturally their rate of growth would have to villages in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 progressive developed states of Punjab increase on average from about 5.8 population. Hence, almost all the and Haryara the opposite was experi- per cent in a year to an astronomical settlemer,Ats would qualify for classi- enced. Clearly different forces are at 8.5 per cent a year. Thus it would fication as urban settlements were it work in these states, and more detailed be reasonable to conclude that it is not for the additional requirement of analysis would be required before unlikely that the growth problems of 75 per cent of the male labour force further generalisations could be made. big cities, such as they are, would be being in non-agriculture. With such Columns 4-6 of Table 7 give com- solved by a diversion of interest to high overall densities, it is also not Cole gob rae 7 give pom- their urOban hinterlands% easy to decide on the boundaries of parable growth rates for urban popula- In summary, it should be clear set!lements. It is presurnably because tion including towns in Cass , II and f,cm all the evidence presented above of these problems that there appear Il only. In column 3 of Table 8 the that the record of growth of different to haVe been major definitħonal stares have been categorised din a sitii- size cities has been very stable over changes in tlle 1981 census. Many lar way but with the new definition. the different decades. Towns and towns in the classes IV, V and VI While most of the observations made cities of all sizes 'have been grow- range from the 1971 census do no earfier are also valid with the new ing at similar rates since' at least appear in this census (for details, see dear igifit. The cbanges tha 1951, and there are no start- Appendix) and many new towns, ar much le wha'ths deten ling differences between large and have been added. Kerala has, there- decades are much less with this defini small towns and cities. The main fore, been omitted in this state-wise tion - presumnably because the defini- diffe.rence between 1971 and 1981 is analysis because of all these defini- tion is more consistent between that there has'been a significant ac- tional problems. the states. The acceleration between celeration in the growth of all towns Colums 1-3 of Table 7 present the blecades is a tso less pronounced - al- arnd ci1ies. But 'the overall settlement growth rates of urban population in shough the ratie of growth for each pattern continues to be stable and states from 1951-81. As is evident tends the idea that the Indian settle- well distributed. from column 3, all the relatively tent structure is of long standing and poorer states (Andhra, Bihar, Madhya is al sb at sate aee IV Pradesh, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh) i also stable at the s:ate level. have exsperienced rapid urban growth Thus, the fact that the urbanisation Regional Pattern of Urban Growth during 1971-81, while only Haryana rate for csass III towns anr above is STAILAVSE PA-MERN9 OF URBAN GROWM among the richer states has experi- higher than for all towns taken toge- enced comparable growth. In fact, the ther, again points to the fact that most India being such a large country, old industrially developed states of urbanisalion is by accretion to existing. 'with the larger s'ates having popula- West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Maha- towns of all sizes and there are only tions greater than most countries in raThtra, have the lowest rates. Natur- small additions of new towns at the the world, it is nevessary to disaggre- ol", al-solute increases in urban lower end of the range. This now ap- gate the trends in urbanisation to at population in these states continue to pears to be true at the state level as least the stale level. It should be said b:! large because of higher intial levels, well. It may, however, be expected at the outset that the variation in If we compare the trends in urban that in states such as Orissa, UP (parti- experience among states is surpris- growth during the decades 1961-71 cularly Eastern UP) and Madhya Pra- ingly large and one thal is not readi- and 1971-81, we observe an accelera- desh (parti6u'arly Eastern MP). where ly exp'icable. A -good understanding tion in the rate of urban population iniial urbanisation levels were low and of the nrocess af urbanisation in lndia growth in almost all the states. In towns-boated sparsely, there wou'd be TABLE 7: SrATEwISE:1 GROWrH OF URBAN POPULATION 1951-1981 creases in agricultural production are now mainly coming from productivity (per cent per £ear) change - only small increases in crop- State All Towns -Towns above 20,000 Only ped area can now be recorded. There are, therefore, clear indications that 1951-61 1961-71 1971-81 1951-61 1961-71 1971-81 the absorptive capaci'y of agriculture 1 2 3 4 5 6 for continued increases in population Andhra 1.5 2.9 4.0 3.5 3.9 5.0 and labour force is now declining. Bihar 4.1 3.7 4.4 4.8 4.1 5.4 Gujarat 1.8 3.5 4.4 3.5 3.6 4.2 Finally, the level of urbanisation in Haryana 3.1 3.1 4.8 4.4 3.9 5.2 different states since 1951 according to Karnataka 1.7 3.1 4.2 3.5 3.8 5.3 both definitions in given in Appendix' Aladhva Pradesh 4.0 3.9 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.8 Tabe A-2. The most industrialised Maharashtra 2.0 3.5 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.8 states of Mabayashtra, Gujarat and Orissa 6.5 5.2 5.3 7.4 7.9 6.0 sae fMhysta uaa n Punjzab 2.6 2.3 3.7 3.9 2.6 4.1 Tamil Nadu are now all over 30 percent Rajasthan .l1 3.3 4.6 2.8 4.3 5.4 urbanised (according to the usual de- 'ranmil Nadu 2.1 3.3 2.5 6.1 4.3 2.9 finition). The industrial stagnation of ttar Pradesh 30.9 2.7 248 2.9 2.7 3.1 West Bengal and of Calcutta is reflec- India' 2.33 3.26 3.85 .3.59 3.85 4.18 ted in the small increase in the level of urbanisation in that state since 1951. Notes: : (1) Including all states with to'al population greater than 10 These states then c6nform more to million in 1971 but excluding Kerala and Assam. middle income countries with about (2) Including all States except Assam and Jammu and Kashmir. $ 400 per capita income in terms of greater potential for bhe emergence ot that has taken place arnong the states - the level of urbanisation. At the other new towns. 