Dynamics of Urbanization and Development:

Lessons from India’s emerging urban cities

-Aviral Marwal
Abstract - India is today facing twin challenges of growth and development. While the former is
more quantitatively defined, the latter is more qualitative and requires more analytical framework
to understand. Inspite of their crucial differences, they are interchangeably used to describe any
phenomena, Urbanization is once such. When today there is much focus on development, we
need to understand what causes it and what does not. In about 15-20 years India will see a
major jump in its urban habitations. The rural will be less urban and the less urban will be more
urbanized. But will they be more developed? The central question we have raised is that does
urbanization leads to development. To answer this we have examined the dynamics between
the two through a detailed study based on empirical methodology. We have found that
urbanization is not a substitute of development. Based on the findings we have also prescribed
some policy recommendations for the urban planners and analyst.
Keywords: Growth, Development, Urbanization
Introduction
India is expected to be 60% urbanized from current level of 33% by 2050 (Ministry of Urban
Development, Government of India). This statement makes one to believe that 50% of Indians
will be more prosperous and have improved quality of life than the rest 50%. This very belief has
a basis in our perception of urbanization. Before we analyze this belief we need to understand
the conceptual meaning of word urban and development.
As per Census of India, a geographical area is said to be urban if it fulfills 3 conditions: First,
having a density of more than 400 persons per km. Second, more than 75% of its male
population to be employed in non-farm activities, and third, having a total population of more
than 5000. As per 2011 census 33% of India’s geographical region qualify this criteria and thus
said to be urban. Thus we can say that an important characteristic feature of an urban region is
that the workers there are engaged in secondary and tertiary activities. Any geographical setting
which doesn’t qualify this definition will be called non-urban or rural. Urbanization thus becomes
a process of movement of people from the non-urban to urban areas. One important distinction
we need to make here is between urbanization and city population growth. While the former is
influenced by migration of people from rural to urban areas, city growth is natural increase in
population. There will be an end to urbanization but not to city growth (Davis, Kingley 1995).
Development is anything which makes people better off. As popularly defined, development is
growth with justice. It is marked by an improvement in quality of life of people. To get a
conceptual understanding of development it is important to study the process through which the
very development takes place. How far the process brings a qualitative change in the socio-
economic life of people determines whether development has taken place or not. Also
development being a multi-faceted concept development we should be cautious to not narrow it
down just to its economic dimension, as generally done.
The impact of urbanization on development has been widely studied across the globe. Largely
the study has been dominated by the concerns of economic growth and how urbanization has
fuelled it. The coming up of Industrial Revolution in Europe accelerated the pace of Urbanization
there and other western countries having a capitalistic framework of economy. Thus economic
growth positively impacted urbanization. In India also growth of cities like Mumbai, Calcutta,
Chennai occurred due to coming up of factories during British rule. However this argument can
be contrasted with the phenomena of de-urbanization that occurred in India during late 20th
century. In the last 30 years the pace of urbanization has increased thank to forces of
globalization and capitalistic economic model. Today cities are said to be the engines of growth.
In India, more than 60% of GDP comes from cities which carry only 35% of population
(Barclays). This shows the impact cities have on our economic growth. Thus we find that
economic growth and urbanization go hand in hand, the more urbanized a region is the more
economically developed it will be.
Now coming back to our central theme of paper, we need to ask whether the same urbanization
in India has also resulted in qualitative change in life of people who are part of this “urban-
growth-development triangle”. The subsequent sections will deal with such issues in detail.
Aim of this paper: The paper aims to address the question whether urbanization leads to
development or not. And if it does then upto what extent. We have also examined whether
different levels of urbanization have different impact on development or not.
Limitations of the research: The author has taken a generalist approach to draw a relation
between development and urbanization. The findings obtained are with respect to the studied
cities only. Only secondary data is analyzed from the three census reports – Census of 1991,
2001 and 2011 and few other government documents.
Literature Review
For providing theoretical basis to our research, three perspective have been studied namely –
modernization, urban bias, and dependency. Modernization theorist has perceived urbanization
as a natural process, transiting from agrarian to industrial society with advancement in
technology (Bradshaw and Noonan, 1997). This makes urbanization as an enabling factor of
development and thus should be encouraged. However, urban bias theorist don’t buy this
argument. They argue that urbanization occurs when the state divert the valuable national
resources to cities (Dumont and Mottin, 1983, Lipton, 1977, Stren, 1975). While this may
develop the urban areas but negatively affects the growth of rural areas, thus leads to
inequitable development. Dependency theorist argue that urbanization distorts the urban labour
markets and force the rural dwellers to migrate to cities (Bradshaw and Noonan, 1997).
Findings from this study partially contradicts the modernization theorist. By default cities are
seen as a developed region, but very rarely we find the causal relationship between the two
variables viz. urbanization and development (Jacobs, 1969). The study supports the arguments
of urban bias theorist by showing that the less urbanized cities suffers due to lack of resources.
While the historical development has proven that economic development causes urbanization
(Polèse 1997), the impact of urbanization on economic development is equivocal. Moreover, it
remains to be shown that these economic gains translate into improved human conditions.
Making this as a case of study in India’s cities is the central task of the study discussed here.
Methodology and Research Design
In order to study the impact of urbanization on development, we have provided four dimensions
of development, viz. Economic, Social, Cultural, and Governance. Subsequent divisions were
made in these dimensions as shown –

