India Needs To Redefine ‘Urban’

Notwithstanding the culinary and cultural impact of McDonald’s across India’s large cities, outlets of the global fast-food chain have been used as proxies for defining urban spaces in the country. This approach, though unconventional, has proven to be a better indicator of urbanisation than the current metrics in use.

Regardless of whether McDonald’s serves junk food or not, its India outlets highlight a region’s economic activity, consumer demand and connectivity – hallmarks of a bustling urban life. Indeed, such innovative methods have prompted urban planners to redefine the word ‘urban’, which has a host of social, economic and political implications, especially at a time when cities and towns are expanding like never before.

These urban sites are expected to host over 800 million people – over half of India’s population – by 2050. With rapid urbanisation and expansion of urban peripheries, the traditional methods of defining what constitutes an “urban” area have become increasingly inadequate.

The current framework for defining urban areas largely relies on the subjectivity of state bureaucracy, population size and density, and the occupational distribution of the male workforce. These are now archaic and outdated metrics. As such, more inclusive and multidimensional approaches should be adopted to define urban spaces.

Three years ago, a senior bureaucrat who oversaw urban development in Bengaluru quipped in an interview with this author that “urban, for me, is what I say is urban”. The remark underscores a significant issue: how should urban areas be defined in India? The bureaucrat’s response also reflects how subjective and limited the definition of urban is.

Administratively, everything is considered rural until an area is officially notified as urban by the state bureaucracy. Once notified, they become statutory towns.

Limited metrics

The Census of India considers all notified statutory towns as urban but, along with the notified statutory towns, defines any area with a population of at least 5,000 people, population density of at least 400 persons per sq km and 75 percent of the male workforce engaged in non-agricultural activities as urban. These areas are called census towns. While these metrics have served as a basic framework, they overlook several critical aspects of urbanisation.

Adopting a multidimensional approach to defining urban areas has several far-reaching implications for policy, planning and governance. A more accurate definition of urban areas will enable better targeting of resources.

Many peri-urban areas and small towns are currently excluded from urban development programmes because they do not meet the traditional criteria. Redefining urban boundaries to include peri-urban regions and emerging towns will expand the reach of urban governance, leading to better municipal service delivery and infrastructure development.

There will, of course, be financial implications. Central and state government grants and schemes for rural areas would no longer apply, and urban development funds and smart city projects might need to be expanded.

Besides, property tax, user charges and other urban revenue streams would now be accessible to city governments in newly drafted urban areas, but this can also meet with resistance. Advocacy and stakeholder engagement will be crucial to overcoming such resistance.

The jurisdictional area of the ULBs for public service delivery will expand severely, making the task of serving the increased population daunting. The revenue sources for the cities will have to include more items along with the traditional revenue streams, such as property tax, to serve the expanded urban areas well and improve the quality of life.

Complex reality

India’s urban reality is far more complex than the population size and occupation metrics can encapsulate. Population size as a criterion can be arbitrary and exclusionary. Many peri-urban areas that exhibit urban characteristics like high economic activity, improved infrastructure, and connectivity are left out because their population does not meet the threshold.

On the other hand, a report highlighted that there are census towns near megacities with a population of up to 75,000 – larger than many statutory towns in the same state – that have not been classified as urban.

Also, population-based definitions do not account for migration dynamics, which significantly impact urban areas. Seasonal or temporary migration often swells the population of specific regions, especially during economic or agricultural cycles, but this transient nature is not captured in static definitions.

The occupational metric where urban areas are defined by the percentage of the male workforce engaged in non-agricultural activities is equally problematic. This criterion assumes a rigid divide between rural and urban livelihoods, which is no longer valid in contemporary India, especially with the advent of the app economy or gig economy.

Many rural areas now host industries, service-sector jobs and other non-agricultural employment opportunities, blurring the lines between urban and rural economies.

This metric does not reflect the hybrid livelihoods that many Indians pursue. For example, many people combine agricultural work with urban jobs, commuting daily or seasonally between rural and urban areas. Such mobility challenges the binary classification of areas as rural or urban based solely on occupation.

Any move to reenvision urban definitions must include additional parameters that reflect urbanisation’s functional, spatial and socio-economic characteristics. Economic activity should be a primary criterion for defining urban areas. Regions with high economic output, diversified industries and active trade and commerce networks should be classified as urban, regardless of population size.

Additionally, physical and digital connectivity is a critical indicator of urbanisation. Areas with robust transportation networks, internet penetration and market access often function as urban hubs, even if they do not meet traditional population-based criteria.

Access to urban services like healthcare, education, water supply, sanitation and waste management is a more meaningful indicator of urbanisation than population size alone.

Urbanisation is not just a physical or economic process but also a socio-cultural phenomenon. Greater diversity, higher literacy rates, and progressive social norms often characterise urban areas. This can provide a more holistic understanding of what constitutes an urban area.

Redefining urban areas can help integrate urban and rural development efforts. Recognising the interconnectedness of rural and urban economies will encourage policies that promote balanced regional development rather than focusing solely on large cities. By adopting a multidimensional approach, India can ensure that its policies and programmes are better aligned with the realities on the ground, paving the way for more equitable and sustainable urban development.

(Published under Creative Commons from 360info™. Read the original article here)