'athough this is still of small magnitude. end of the scale are Orissa (11.8 per It is now generally accepted that Sekhar (1981) has documented the cent), Bihar (12.5 per cen'), UP (18.0 disparities among states have widened decline in the index (tlhe Theil Index) per cent), Madhya Pradesh (2'0.3 per since independence and especial'y since of inequality between states in orga- cent) -and Rajasthan (290.9 per cent). the mid-six'ies. In particular, disparities nised industry over the last two de- There are only about 10 coun'r.es" in in agricultural productivity have be- zades - whether measured by value- the world at the lowest per capita levels come very large since the advent of added or employment. It must be em- which have leve's of urbanisa'ion lo- the green revolution (Mohan, 1974). As phasised that the . changes have been wer than 12 per cent. Thus, in terms a resu t, the inequality among states small: as late as in 1976, Maharashtra, of urbanisation levels, India's regions in per capita income has also become West Bengal, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu exhibit pa:terns spanning the whole worse. It is then interesting to find, in together accounted for about 55 per cent range of about 50 countries with an- this context, that the distribution of of all value added and 52 per cent nual per capita inconies frcmn about population growth rates for rural as of all employment in the manufacturing $ 100 to $ 400. The var:ation in levels well as urban areas has tended to be- (factory) sector. In 1961, by compari- of urbanisation'2 has, however, declined come more uniform betheen states over son, these four states accounted for as as measured by the co-efficient of var- the same period. The co-efficient1 ot much as 66 per cent of value added ation, from about 0.45 in 1931, 0.42 variation between states of rural popu- and 58 per cent of employment. Given in 1961, 0.50 in 1971, to 0.34 in 1981. ation grow'h rates has declined - this small change, not much can be The accelera'ion of the least ubanised from 0.36 for 1951-61 period to 0.12 made of the decline in the variation states along wvith the decelera'ion ot for 1961-71 and 0,16 for 1971-81. The - in the rate of urbanisation - only that the most urbanised ones has caused corresponding co-efficients for urban the two results are at least consistent this major change in the :ast decade. population growth are 0.31 and 0.20 with each other. . 5 .^The problems caused by variation. respectively.10 Furtherrnore, the pat- Table A-1 on rural population growth across states in 'the classification of tern is confirmed if taken back to the rates is of further interest. There have towns at the low end has already been 1941-51 decade as well. The co-efficient been significant declines in the rate of alluded to a number of times. Table 9 e variation for rural population growh growth of rural population in the high indicates the differences caused by the rates for that decade was about 0.49 agrcultural productivity states ot addition of new towns in the 1981 and for urban popula'ion growth rates Harvana and Punjab; but small in- census. iThe states which have added A about 0.31 aga, creases have taken1 p'ace in the low significant number of new towns arc What is of great interest is that the productivity states of Bihar, Rajasthan essentially Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, variation in urban population growth and UP (though it must be no'ed that Rajasthan, Orissa and UP. MNlany of i'ates has declined as well in the past declines also took place in other states these towns in UP should have beei decade. It may be somewhat premature such as Orissa and Madhya Pradesh). classified as such in 1971 (Premi and to draw strong conclusions from the de- Preliminary census results (J N Sinha, others /1977). Thus the apparent large cl'ine of 'his one inequality measure ' 1982) indicate that for the first time acceleration of urbanisation in UP is the co-efficient of variation - in one since the turn of the century, there may at least partly iliusory - though not decade af'er it had been stable for have been a perceptib!e decline in the entirely so. Taking the same towns as three decades. First, this decline is proportion of labour force engaged in in 1971 (colunmn 5, Table 10), the presumably a result of the lower vari- agriculture -- from 69.8 per cent in growth rate did increase from 2.7 per ation across s'ates in total population 1971 to 66.7 per cent in 1981. This is cent in 1961-71 to 3.1 oer cent in 'growth rates. But it may also be a re- consistent with the decline in the over- 1971-81. Similarly, if only towns over sult of the dispersal of industrialisation all rate of rural popiuation growth. In- 20,000 are coinsidered (columns 5, 6, TABLE 8: UnBAR GROw-rB IN STATES DUPUNG 1951-1981 Category of States AII Towns Towns of Population above 20,000 Only 1 2 3 (I) States where the rate of growth Andhra, Karnataka, Rajasthan Andhra, Gujai!at, Karnataka of urbanr population has in- and Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan creased continuously since 1951-61 (1I) States where the rate increased Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra between 1951-61 and 1961-71 Tamil Nadu and Orissa but declined or remained con- stant thereafter f]ll) States where the rate declined Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pra- Bihar, Haryana, Punjab, or remained constant between desh, Orissa, Puniab and West Uttar pradesh and West 1951-61 and 1961-71 but in- Bengal Bengal creased thereafter (IV) States where the rate of growth Npne Tamil Nadu of urban population has in- creased continuously since 1951 Source: Table 7. Table 7), the rate increased from 2.9 rural population growth rates exceeding the disparity between the groups has to 3.9 per cent a year. Similarly, for urban population growth rates, during been declining over time: the richer Haryana, the corrected growth rate of 1951-61. There were none inl 1961-71, states, however, continue to be more 4.1 per cent is still significantly higher but there were four states with URGD, urbanised than the poorer ones by a than the -3.1 per cent for 1961-71. less than 1.0 and only one greater than significant margin. Similarly, the nar- The conclusion on the basis of Table 2.0. In the ,past decade, again, there rowing variation between rural growth 9, then, is that the definitional problems, are no states with negative URGD only rates is also striking from Table 12. of towns in the 1981 census do make one with less than 1.0 and as many as What is noticeable is that the overall a difference to the recorded growth 9 with over 2.0. The rural urban tians- population growth of the richer states rates of four or five particular states formation in all the states therefore, has been higher than that of the -- showing a much larger increase stands out with much greater clarity others, over all the three decades. The but do not alter the pattern already by considering URGD. acceleration in the urban population discussed from the grovth rate of urban growth of the poor states taken as a Population, whether it is according to URBAN GROWTH PAT-rERN group is also more apparent as a fea- the usual definition or that for towns DISAGOREGATED BY GRoups'3 OF STATES ture of the last decade. This is con- above 20,000 poDulation. The popula- All the discussion above has been at firmed by the URGD table as well. It tlon