Development Indicators
Frameworks
1. Economic a. GDP of the district as a proxy for cities GDP
b. Work Participation Rate of the city
c. Road density in the city
2. Social a. Education - Number of Colleges and secondary schools per lakh population
in the city
b. Health – Number of beds per ten thousand population in the city
3. Cultural a. Number of recreational facilities available in city per lakh population

4. Governance a. Per capita expenditure by the Municipal Corporation

b. Percentage of slum population of the total city population
Table1st. Development framework and indicators.

Population(P) Number Degree of Color code Urbanization was measured through the
of cities Urbanization population figures of 2011 census. Data
0.1 m < P < 1 m 15 Low Green from 33 cities have been studied under
1m<P<3m 10 Medium Blue different indicators of development and
P>3m 8 High Red urbanization.
Table 2nd: Categorization of cities

Cities have been clubbed under degree of urbanization in three categories – Low, Medium and
High – as per their population, as shown in table 2nd.

City Population Level of Degree Data was collected through secondary

2011 Urbanization of research using district census reports. For
Urbanizat
every city the development indicators were
ion
Bhilai Nagar 627734 1 Low plotted against their urbanization indicators
Bikaner 644,406 2 Low
and all the possible inter-relations were
studied and depicted graphically.
Amravati 647057 3 Low
Warangal 704570 4 Low For our better analysis, cities have been
Salem 829267 5 Low ranked as per their population strength (2011
Jalandhar 868929 6 Low census) defined as levels of Urbanization.
Level 1st is least urbanized and level 29th is
Moradabad 887,871 7 Low
the most urbanized city. As seen from the
Mysore 920550 8 Low
table, Bhilai Nagar is said to be least
Hubli 943788 9 Low urbanized and Mumbai Suburban is the most
Dharwad
Solapur 951558 10 Low urbanized city in our study.
 Kota 1,001,694 11 Low Before we discuss the impact of urbanization
Gwalior 1,054,420 12 Low on development, we have analyzed the
Jodhpur 1,056,191 13 Low population trend in the cities.
Jabalpur 1081677 14 Low 1. Impact of Urbanization on population
Allahabad 1,168,385 15 Low growth rate (PGR)
Agra 1585704 16 Medium
We have studied relation between
Ludhiana 1618879 17 Medium
urbanization and population growth rate
Patna 1684297 18 Medium (PGR) within the period 1991 to 2011 (graph
Vadodara 1752371 19 Medium 1st).
Bhopal 1798218 20 Medium
The graph depicts a pattern of increasing
Indore 1,994,397 21 Medium
PGR with the degree of Urbanization. This is
Nagpur 2405665 22 Medium
contradictory to the general notion that least
Kanpur 2768057 23 Medium urban city should have high PGR as they
Lucknow 2817105 24 Medium have more potential to accommodate people.
Jaipur 3046163 25 Medium This signifies that people from rural and semi-
Pune 3124458 26 High urban areas have migrated to medium and
Hyderabad 3718651 27 High high urbanized cities bypassing the low
urbanized cities.
Surat 4467797 28 High
Kolkata 4496694 29 High Thus we can predict that in the coming
Chennai 4646732 30 High decade as the high urban town PGR
Ahmadabad 5577940 31 High saturates, the PGR of the medium urban
towns will be more than the low urban towns.
Bangalore 8,495,492 32 High
This becomes a cause of worry for the India’s
Mumbai 9356962 33 High
Suburban urban development.
Table 3rd. Listing of cities with population, level and Such a lopsided urbanization will not only
degree of urbanization. make the low urban cities to underutilize their
Source – District Census Handbook
demographic dividend but will also impact
negatively on the development of high and
Graph 1: Variation of PGR with levels of medium urbanized cities.
urbanization. Source – Author
200
The urbanization pattern has also been
180
studied under the 2 decades of 1991-2001
160 and 2001-2011 (graph 2nd). As per the general
140 notion PGR of high urban cities should
PGR (1991-2011)

120 decrease with time. And for low and medium

100 urban cities, PGR should increase with time.
But the study shows that not only in high
80
urban cities but in low and medium urban
60 R² = 0.0552
cities also the PGR has decreased with time.
40 Only in 4 cities – Gwalior, Kota, Ahmadabad
20 and Bangalore – PGR is more in the second
0 decade. Bangalore PGR during 2001-2011 is
0 10 20 30 three times that of 1991-2001.
Levels of Urbanization
Variation across all cities
 This has made Bangalore a magnet of
Graph 2nd. Comparison of PGR during 1991-
2001 and 20012011. Source – Author urbanization in India. Major concern is that
100 the low urban cities appears to have reached
90
their peak PGR at an early stage, during
Linear (Y=X) 1991-2001. This can be called as a case of
80 precocious urbanization.
70
After getting a brief overview of the trends in
PGR 2001-2011

60 urbanization we will now assess the relation

50 urbanization shares with the development of
these cities. This has been done under four
40
framework as follows.
30
2. Impact of Urbanization on Economic
20
Development
10
Here, we used GDP and Work Participation
0
Rate (WPR) as the indicators of economic
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-10 development. Cities are said to be the
PGR 1991-2001 growth engines of countries. In India cities

constitute more than 75% of national GDP. Thus it is important to understand upto how much
extent urbanization has resulted in increase in GDP in cities.
We have taken average GDP growth rate of districts during 2008-09 and 2009-10 as a proxy for
cities GDP (graph 3rd), as within the district it is the city which drives the economy. As per our
analysis, there is a positive but weak co-relation between urbanization and cities economic
growth rate. In case of high urban cities, the linear trend suggest an increase in GDP growth
rate with increasing urbanization. This is somewhat expected from the high urbanized cities like

Graph 3: GDP growth rate vs urbanization Grpah 4 - Variation of WPR with levels of
Source – Author urbanization. Source- Author
28 45
26 43
24 41
GDP* growth rate

22 39
WPR 2011

20 37

18 35
33
16
31
14
29
12
27
10
0 10 20 30 25
Levels of Urbanization 0 10 20 30
Levels of Urbanization
GDP linear trend across all cities (R² = 0.0407)
Variation across all cities (R² = 0.2464)
GDP linear trend in LUCs (R² = 0.0948)
Variation in LUCs (R² = 0.0011)
GDP linear trend in MUCs (R² = 0.01) Variation in MUCs (R² = 0.0004)
GDP linear trend in HUCs (R² = 0.2052) Variation in HUCs (R² = 0.1334)
Bengaluru, Mumbai and Pune. In case of low urban cities results are a bit shocking as
with increasing urbanization levels, GDP growth rate has declined. In medium urban cities the
trend is not very clear but here also it appears that urbanization and GDP growth rate shares a
weak positive relation.
How one does explains these trends? Globally, urbanization is considered to be the accelerator
of economic growth rate (Bertinelli, Black 2004). But in case of India, there appears to be a
cutoff level of urbanization after which only we see improving GDP growth rate. This suggest
that India has still to overcome the threshold urbanization level. Only after that minimum level of
urbanization we will see a positive impact of urbanization on GDP growth rate. Similar kind of
argument has been given by Henderson [9], by stating that degree of urban concentration has
an impact on economic growth, with too much or too little urban concentration having a
relatively negative impact on growth.
Another indicator to show economic development is Work Participation Rate (WPR). As per
India Census reports, WPR refers to the percentage of people working as household industry
laborers, agricultural laborers, cultivators and other workers. It includes both main and marginal
workers. WPR is nothing but the ratio of working people to total population. With the growing
demographic dividend across India, it is expected that a city with more population will have
more WPR as the percentage of working people there will also be more, provided there are
enough job opportunities in that city.
We have analyzed the WPR with the urbanization levels (graph 4th). It appears that the impact
of increasing urbanization in low urban cities has not impacted WPR in any direct manner. The
trendline shows WPR to be constant with the increasing urbanization. Same goes for medium
urban cities. Only in case of high urban cities we find increasing urbanization to be positively
correlated with WPR. This brings us back to the phenomenon of threshold urbanization as was
seen in the case of GDP growth rate. Till the time urbanization doesn’t crosses a critical level,
WPR seems to remain unaffected by it.
Graph 5 – Variation of Road density with
Population density. Source – Author
Another important indicator associated with
35 economic development is infrastructure. Here
we have used road density to understand
30 relation of road infrastructure with urbanization
(graph 5th). In low urban cities, road density
25
has a healthy positive relation with the
Road density

20 population density. It signifies that for a unit

area, increase in population leads to increase
15 in road length. It enhances our belief that
urbanization enhances infrastructure. This
10
assumption also appears to be true in medium
5 and high urban cities however it is little risky to
predict that increased urbanization will
0 enhance infrastructure. A better prediction can
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 be done by using higher degree regression
Population density
model. We have limited ourselves to the linear
Variation across all cities R² = 0.2984)
Variation across LUCs (R² = 0.8239) regression model looking at the scope of this
Variation across MUCs (R² = 0.4958)
Variation across HUCs (R² = 0.2779) paper. One side observation from this graph is
that high urban cities have more population density. This means that there is more pressure on
land and physical infrastructure to support population, this we have referred as a case of dense
urbanization.
We not turn our attention to some other important indicators of development.
3. Impact of urbanization on social development.

Graph 6 - Variation of in no. of hospitals Graph 7 – Variation of number of colleges

beds with urbanization levels. Source - with urbanization levels. Source – Author
author
25 10
Number of beds in hospitals per 10,000 population

Colleges per lakh population

20 8

15 6

10 4

5 2

0
0
0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
Level of Urbanization Level of Urbanization
Variation across all cities (R² = 0.0162) Average variation across all cities (R² = 0.1198)
Variation across LUCs (R² = 0.0604) Variation across LUCs (R² = 0.0073)
Variation across MUCs (R² = 0.079) Variation across MUCs (R² = 0.2962)
Variation across HUCs (R² = 0.1113) Variation across HUCs (R² = 0.4754)