of the added towns, as a proportion the level of individual states. Although appears that urban rop A as gwth of state urban population, was 6 per an attempt has been made to provide has been rapd i P cent for Haryana, 16 per cent for UP, some interpretations of the emerging in G C and 9 per cent for Orissa. At the all- pattern it is somewhat difficult to do PATEN OF URBANISATINN BY India les el, then the difference made so given the bewildering (tho'ugh S A-rEc s O U STATY by these definitional issues is small. The decreasing) variety among states. To SuB-REcwoNS IN SELEcT STATES total population of the towns newly probe the pattern more carefully, short - The above analysis indicates that classified as such in only about 5 per of systematic econometric analysis, it is the rate of urbanisation has been most cent of the total. For some of these useful to reaggregate the states, but this rapie in the poor Group C states. they should have been classified as time into relatively homogenous groups. Since most of these states are rather towns for the first time in this census Thus, the comparatively richer states of large and wvith relatively distinct 're- and to that extent should not be re- Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and 1Miahara- gions, it is useful to disaggregate the garded as an error. The 'error' is shtra can be grouped together into pattern bv the distinct sub-regions caused by those towns, mostly in up Gioup A; Karnataka, Rajasthan, Tainil wvithin these states. The National which should have been classified as Nadu and West Bengal as 'middle in- Sample Survey has identified economnic towns in the 1971 census itself. come' states in Group B and sub-regions within states and these Table 1' tabulates the urban rural Andhra, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh. have been used by Kundu and Raza growth differential (URGD) for the Oriss2 and UP into Group C. Over (1982) as well in regional analysis. states. The speed-up in the urban;sa- half (57 per cent) of the country's These regions have, therefore, been tion experience is more evident in this rural Dopulation falls in Group C, but utilised in this studv as well. table -- since urban population growth only 38 per cent of the urban popula- The Appendix Tables A-3 and A-4 rates have increased in general while tion. Table 11 gives the level of urba- give the urban and rural populations rural growth rates have declined. Again. . nisation or the three groups along for these regions, the share of each. it is on'y Tamil Nadu which shows a with their urban and rural population region in the state, and the levels of decline: There have been significant in- shares. Table 12 gives the annual rates urbanisation in 1971 and 1981. Table 13 creases in all other states. The pro- of growth of urban, rural and total uses these data to derive growth gress over the three decades is quite population for each group and rates of total population, urban popu- remlrkrble. There' were, as many as five the URGD as we']. Frocn the lation, rural populations and the states v. ith negative URGD, i e, with leve's it is once again apparent that URGD. The growth rate for urban 9 TABLE 9; STA\TEWISE1 GRowTH OF URBAN POPULA110N EXCLUDINC NEW ,Vladl)va Pi adesh (with D urg-Bhilai TOWNS2 ADDED S 1981 and Raipur), northern Orissa (wvith 1971-19.81 *Rourkela, Sambalpur and other new industrial towns), and south-eastern Number Number Total Annual Growth Rajasthan (Kotah), are all regions *$tate of of Urban Rate which are receiving very heavy public Towns New Population -- 1981 Towns' Excluding Uncorrec- Correc- sector investmexits in industry and 1981 New ted 5 ted ' mining. Consequentlv, the growth rates Towns (Per Cent Per Year of rural population are generally very 1981 1971-1981) low. Among the others, high urban ('000)gre 1 2 3 4 5 growth in coastal Orissa is accounted ..r - ... 12-- .... -- r,1 4.- 3.- for by the rapid growth of the new Bihar 1739 30(4) 8,37 4.4 4.1 capital citv of Bhubaneshwar and of Gujarat 220 29(2) 10,389 3.5 3 4 Cuttack (though slower). Western UP Haryana 79 17(6) 2,641 4.8 4.1 is quite different, in that, it is a reg-on Karnataka 250 34(4) 10,327 4.2 3.9 more similar to Punjab and Haryana Madhya Pradesh 303 72(6) 9,956 4.6 3.9 rte hnters fU.I a a Maharashtra 276 31(2) 21,616 3.4 3.2 rather than the rest of UP. It has had Orissa 103 27(9) 2,836 5.3 4.4 low rural population growth (1.60 per Punjab 134 28(4) 4,419 3.7 3.2 cent per year, as has Punjab (1.55 per Rajasthan 195 43(7) 6,6i2 4.6 3'8 Tamil Nadu 245 18(l) 15,774 2.5 2.5 cent per year), despite quite high Uttar Pradesh (59 368(16) 16,829 4.9 .3.1 overall populaticn growth (2.31 per West Bengal 130 19(1) 14,236 2.8 2.7 cent), again similar to Punjab. India' 3007 770(5) 136,169 3.81 . 3.35 Hence, among these fast urbanising Notes I All states with 1971 population of 10 million and above. egions in these poor states, two dis- 2 Number of towns added in 1981, i e towns, not classified as such in 1971 tinct Dhenomena are observed. Rapid (including tbost classified as towns in an earlier census but not in 1971). urbanisation is taking place either be- 3 Figures in brackets give the population of new towns as a percentage of cause of major public investments in total urban population. 4 Including only the 13 states above. industry or as a result of agricultural 5 Rate of growth of total urban population in states. growth. In both cases reg onal incomes 6 Rate of growth of urban population in state but excluding new towns must he rising relatively rapidlv, creat- in 1981 and excluding 1971 towns not found in 1981 census as detailed in Appenix.ing demand for urban eoods and ser- Appendix. " So urces (1) Census of India 1981 Series i, India Paper 2 of 1981. vices. It also seems clear that, given (2) Census of India 1971 Series I, India, Part II-A(i) General Population the demand for labour. in urban areas, Tables Statement 5. page 185. rural urban rhigration takes place ruradl urbn bot - rtosptaeros parcul TABL9,10: URBAN RURAL GBowTH DIFFEBNaIAL (UROD) BY STAT-S1 readly in both - prosperous arrcul- 1951-1981 tural regions such as western UP, Puniab and Haryana. as well as a-ri- URGD tura'ly poor regions such as sou- State 1951-61 - dthe Bihar, eastern O Madhya Pradesh 1916 917 9l~Iand northern Orissa. The systematic Andhra 0.01 1.28 2.42 testing of this coniecture would have Bihar 2.43 1.93 2.55 to await the availability of the migra- Gujarat -0.76 .1.21 1.48 to aa Haryana 0.12 0.31 2.80 tion data. Karnataka -0.37 1.13 2.44 In contrast to these relatively dyna- Madhya Pradesh 2.06 1.59 2.78 mic regions, are the particularly poor Mabarashtra -0.27 1 .45 1.79 Orissa 4.87 3.19 3.91 and enerally stagnant regions such as Punjab 0.79 0.39 2.14 northern and central Bihar and eastern Rajasthan -1 .58 0.99 2.20 UP, which are geocraphically contigu- Tamnil Nadu 1 .25 1 .79 1.28 ous regions accounting for almost 100 West Bengal 0-30.0 1.03 3.93 million people. The overall rates of endia' 0.48 1.29 2.11 population growth as well as those of rural population are quite similar in rNotes: I Including all states with a population,of 10 millionl or more in 1971 but these regions. The rural ponulation excluding Kerala and Assam. growth rate is quite hi-h-about 2.0 2 Including aIJ states except Assam and Jammu & Kashmnir.grwhatisqteih-abu2. 