Here we have used health and education, the two most commonly studied development
indicators to understand what impact urbanization has created on them.
The health indicator has been studied through number of beds in hospitals per ten thousand
population (graph 6th). This is a very crucial indicator as it signifies not only the physical
infrastructure of hospitals but also their quality of health service. In Why Poor People Stay Poor:
Urban Bias in World Development, Michael Lipton (1977) points out that the development
schemes of governments, and international bodies working in developing countries, have a
conspicuous ‘urban bias’. The graph below depicts that in both low urban and high urban cities,
there is a weak negative co-relation between the urbanization levels and number of hospital
beds. Thus contradicting the notion of urban bias theorist. In medium urban cities the trend
appears positive. However since the obtained values of R^2 are very less we cannot predict
anything based this linear regression. But one thing which can be inferred is that urbanization
doesn’t always result in improved health services.
Within education, we have analyzed number of colleges per lakh population. Here colleges
includes those institutions providing bachelor degrees in Arts/Science/Commerce, Engineering
and management. Graph 7th shows that overall increasing levels of urbanization has a negative
correlation with number of colleges per lakh population. In medium urban cities there is increase
in number of colleges per lakh population with increasing urbanization levels. But in low urban
and high urban cities, the trend is negative. This again strengthens the argument that
urbanization doesn’t directly leads to good education facilities.
The degree of correlation of urbanization with social development varies from being negative to
positive to again negative. Suggesting that the medium urban cities have maximum to gain from
urbanization.
4. Impact of Urbanization on Cultural development
In order to broader our understanding
Graph 8 – Impact of urbanization on recreational
of development we have included the
Recreational places* per lakh population

facilities. Source – Author

25
culture dimension also. Here we have
focused on the recreational facilities
20 available in cities which includes
number of cinema halls, community
halls and public libraries. Such facilities
15
allow people to spend their leisure time
and develop social bonding, positively
10 impacting the quality of life of people.
The graph 8th shows in the case of low
urban cities the trend is not very clear
5 but appears to be on negative side. In
case of medium urban cities we see a
0 positive trend but there is a weak
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 correlation thus no accurate
Level of Urbanization
predications can be done. The trend
Variation across all cities (R² = 0.0358)
Variation across LUCs (R² = 0.056) becomes negative and more
Variation across MUCs (R² = 0.0181)
Variation across HUCs (R² = 0.4315)
pronounced in case of high urban
cities.
We can expect a further dip in the number of recreational facilities with further urbanization in
high urban cities. This indicates that urbanization has not given adequate attention on
enhancing the cultural dimension of cities.
5. Impact of Urbanization on city governance.
City governance and planning is of crucial importance yet highly ignored. We have studied this
through two indicators – percentage of slum population in the city and per capita annual
expenditure by city’s Municipal Corporations.
Slums not only denotes an unplanned nature of city development but also the dark side of city
i.e. urban poverty. However with proper urban governance, these slums areas can be upgraded
to a healthy living environment. This will enhance city’s economic and social development. In
our analysis we found that in low and medium urban cities the percentage of slum population
decreases with increasing urbanization levels (graph 9th). Although the trend is not very strong
but we can expect this trend to continue with increasing urbanization especially in low urban
cities. In case of high urban cities, trend is not very clear. Mumbai suburban city has almost half
of its population living in slums while Ahmadabad has just 4.3% of its population living in slums.
.
Grpah 9 - Variation of slum populatio with levels
of urbanization. Source - Author
The overall impact of urbanization on
50
slum population seems to be very less.
Slum population to total population (%)

45 Our inference from this analysis is that

40 investing in urbanization can decrease
the slum population only upto a particular
35 level, as after that urbanization cease to
30 have any particular impact on slum
25
population.

20 With respect to the annual per capita

expenditure (APCE) we have taken the
15
total real expenditure of Municipal
10 Corporation (MCorp.) of year 2011-2012.
5 Although for few cities, due to
unavailability of 2011-12 budget
0
document, we have to consider the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Levels of Urbanization budget document of subsequent years.
Variation across all cities (R² = 0.001) Graph 10 depicts an increase in APCE
Variation across LUCs (R² = 0.2263)
Variation across MUCs (R² = 0.0215) for low and middle urban cities with
Variation across HUCs (R² = 0.0181)
urbanization. This is expected as more
urbanization level leads to increase in
Grpah 10 - Variation of APCE with urbanization economic growth leading to more income
levels. Source - Author and thus higher expenditure of local
9000 bodies. However the trend is not very
8000 promising. In case of high urban cities
Expenditure per person

7000 the average trend is negative. It shows

6000 that in these cities, the local bodies
cannot sustain its finances with
5000
burdening population. Further
4000
urbanization in high urban cities may
3000 lead to decrease in APCE. Overall, as
2000 one moves from low urban to high urban
1000 cities, there is increase in APCE
0 This brings an end to our above
0 10 20 30
Levels of Urbanization
graphical analysis. We would now like to
Variation across all cities (R² = 0.1386)
present a tabulated summary of our
Variation across LUCs (R² = 0.0541) findings.
Variation across MUCs (R² = 0.0731)
Variation across HUCs (R² = 0.1099)
 Degree of correlation with level of Overall Degree
Urbanization of correlation
Development Indicator