3 Taken as the difference between ihe growth rate of total urban poplllation per cent per annum -as compared (census definittion) and rural population growth rates. with the cQuntrv as a whole. Further- Source Tables 9 and A-I more, a significant proportion of the urban growth in these regicns is be- population excluding the 1981 new highest urban growth. rhese are: the cause of the reclassification of many towns is also given. These data are Bihar southern region, the Madhya villages as towns, as is evident hv utilised to provide interpretation and Pradesh eastern region, all the Orissa comparing 'the data in columns I and better understanding of the high rates regions, the south-east in Rajastl,in 2 in Table 13. In eastern UP mediurh- of urban growth observed in these and the west and south in UP - all sized towns (all district headquarters) relatively poor states. with URGD greater than 3.0 of these, such as Baj1ia. Ghazipur. Azamngarh. This regional disag~regation is very sQuthern Bihar (vith Ranchi, Dhan- Deoria, Basti and Sultanpur, have al] useful -o focus on the regions of bad, Jamshedpur, Bokaro). eastern grown rapidly, whereas the larger 10 TABLE 11: LEVEL OF URBANISATION BY GROUPSI OF STATES experience of the 'country in the past ,, decade. Level of Urbanisation Group Group Group Share: Share: 1951 1961 1971 1981 Urban Rural V Population Population . n () Urbani(aton il India 1981 1981 An Interpretation Group A 26.3 25.8 28.0 31.7 28.0 19.0 Group B 24.7 25.2 27.2 30.3 33.7 24.4 The recently published 1981 census Group C 11.7 12.3 13.9 17.5 38.3 56.7 results show a significant acceleration India2 18.9 19.7 21.8 25.6 100.0 100.0 in the rate of growth of urbap popu- Por,iilation covered lation in India during the decade (millions) 143 455 1971-1981. compared to what wvas * ~ ." - ~ob.prved in the previous two decades. Notes: 1 Grotup A: G:ijarat, Haryana, Punjab, Malharashtra. Group B1 Karnataka, R-ijasthan, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal. This paper has attempted to describe Groun C, Andhra, Bihar, Madbya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh. and document this process of urban 2 Only including above 13 states. growth in some detail. An acsessment of past experience has also been made TABLE 12: PATTERN OF URBANISATION BY GROUPS OF STATES. 1951-1981 in relation to the most Tlecent trends. Given India's size and diversity, any Annual Growth Ratc of Urban Annual Growth Rate of discussion of urbanisation would be Population(2) Rural Populition incomplete without a regional perspec- 1951-61 1961-71 1971-81 1951-61 1961-71 1971-81 tive. This becomes evi,dent in the dis- cussion of the urbanisation exoierience Group A 1.07 3.31 3.55 2.33 2.16 1.75 of different states and regions. W\hile Group B 218 3.01 3.23 1.93 1.94 1 69 Group C 2.23 3.27 4.57 1.64 1.84 1:75 the paper has emphasised 'description India3 2.33 3.26 3.85 1.89 2.00 1.75 and documentation of the data, vari- URGD Annual Growth Rate of Total ous intrepretations have also been of- Popul:tion fered on the likely determinants of I -0 - - the emerging pattern. Group A -0.26 1.15 1.80 2.26 2.47 2.28 th emrig atrn Group B 0.25 1.07 1.54 1.99 2.22 2. 13 It has sometimes been argued that Group C 0.59 1.43 2.82 1.71 2.02 2:19 urbanisation in India has been un- I .1i a3 0.48 1.29 2.11 1.93 2.20 2.23 usually rapid during the recent years. Nos: note - to Tabl- -. While the 1981 census does show that 2 InclsS ing pI toulation of all towns. the rate of growth of urban popula- 3 Inchlding all States cxcept Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. tion during 1971-81 was significant- ly higher than that in 1961-71 and *--earlier, this rate is still slolv when cities cf Allahabad. Gorakhpur. Vara- than. The most striking feature is the compared with the urban s lrowth in na.,i and Faizabad. have all been re- v'erv high rate of overall population most other developing countrieso Thus lativelv staaerant. The level of urbani- 9,ro.wth in all the reeions. The URG mt anxieties resulting rom a perceived s 1lon is still quite low in these re- is low in the west and south: high urban explosion are somewhat exag- gions: 6 per cent in noirthern Bihar, rates of urban population erowth a're grtd e nte erta a 10 per cent in eastern UP. and about then mainly due to the bigh popula- been expressed results from, the alle- 14prcn ncnrlBhr(hc stion growth rate rather than the rural gedly increasing dysfunctional or lop- doinh atedo ibyatniatio inthesrelatiely. urban transformation. The western sided nature of the size distribution high rate of urbanisation in these areas region has the highest rate of overall of urban areas. The fact that the is accompanied by high rates of rural noTulation growth of 3.1 Per cent, pr urban population resid- population growth. It seems fairly This is verv surprisinz, since thbi re- ing in class I cities has increased clear, then. that whatever urbanisaticn is takin s place here is of the 'rural - continuously is usually cited. in sup- push' vanieth': the high rural growth porahle in hut and on port of this contention. Onse of the ura wwhich is afflicted wvith repeated impoftant points that emerges from also indicates that were olportunities droughts. Yet, it shows the hifhert t an of inothis paper is reoionb emptoymen atveaso e ins s rateual oru1 o"nrion growtha of that India has had a very stable struc- The veryghis rates of rural u'l' 2.8 oer cent Part of the exnlanation ture of settlements so that nost of the mi-ration ,can be expected, lies in the irrivation extended by the The most significant differences bei urban growth has been because of the tween the 'corrected' and Uicorrectedg Raestba crnalding sathin, rtemtain enlargement of existing towns at urban !