LUCs MUCs HUCs

1. GDP - + + +

2. WPR Neutral Neutral + +

3. Road density + + + +

4. Number of Hospitals beds per 10 - + - -

thousand population

5. Number of colleges per lakh - + - -

population
6. Number of recreational facilities - + - -
per lakh population

7. Percentage of slum population - - + Neutral

8. Annual per capita expenditure by + + - +

Municipal Corporation.
Table 4 – Summary of findings

6. Policy recommendations
i) Economic development – Low urban cities having population less than 1 million should be
provided with enough job opportunities so as to enhance their growth as well as to reduce the
out migration to high urban cities. Industrial development along the periphery of these low urban
cities should be done. In this regard rather than following growth model of any high urban city,
focus should be given on utilizing the comparative advantage that a city has over other cities.
Physical infrastructure need to be upgraded to reduce the commuting time in the medium and
high urban cities like Bangalore. Women centric job should be created in low and medium urban
cities as there work participation rate is very less.
ii) Social development – Investment on hospital infrastructure and educational institutions
should be prioritized. Community centric healthcare model need to be devised which can cater
the medical need of a particular ward/locality. In high urban cities, instead of focusing on just
super specialty hospitals, infrastructure of small hospitals should be upgraded. To enhance the
quality of college education, more such institutions be opened especially related to medical.
High quality educational institutions in low urban cities can act as an incentive for students to
stay in their hometown. This will also bring new startups and various service providers to open
their offices in these areas. Thus it will generate employment and further increase quality of
education. Although institutions like IITs, IIMs have been opened in low urban cities like
Jodhpur, Nagpur etc. but more state funded institutions be built without compromising on quality
education.
iii) Cultural development – A city development should be measured not just by the economic
capital it generate but also by its social capital. To promote sense of belongingness among the
citizens places like community hall, public libraries plays a very important role. Even places like
cinema halls provide an opportunity to people to spend their leisure time and it brings liveliness
in the city. Having community halls makes the lower middle class to celebrate their happy
moments who can’t afford to arrange their get-togethers in hotels. Public libraries are the best
destination for people to read, discuss and participate in any issue affecting their city. All these
places may appear to be of less importance but carry a very deep significance in sustaining the
charm of the city.
iv) Governance – An effective regulation need to be built with respect to management of slums.
In high urban areas like Mumbai sub-urban city, slums need to properly govern. This means that
all basic services like safe water, sanitation, electricity etc. be available to the slum inhabitants.
State government can invest taxpayer’s money in modernizing slums especially their housing
infrastructure. A radical policy approach to eradicate slums should be avoided. Rather the policy
should have a gradual approach to promote in-situ rehabilitate of the slum dwellers. A city can’t
be built on 2 poles – one highly developed and other hugely undeveloped. If practices of good
governance are strictly adhered, slum areas can be brought at par with the other areas of the
city. Another concern is of per capita expenditure done by municipal corporations (MCorp.).
These statutory bodies have the duty to maintain cities basic infrastructure. As they cripple
financially, city governance is bound to suffer. Their income source need to be widen. Their
conventional tax sources such as parking tax, housing tax need to be made robust. Also new
areas of income source need to be adopted like municipal bonds. State finance commission
recommendations should be implemented by the state governments to make the MCorps
financially strong.
7. Conclusion
The paper was aimed to answer two questions. First, does urbanization leads to development?
And second, should urbanization be categorized into different levels rather than studying it as a
whole. We defined urbanization as a process of movement of people from rural areas to urban
areas. And categorized cities into three levels of urbanization based on their population levels.
Secondary data was collected for 33 cities across India for various development indicators.
From the data analysis we have concluded that urbanization is not a substitute of development.
As depicted in table 4th, urbanization has positively impacted some development indicators such
as GDP, WPR, Road density and APCE but also negatively impacting other development
indicators such as number of hospital beds, number of colleges, and number of recreational
facilities. This makes us to advocate that development parameters needs to be broadened to
completely understand the impact of urbanization on it. Economic growth is expected to occur
with urbanization but it need to be accompanied by social and cultural development. If this
doesn’t happen, quality of life in cities will decrease and there might be de-urbanization, forcing
people to shift back to rural areas. Further it will collapse the urban economy. Thus we can say
that urbanization doesn’t lead to development in totality but lack of urbanization can bring under-
development.
Coming to our second question, we found that impact of urbanization on development can’t be
generalized for every city. There is huge disparity in the population levels, from as low as 5
lakhs to as high as 90 lakhs (as per 2011 census). In a low urban city (population less than 10
lakhs) the impact of urbanization on GDP is negative but in case of high urban city (population
more than 30 lakhs), the impact is positive. This shows that increasing urbanization will not
leads to economic growth in every city. Similarly, the APCE of MCorps. increases with
urbanization in low urban cities but it decreases in high urban cities. Which means that the
financial governance in low urban cities is better than in high urban cities.
Finally we would like to conclude by proposing that urban planning should incorporate different
aspects of development and not just economic growth while building an urban plan. As Indian
cities enters into their next level of urbanization they should chart out their own version of
urbanization.
References:
[1] Davis, Kingsley. “The Origin and Growth of Urbanization in the World.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 60, no.
5, 1955, pp. 429–437.

[2] Y.W. Bradshaw, R. Noonan. Urbanization, economic growth, and women’s labour-force participation: a theoretical
and empirical reassessment. J. Gulger (Ed.), Cities in the Developing World: Issues, Theory, and Policy, Oxford
University Press, Oxford (1997).

[3] R. Dumont, M.-F. Mottin. Stranglehold on Africa. André Deutch, London (1983)

[4] M. Lipton. Why Poor People Stay Poor: The Urban Bias in World Development. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA (1977).

[5] M. Polèse. Urbanization and development. (Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)) Development
Express, 4 (1997), pp. 4-8

[6] R. Stren. Urban Inequality and Housing Policy in Tanzania: The Problem of Squatting. Institute of International
Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA (1975)

[7] J. Jacobs, The Economy of Cities, Random House, New York, 1969

[8] Luisito Bertinelli, Duncan Black. Urbanization and growth, Journal of Urban Economics, Volume 56, Issue
1,2004,Pages 80-96

[9] J.V. Henderson, The urbanization process and economic growth: the so-what question, Journal of Economic
Growth 8 (2003) 47–71.

[10] District Census Handbook 1991, 2001, 2011