-t-ulaficn 2rouwtb rates are in puzzlet andteserve deailedst udyrman every level and not so much becatise UJP. The rate of crouth of towns of addition of new towns. With such exclud'n'i new towns is low in all UJP The- pattern that has emer?ed from a pattern of growth it would be reQion,- except the southern region. this regional disagglregation has illu- inevitable for th e Proportion Of The largest amount of reclassificat,on ininated further the pattern that wvas ulrban population in towns above any of villages into towns took place in emerg;ng from the state-wise analvsis, cut-off point to increase continuously, the prosptorous wetr Prgo. The next, concluding, section, attempts even if all towns were growing at h Amonq the remaining regions, a few to bring together all these observa- same rate. comments need to be made on Rajas- tions in interpreting the urbanisat.on In other words, tie observation that 11 TAB,LE 13: PATI~N OF URBANISATION BEGIONALLY DisAGcG AEDA IN of Delhi from 4.6 per cent a year to SELBcmD STAT.Es, 1971-81 3.6 per cent, then the rate of growth (Annual Rates of Population Growth per cent per year) of population in surrounding towns wouL!d have to be increased, Stt n einUrban Rrl Ttl UG from 5.8 per cent per year to about StateandtRgion'Rural Total URGD4 8.5 per cent: clearly a tall order. _________________________________________________ W hat as more relevant perhap)s, is Biharthat greater public infrastructure in- Southern .8 46 .0 21 1 vsmn hudb aei hs Sortherni 4.28 4.61 1.601 2.13 3.01 vreastmen shouldbe madte hinh gothes Cnothrnl 3.64 4.54 2.01 2.15 2.536 tarehas to lrovideyo thken pigh groth Central 3.9 428a.9e2.0 .3 thate shasulread ltaken place.o Btha Mastern Pr2 540 13ades0 htwol av n plaleefc InadEastern 4.92 5.40 1.3 1.8 4 3 4.035 hr hudb itl luin ta Inland Veastern 3.75 4.80 1.83 2.35 2.3.05 that wouldh havte any ropalptabl efcity Wentand 3escr2406 34.6 2 .83 2.453 2.83 enthe got o h etooitnct Westbern 3,20 3.64. 1.92 2.453 1.45 iTself. 'si fcnssdtaa h NOrthern 3.1 48s.2 24.0 thte anaseisofa census devata at ther Corassal40 4 ,5 I 39 Coastalr 4.(7 5.14 1.38 161 3593 wtate rande regiontalslevel urevals aevery Northern 4.94 5.76 1.29 1.77 '4.4 lopment. Generally, the ;e1atively .Rajast han Western 3. ~7 4. 16 2.84 3.11I 1 .32 Poorer states of Andhra Pradesh, N Eastern 3 92 4.81 2.19 2.73 2,62 Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Southern 3 .5 4 4.21 2.52 2. 71 1 .69 UJttar Pradesh have experienced faster S Eastern 4.00 5.39 2..20 2. 76 3. 19 rates of growth of urban ')opulation. Uttar Pr-adesh weesterce ttshv hw Himalayan 2 96 4.68 1 .88 2.34 2.80 weesterce ttshv hw Western 2 5.05 1.60 2.31 3.45 slower growth rates. In fact, the old Centr-al 3 10 4.41 1 .77 2.27 2 04 industrially advanced states of West Eastrn 297 494 .01 .28 .83 Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, Sout'hern i.52 5.57 1.89 240 3.68 each domina'ed by a relatively slow iVotes: I Se-,- Appeadix for details on regions. growing metropolitan city, have re- 2 Annuatl growth rate calculated for increase in urban population bctw(.en corded the lowest urban growth rates. 1971 & 1981 excluding new towns in 1981. The poor states were disaggregated 3 Annual growth rate calculated for increase in urban population bL.tween inosbrgost etraayeth 1971 & 1981 including all townis in 1981. higho growtherates tobsterve arys the 4 Urb,::n Rurn.1 Growt~h Diffcrential.hilgrwhats oevdfrte states as a whole. it is found( that it ain increasing proportion of the cities and towns have different rates, is possible to identify two distinct urban population is in larger size buit no generalisations seem possible pat ems in the; regions where urban cities is merely a reflection of a stable on aLny relationship between rates of population is growing most rapidly. settlement structure, where tLere has growth and city size. As mentioned Very heavy public investment in indus- been a progressive'accretion to exist- above, the proportion of -urban popu- try and mining would appear to be ing settlements of all sizes whlich are lation residing in large cities has in- the driving force in some of these well spread out spatially. In such a creased because the number of cities fast growing regions: in southern situation, where thea need for new regarded as large has been growing. Bihar (J3anchi, Dhanbad, Bokaro) andt setlements is not evident, fears of the Secondly, at the level of specific eastern Madhya Pradesh (Durgapur, size distribution of urban area5 seem- cities, it is allso not true, in general, Bhilai, Raipur) for example, in other inisplaced - except, perhaps, in some that the largest cities have expanded fast-growing regions, the important areas which are indeed lackingI in a much faster than the towns in their reasons seem to be sustained agri- good distribution of urban settle- hinterland (except Bangalore). Indeed, cultural development: in western UP ments. again except for Bangalore, the growth f or instance. The slowver growing Much has often been made,-about. of the largest cities has been about regions in the vast northern Gangetic the alleged faster growth of big cities the same or slower than in the previ- plain stretching from eastern UP as compared with smaller towns. The ous decade. Ithrough northern Bihar are suffering implicit idea is that such a pattern is The growth of Delhi has continued from, low agricultural growvth along undesirable and suggestions have of- to be high though comparable to the with liittle indus~rial growth as well. ten been made on how this pattern past. Thus the suggestions for in- Although these regions nave slower should 'be checked or reversed. One creased investment in towns in the Na- growth as compared to the other of the, suiggestions made in thisq con- tional Capital Region wvith the Purpose regions in these states, the growth text is that steps should be taken to ofdvrigepce irto o rates are still high as compared with encourage urban growtin in towns Delhi have recently gathered force. other states. .,urrounding the big cities: -what is This has been examined in detail The analysis of the data examincd usually referred to as the development hiere. It is observed that the hinter- above suggests a somewhat disturbing of counter-magnets to the ljarge cities. land of Delhi is already growing at scenario emerging over the past decade. This issue has been examined in some very high rates in terms ot urban As mentione~d earlier, there is a g-ene- detail in this paper. population so that a further accelera- ral decline in the rate of rural poulation First, it is simply not true that big tion in population growth 'rates may growth. In the agriculturally, advanced cities are growing at rates significantly well be infeasible. In fact, if it is . t;;tvs :his is probably because of the higher than smaller cities. Different desired to reduce the rate of gr'oiwth fami'iar chain of events from incera- 12 TABLE A.1: STATWSEz Gzowrm oF RuRAL POPULATODN IN INDIA, 1951-1981 Hence the acceleration of urbanisa.tiOn seems to be the rcsult of a push from Annual Rate of Growth of Rural Population rural areas. Because of the low base State, (per cent per year) of existing urban population, a smaM 1951-61 1961-71 1971-81 decline in labour demand in rural areas causes a large proportional Andhra Pradesh 1.46 1.68 1.60 change in population in urban areas. Bihar 1.64 1.78 1 .89 Given the large size of these Group C Gujarat 2.61 2.29 2.00 Haryana 2.93 2.78 1.96 states, the absolute magnitude of ur- Karnataka 2.06 1.93 1.73 ban population is also large - about Madbya Pradesh 1.92 2.31 1.77 55 million people. Hence, unless there Maharashtra 2.22 2.03 1 .00 is significant productivity change in Orissa 1.58 2.03 1.43 andfon Punjab 1 .79 l.89 1. 55 agriculture in these areas, and one 7Rijisthan 2.63 2.32 2.42 that is labour-using, this trend can be 'Tami INada 0.81 1.53 1.20 expected to be magnified over the U3ttar Pradesl 1 .65 1 .68 1.81 ,ext deca e. West Beiigal 3.023 5next decade. Wete2 a 2.80 2.37 1.85 I ndia 1.89 2.00 1.75 The evidence from Punjab and Votes: I InCiLding all states with a PoPulition of 10 million or more in 1971 ex- liaryana indicates that technological cluding Kerala and Assam. change might increase the demand 2 Including all states e0rcept Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. for agricultural labour in the first in- stance, but with the income increases TABLE A.29 LEVEL1 OF URBANISA'ION vq SrATES2 1951-1981 and mechanisation, this might not continue for long. Hence the combi- Population of All Towns Population of Towns naonfdend plintercr as Percentage of Total above 20,000 oilly as nation of demand pull in the richer Stat Percentage of Total. Group A states and the push in Group State-- C states would appear to have caused 1951 1961 1971 1981 1951 1961 1971 1981 the noted acceleration in urbanisation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 in the last decade; the same pheno- - mena could accelerate it further in Andhra Pradesh 17.4 17.4 19.3 23.3 10.8 13.2 16.0 21.1 the coming decade. Serious attention, Bihar 6.8 8.4 10.0 12.5 4.9 6:5 8,0 10.9 has to be paid, therefore, to the gene- Gujarat 27.2 25.8 28.1 31.1 183 20.4 22.5 26.7 ration of employment in urban areas H-aryana 17.0 17.2 17.7 22.0 10.9 12.5 13.9 18.1 fothinrang umeofppl Karnataka 22.9 22.3 24.3 28.9 13.4 15.6 18.2 23.9 or the increasing number of people M disya Pradesh 12.0 14.3 16.3 20.3 7.7 9.7 12.2 15.7 who will tend to be pushed out from Miharashtra 28.8 28.2 31.2 35.0 20.7 23.8 27.7 32.2 the rural areas - either because of POijab 4.1 6.3 8:4 11.3 2.1 3,5 6.0 9.0 iromiserisation or because of techno- PUnjab 21.7 23.1 23.7 27.7 14.5 17.4 18.5 22.4 io Sic ange. RTJaitlNan 18.5 16.3 17.6 2J.9 10.3 10.8 12.9 16.5 logical change. Tami' NadU 24.4 26.7 30.3 33.0 13.0 21.0 26.3 29.9 UJttar Pradesh 13.6 12.9 14.0 18.0 9.4 10.6 11.9 13.8 Apni:Dtie oe oTbe West 1Bengal 23.8 24.5 24.7 26.5 21.4 22.3 229ppendix: etailed otes to Tabl5es Ind.ia 17.6 18.3 20.2 23.7 12.3 14.5 16.9 20.5 Details of Towns Omitted in Table Note.s: 1 Ur6an n m)P.lition as prop-artion of total Popalation. 3, 4, 7: 2 1 i tliiing ll ttzt's w.th total PaPulation greater than 10 million in 1971 3 DTlili agdll a nd Assam. The populations of Assam and L3--1 .L- lill g 3113 ex-,jl Assam and Jammu & KishmirT Jammu & Kashmir are not available ses in agriculttural productivity to ac- healthy phenomenon,. The increases in yet. There seems to have been a ma- celerated urbanisation. An increase in income can also, in principle, pay for ior redefinition of towns and cities in agricultural productivity causes in- the infrastructure costs of urbanisa- Kerale mn towns col not abet comes to rise; increases in incomes tion. The disturbing parr of the pat- hence many towns could not be trac- cause greater demand for non-food tern is what seems to be taking place ed in the 1981 Census. The remaining goods as well as services which are in the Group C states. There hs towns in other states were either based characteristically in urban (large been a iemarkable decline in the those whicvh have mergced with bigger or small) area; the latter causes growth of rural population in 1itie9 or have been declassified in the greater demand for labour in urban Madhya Prade-h and Orissa and a areas; and hence accelerated urbanisa- marginal decline in Andhra. Bihar Towns that have benri omitted in tion takes place. Simultaneously, me- and UP record marginal increases in each class according to 1971 census chanisation makes it easier for this rural growth rates but these two increased urban demand for labour to states haxe had significantly higher (i) Cass I: Sr;aagar (J&K) Gau- be satisfied and, moreover, creates total population growth rates as com- hati (Assam) and Jammu (T&K) considerable demand for repair servi- pared to earliar decades. With the (3 cities). ces and small manufacturing. e-!iaub tion of land that can be (ii) Class II: Dibrugarh, Jorhat, This chain of events is the familiar brought into additicnal cultivation Nowgong, Tinsukia and Silchar industrialisation - urbanisation phe- and with low increases in producti- (Assam) (5 towns). nomeonoi. that has been observed all v'ity, the agricultural incomes in these (iii) Class III: Tezpur, Dhubri, Ka- over the world since the industrial states are not rising; nor can additio- rimganf, Lumding, Sibsagar, revolution - and is in some sense a nal labour be absorbed as in the past. Barpeta Bongaigaon, Hojai and 18 TABLE A.3: UnBAN AND RuIAL. PopuLATIoNs or SuB-REGioNs XN Sx towns). STATEs, 197J.-1981 (iv) Class IV: 24 towns in Assam, (millions) 3 in I & K. Rur)1 PpulaionUrba Po~ulaionKerala: Nlarakkal (Ernakulum State/Region' Rur_d_Populatio Urban___Po__ulat__on District), Balaramapuram, Kova- 1971 1981 1971 1971 1jam (Trivandrum Distt.), ~Etta- Uncorrec- Corrected' inanoor, Ponkunnarn, Kundak- - .- - ___ted 2 kayyam (Kotyanam), Kadalundi, Biha - --. - - -- --Elathur (Kozhikode), Pazhanii Southern 12.0 10 228 35 346(Trichur), Manleshwar (Canna- Northern 20.7 14.0 .0 17 3.46 note), Nenmmara, Mannarghat, Central 18.0 21.8 2.26 3 .42 3.32 Pattamabi (Palghat), Pandalam Madlzya P,-adesh(Alpe)Kedr Qio. Eastern 11.3 13.0 1.28 2.16 2.07 TamlleNpey) Vendar,an(Q ri on). Inland Eastern 6.3 7.5 1.10 1.77 1.59 TmlNd:Vl.,Snai(a Inland Western 5.6 6.7 1.39 2.19 2.07 lem), Vellakoil, Sir'umugai Western 7.0 8.7 2.08' 2.97 2.86 (Coiinibatore), Manimuthar (Ti- Northern 4.7 5.7 (0.94 1.50 1. 34 runelvali). Orissa Kraaa hvli hra Coastal 9.4 11.0 0.89 1.47 1 .3 33Kraaa hvli hra Southern 3.6 4.1 0.24 0.40 0.35 Udayavar (all in South Canara Northern 7.1 8.1 0.71 1.23 1.15 District).' Rajasthan vaaahr:Pplan-Bs Westerni 6.0 7.9 1.47 2 21 2.09Marsha: ipgon- a- North Eastern 9.5 11 .8 2.22 3.55 3 .26 vant (Nasik), Bhayndar, Shirgaon Southern Eastern 2.7 3 .3 0.50 0.84 0.74 (Thane). Southern .1 3.9 0.36 (1.55 0.51 Ballabgarh (Gurgaon, Haryana), Uttar PradeshRanaa CAiprl,B1-r) Himalayan 3.3 3.9 0.56 0.89 0.75 R~aa Caprr,Bl~~ Western 25.6 30.0 5.72 9.36 7.38 Sidugeraila (Guntur, Andhra Central 13,0 15.5 21.74 4.21 3.72 Pradesh). E-astern 30.4 37.1 2.74 4. 4 3 3.67 (v) Class V: 25 towns in Assam; Southern 3.7 4.4 0.63 1.08 0.89 14 in J & K. Notes : I See Appendix for details on regions. Bihar: Mohania (Rohitas), Mano- 2 Urban population including all towns. harpur (Singhbhuma) Domachanch, 3 Urban popuilation excluding new towns. Koda rna (Hazaribagh), Barharr- TABLE A-4: LEviEL oF URBANzsA-rIoN REGIONALLY DiSAGGIEEGAT-ED flq wa (Santhal Parganas), B3ihta SLETEDr ci STATE.s, 1971-1981 (Patna), and Nanikum (Ranchi). ______________________________________________Gujarat: Dhansura (Sabarken- Level of Urbanisation Share of Share of tha), Vasad (Kheda), Nakhatra- State./Region1 Region in Region in mna (Kutch), Junadee-sa, Varahi 1971 1981 State's- State's Bhabhamnava (Banaskantha). - Urban Rural Uncorrec- Correc- Population Population Maharashtra: Sadashivgad, Patan ted' ted' 1981 .1981 (Sadashivgad), Vani (Nasik), Bilhar 10.0 12.5 100. 0 100.0 Radi (Ratnagiri). 9outhern 16.0 20.3 19.7 41.0 22.9 West Bengal: Haripal (Hooghly), -Northern 5.0 6.3 5.8 19.7 41.4 Katagoani and Gokulpur Govern- Central 11.0 13.6 13.2 39.3 35.7 mnent Colony (Nadia) (mnerged Madhzya Pradesh 16.3 20.3 100.0 100.0 wt aehu) asijpr Eastern 10.1 14.2 13.7 20.4 31.3 wt aehu) asijpr Inland Eastern 15.0 19.1 17.1 16.8 18.1 dha (Howrah). Inland Western 19.9 24.6 23.3 20.7 16.1 Tamil Nadu: Ithalar (Nilgiri), Siruga- Westemn 23.0 25.5 24.6 28.0 20.9 Northern 16.7 20.9 18.7 14.1 13.7 mani, Iluppur (Tiruchirapalli), Orissa 8.4 11.8 100.0 100.0 H-ighways (Madurai), Samnika- Coastal 8.7 11.8 10.7 47.4 47.3 prm(aaahprm,Pna Southern 6.4 8.8 7.9 12.8 17.8 pturall (Ra ianbathapram),una Northern 9.0 13.2 12.3 30.8 34.9 Uhkli(obtr) aashn17.6 20.9 100.0 100.0 Mvadhya-PiladeQh: Johilla Clir Western 19.7 21 .8 20.7 30.9 29.3 (Shandol), Sarseu' (Chattarpur), North Eastern 18.9 23.0 21.2 49.7 43. Dungaria Chapparia (Seoni). Southern 10.6 12.3 11 .4 7.7 14.5 Kantk:Ta gode(naor) South Eastern 15.7 20.3 17.8 11.8 12. 3 Kantk:T mgode(nalr) Uttar Pradesl: 14.0 18.0 100.0 100.0 Pranthya (D. Kannad), Turuvan- Himalayan 14.7 18.4 15.6 4.4 4.3 nur (Chitr-odurga). Western 18.3 22,8 18.8 46.9 33.0 ITP: Kaila (Ghaziabad), Rustamnagar Central 17.4 21.4 18.9 21.1 17.0 (oaaa) Eastern 8.2 10.7 8.8 22.2 40.9 (oaaa) Southern 14.7 19.9 16.4 5.4 4.8 Kerala: Kazhakuttam, Chirayinkil (Tri- Notes : 1 See Appendix for details on regions. vnrm) okm(ohkd) 2 Urban population including all towns. Perintalmnanna' (Malappuram), 3 Urban population excluding new towns of 1981. Kumbla (Cannanore), Wadak- kancherry (Trichur), Hemnabika- N Lakhimpur (Assa-m). Nemmon, Nileshwar, Kannain- nagar (Palghat). Sopore, Anantnag and Baramula kulam, Kanjirapally (Kerala). A P: Chittivalasa (Vishakhapatm). (J&K) Kilikoloor, Kanhangad, Rajpura Township (Pun jab) COrissa: Gobindpur (Sa abalpuir). Haripad, Pantalayani, Payanoor, (maerged with Rajoura) (22 Punjab: Tankanwale (Ferozepur). 14 Haryana: Toshaim (Hissar). Mirzapur, Allahabad, ?ratapgarh. mastipur +Madhibanitt), Mu- (84 towns). Sout-hern Region: Banda, Hamir- zaffarpur (+Sitamarshi + Vai- pur, Jalaun, Jhansi**, sbli)ft, Champaran, Saran (+ Details of Town Included in the (B) Rajasthan Siwam+Gopalganj)tt. Hinterland of Big Cities -- Table 6: Western Region: Jhunjhunu, Sihar, CenLtral Region: Bhagalpur, Mon- All class I, II and III towns within Churu, Bikaner, Jalor, Jaisal- ghyr (+Begtisarai)tt, Siaharsa, a radius of about lOOkm straight line mer, Jodhpur, Barmer, Nagaur. Patna (+Nalarxda)tt, 'Gaya distance of the metropolitan cities were North Eastern Region: Ganga- (+Nanda+Auiangabad)tt, Saha- included in the definition of hinterland. nagar, Alwar, Bharatpur, Sawai, bad (+Bhoipur+Rohtas)tt, Details by city are: Madhopur, Jaipur, Tonk, Bhil- **c ar 1981 Census, Rajnarndgaon w.s carved outfrom Palr. li) Calcutta: Kharagpur, Nabawdip, wara, Ajrner, Bhopal district was separated Habra, Balrkura, Ranaghat, Southern Region: Banswara; from Sehore district for the 1981 Basirhat, Bangaon, Chakdaha, Dungarpur, Udaipur, Sirohi. census. SE Rein bla,Kt,Bn tDistricts created after the 1971 Contai, Ghatal, Baduria, Tamluk, Region: Jhawar, Kota, Bun- census and included in the 1981 Gobardaciga, Baruipura, Taki, di, Chitorarh census have been indicated in Ta,.akeshwar, Kalna, Burdwan, (C) Madhya Pradesh the brackets against the districts K,'jpur. Eastern Region: Surguja, Rajgarh, from weich they have been carv- (2) Bombay: Ulhasnagar, Thano, Bilasptr, Raipur, Durg***, Bala Vasai, Panvel, Bhiwandi, Kh,)- ghat, Bastar. Notes poli. Inland Eastern Region: Sidhi, [The views expressed in this article (3) De!hi: Ghaziabad, Modinagar, Rewa, Satna, Panna, Jabalpur, are those of the authors, and should Meeriit, Hapur, Bulundshahar, Shahdol, Mandla, Seo. not be attributed to the l'lanning hura. Alkar, Faridabad, Inland Western Region: Damoh, -,ommission, The authors are grateful Rohtak. Sonepat, Gurgaon, baha- Sagar, Vidhisha, Sehoret Raisen, to Pradip Ghosh for alle research Narsimnhapm, Chindwara, Ho- assistance.] durgarh. sangabad, Bentul. 1 Census of India 1971. India Series (4) Madras: Vellore, Kanchipuram, Western Region: Mandsaur, Raj- 1, Report of the Expert Conmmittee Arcot, Gudiyatham, Arani, garh, Shajapur, Ujjain, Ratlam, of Population Projection-s, Paper 1 Chengalpattu, Tindivanam, Tiru- JhaDar Inoe Des, 2of 1979. pati, Chittor. Srikalahazti. K hargn (West Nir; Khand' All India figures in this paper will Kharon (est imar, Khnd- refer to India excluding Tammu (5) Baolgalore: Kolar G R, Tumkur, wa (East Nimar). and Kashmir and Assam, since the Mandya, Kolar, Ramanagran, Northern Region: Chatarpur, data on states are not available Ch3nnapatra, Chikballapur, Chen- Bhind, Tikamgarh, Gwalior, yet. tanamani, Doddballapur, Kanaka- Morena, Shivpuri, Guna, Datia& 3 Only Chinate. Brazil, Japan, the United States and the Soviet Union pure, Hindupur, Gudiyathem, (D) Osissa have urban populations greater Ambur, Tirupattur, Krishangiri, Coastal Region: Balasore, Cuttack, than 50 million people. Pernambat, Hosur, Jolerpat, Puri, Ganjam. 4 For a good discussion of defini- Vaniyambadi. tional problems in the classification y in the 1981 Census, Ghaziabad of settlements as 'town' in the (6) l-yd2rabad: Warangal, Mahbub- district was carved out from Meerut Indian Census, see Bose (1981), nagar, Nalgonda, Surapet, Tan- and Bulandshehar. chap'er 1. dur, Dhongir, R'Puram, Narayan- ** Jhansi distfict was divided into 5 International data taken from Narayanpet. Lalitpur and Jhansi districts after -Wor'd Bank (1981), Tables 18 and 1971. 20. Details of Regions in Selected States Southern Region: Randh-Khond- 6 URGD Intermational data taken (District;: mal, Kalahandi, Koraput. from Renaud (1979). (A) Uttar Pradesh Northern Region: Mayurbhani, 7 But about 500 towns were added Himalayan Region: Pithoragarh, Keonjhar, Sundargarh, Sambal- at the same time which hade not Chamoli, Uttarkashi Dehradun, pur, Dhenkanal, Bolangir. been classified as towns eadlier. Tehri Garhwal, Garhwal, Al- (E) Bihar 8 That this could make a signifi- ore Ga, cant cdifference isevident from the mora, Nainital. Southern Region: Santhal Par- fact that, in 1971. there were ac Western Region: Saharanpur, Mu- ganas, Dhanbad, Hazaribagh, many as 55 million people resid- za1Parnagar. Bijnor, Meerut* Mo- (+ Giridih), Palaman, Ranchi, ing in settlements lassified as radabad, Bulandshahar, Rampur, Singhbhum. rural but with populations greater Bareilly, Pillibhit, Shahjahanpur, Northern Region: Purnea ( - Ka- about half the total urban popu- Budaun, Aligarh, Mathura, Etah, thihar)tt, Darbanga (+ Sa- lation in the country in 1971. Of Manipuri, Farrukhabad, Etawah, Agra. POPULATION OF HINTERLAND TOWNS Central Region: Kheri, Sitapur, 1981 1971 Decade Growth Rate Hardoi, Lucknow, Barabanki, flaebareli, Unnao, Fatehpur, Calcutta 13,77,493 1,021,385 34.86 Kanpur. Bombay 1,273,457 7,74,952 64.33 Eastern Region: Bahraich, Gonda, Delhi 2,072,871 1,176,191 76.24 Bat,Grlhu,Doi,BIi, Madras 972,492 727,878 33.01 Basti, GBrakhpur, Deoria, Ballia, Bangalre 1,127,269 887,630 39 58 Azamgarh, Faizabad, Sultanpur, Hyderabad 641,596 390.39 64.10 Jaunpur, Ghaziabad, Varanasi, 15 these, about 22 wnillion lived in References [8] M K Premi, D B Gupta and 1,358 villages with a population Amitabh Kundu, 'The Concept greater than 10,000 (15 million [1] Ashish Bose, "India's Urbani*- of TUrban Areas in the 1961-1971 in Kerala alone) and the rest in tion: 1901-2001" New Delhi: Ce.sus', in Ashish Bose, D B about 5,000 villages in the 5,000- Tata McGraw Hill, 1978. Gupta and G Raychauthuri, 10,000 size range. [2] Census of India 1971, India "Population Statistics in India", 9 Reproduced in Mohan (1981). Series I, Report of the Expert New Delhi: Vikas Publications, 10 These co-efflcients of variation for Committee on Population Pro- 1977. urban population growth are cal- jections - Paper I of 1979, New [9] Samuel Preston, 'Urban Growth culated for the growth of towns Delhi, 1977. in Developing Countries: A above 20,000 only (columns 4, 5, 6 [3] Census of India 1971, India, Demographic Reappraisal', Popu- in Table 7) to avoid the variations Series 1, Part II A (1) General Iatioti and Development Review, due to low and definitional prob- Population Tables, New Delhi, Volume 6, No 2, June 1979. lems. 1975. 11 Including Bhutan, Nepal and .] Census of -India, 1981, India, [I 0]'Bertrand Renaud, "Natio~nal Bangladesh. Series I, Provisional Population Urbanisation Policies in Deve- 12 The co-efficient of variation in the Tables, Para 2 of 1981, New loping Countrie-s", Washnington levels of urbanisation is taken for Delhi. 1981. D. C: World Bank Staff Working levels according urban population [5] I3I K Jain, "Interstate Variations Paper No 347, 1979. in towns above 20,000 as before in the Trends of Urbanisation in L11] Udai Sekhar, '4fndustrial Loca- colulmns 5, 6, 7, 8 in Table A-2). India 1951-1971". Bombay- Inter- lion Policy: The Indian Ex- 1 SttsiGruAarthswih national Institute of Population perierice", Washington D C: pe1 apt StatesiGru Dome testi Prduth Studies, 1977. W6rld Bank Urban and Regional, per )aita State Dome stic Prduct r6 Rakesh Mohan, "Contribution of Economic Division (Mimeo) (SD) b-ve h- al tat aerge Research and Extension to Pro- 1981. SDP (i e Rs 1,107 in 1976-78) by ductivity Change in Indian Ag* 10 per cent or more. States in culture", ECO?2zomzic and Politticl [12] J N Sinha, '1981 Census Econo- in Group B have per capita SDP Weekly. Volume IX, No 39, Re- mic Data: A Note', Economic centering around a ten per cent view of Agriculture, September and Political Weekly, VVlume range of the all-state average SDP, 1974 17. No 6, pp 195-203, Feb"uary and states in Group C have a per [7] Rakesh Mohan. 'Urban Policies 6, 1982. cap;', SDP which is below te and Growth Trends: An Analy- [13] World Bank, World Development states' average SDP by more than sis'. Urban India, Volume I, No 1 Report 1981, New York, Oxford ten per cent. September 1981. University Prtss, 1981. 16 No. 274. Ron Duncan and Ernst Lutz, "Penetration of Industrial Country Markets by Agricul- tural Products from Developing Countries," World Development No. 275. Malcolm D. Bale, "Food Prospects in the Developing Countries: A Qualified Optimistic View," The American Economic Review (with Ronald C. Duncan) and "World Agricultural Trade and Food Security: Emerging Patterns and Policy Direc- tions," Wisconsin International Law Jounial (with V. Roy Southworth) No. 276. Sweder van Wijnbergen, "Interest Rate Management in LDCs," Journial of Monetary Economics No. 277. Oli Havrylyshyn and Iradj Alikhani, "Is There Cause for Export Optmism? An Inquiry into the Existence of a Second Generation of Successful Exporters," Welfwirt- schzaftliches Archiv No. 278. Oli Havrylyshyn and Martin Wolf, "Recent Trends in Trade among Developing Countries," European Economnic Review No. 279. Nancy Birdsall, "Fertility and Economic Change in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Europe: A Comment," Population and Developmenit Review No. 280. Walter Schaefer-Kehnert and John D. Von Pischke, "Agricultural Credit Policy in Developing Countries," translated from Handbuch der Landwirtschaft und Ernihrunlg in den Entwicklungslfindern (includes original German text) To. 281. Bela Balassa, "Trade Policy in Mexico," World Developmelnt No. 281a. Bela Balassa, "La politica de comercio exterior de Mexico," Comercio Exterior No. 282. Clive Bell and Shantayanan Devarajan, "Shadow Prices for Project Evaluation under Altemative Macroeconomic Specifications," The Quarterly Jouirnal of Economics No. 283. Anne 0. Krueger, "Trade Policies in Developing Countries," Handbook of International Economics No. 284. Anne 0. Krueger and Baran Tuncer, "An Empirical Test of the Infant Industry Argument," Amnerican Economic Review No. 285. Bela Balassa, "Economic Policies in Portugal," Economia No. 286. F. Bourguignon, G. Michel, and D. Mique&., "Short-run Rigidities and Long-run Adjustments in a Computable General Equilibrium Model of Income Distribution and Development," Journal of Developmnent Economics No. 287. Michael A. Cohen, "The Challenge of Replicability: Toward a New Paradigm for Urban Shelter in Developing Countries," Regional Development Dialogue No. 288. Hbllis B. Chenery, "Interaction between Theory and Observation in Development," World Development No. 289. J. B. Knight and R. H. Sabot, "Educational Expansion and the Kuznets Effect," The American Economic Review No. 290. Malcolm D. Bale and Ulrich Koester, "Maginot Line of European Farm Policies," The World Econom,y No. 291. Danny M. Leipziger, "Lending versus Giving: The Economics of Foreign Assistance," VVbrld Developnent No. 292. Gregory K. Ingram, "Land in Perspective: Its Role in the Structure of Cities," World Congress on Land Policy, 1980 No. 293. Rakesh Mohan and Rodrigo Villamizar, "The Evolution of Land Values in the Context of Rapid Urban Growth: A Case Study of Bogota and Cali, Colombia," WAorld Conigress on Land Policu, 1980 No. 294. Barend A. de Vries, "International Ramifications of the Extemal Debt Situation," 7The AMEX Bantk Review Special Papers