CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

[Link] of the Chapter

This chapter discuses an introduction to the research, urbanization trends in Global
and India context, growth of metropolitan and mega cities, urbanization in Karnataka,
absence of metropolitan governance, issues and problem statements, significance of
the study, general framework of the study area, research hypothesis, approaches and
questions, aims & objectives, methodology, data analysis, scope & limitations and
followed by plan of work.

1.1. Urbanization – a Global Phenomenon

Urbanization is a major change taking place globally. According to United Nation
report1 in 1950, 30% of the world’s population lived in cities. In 2000 it was 47%.
The urban global tipping point was reached in 2007 when for the first time in history
over half of the world’s population 3.3 billion people were living in urban areas. It is
estimated that a further 500 million people will be urbanized in the next five years
and projections shows that 60% of the world’s population will be urbanized by 2030
(Appendix II - 2.1). Such rapidly increasing urbanization, particularly in developing
countries, creates many opportunities and challenges. Due to urbanization, the
associated problems are infrastructure deficit, housing shortage, poor sanitation,
inadequate health; urban slums, poverty & unemployment and environmental
degradation pose a formidable challenge in many developing countries. The available
statistics shows that, urbanization is also contributing significantly to climate change.
The 20 largest cities consume 80% of the world’s energy and urban areas generate
80% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide2.
Although urban areas will encompass an increasing share of the world population, the
proportion of people living in very large urban agglomerations or mega-cities is still
small. In 2000, 3.7 per cent of the world population resided in cities of ten million
inhabitants or more and by 2015 that proportion is expected to rise to 4.7 per cent. In
addition, 2.8 per cent of the world population in the year 2000 lived in cities with
populations ranging from five million to ten million inhabitants, and the projected
figure for 2015 is 3.7 per cent. Overall, by 2015, merely 8.4 per cent of the world
population is expected to reside in large urban agglomerations of five million

1
inhabitants or more. An interesting feature of World urbanization is the growth of
large cities. In 1950 World had only two mega cities i.e., the population of ten million
or more. In 2000 the number had increased to 16. According to projections made by
the UN reports, by 2030 there will be 27 mega cities. Out of which 18 mega cities
will be in Asian countries. The population in large urban agglomerations will rise not
only as a result of population growth in today's populous cities but also because the
numbers of such cities are expected to keep on rising.
Box 1: Unbalanced Growth but Inclusive Urban Development
The World Bank has published the ‘World Development Report (WDR) 2009’ with theme
on, "Reshaping Economic Geography". The report’s main message is that economic growth
will be unbalanced but development can still be inclusive. The chapter on urbanization
suggests a policy framework to help nations benefit from urbanization. It outlines that
ranking and sequencing of policies can help governments ease inclusive development. For
areas of incipient urbanization, the policy priorities would be provision of basic urban
services and improvement of land markets. For areas with intermediate urbanization, the
priorities include providing basic services, improvement in land markets and investing in
infrastructure in around the growing cities. Advanced urbanized areas should focus on well-
functioning land markets, representative management, state-of-the-art transport infrastructure,
and social policies to integrate low-income residents. The report provides important inputs
for understanding and developing India’s urban development strategy.
Source: World Bank 2009.

The first World Conference on Human Settlement (Habitat I) was held in Vancouver,
Canada in 1976. Habitat –II was held in Istanbul, Turkey in 1996. The World Summit
on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002 reaffirmed its
commitment to the full implementation of agenda 21 and strengthening the concept of
sustainable development. In these twenty years, the problems urban India faced have
become highly complex. Some new problems also came to the forefront at times
overshadowing the old ones. Apart from the above, some of the sector programs have
been initiated which are as follows:

• The Local Agenda 21 programme: This emerged from the 1992 Earth
Summit. It offers a multi-year support for secondary cities, as the means to
introduce or strengthen environmental concerns in their plans.

2
 • The Sustainable Cities Programme: A joint initiative by UN-Habitat and
UNEP, it was designed to build capacities in environmental planning and
management through urban local authorities.
• The Safer Cities Programme: This was initiated by UN-Habitat to tackle the
problem of urban crime and violence by developing the crime prevention
capacities of local authorities.
• The Disaster Management Programme: This was established by UN-Habitat
to support countries recovering from natural disasters or wars.
• The Healthy Cities Programme: Initiated by the World Health Organization,
this programme aims to improve, promote and maintain conducive urban
environmental health conditions.
• The Global Campaign on Urban Governance: This was launched by UN-
Habitat in 1999 to encourage urban planning to be pro-poor and inclusive. Its
vision was to realize the inclusive city.
• The Global Campaign for Secure Tenure: This was launched by UN-Habitat
in 2002 to improve shelter for the urban poor by promoting security of tenure
in informal settlements.
• City Development Strategy: Promoted by the Cities Alliance, City
Development Strategies encourage local governments to produce inter-
sectoral and long range visions and plans for cities.
• Gender responsiveness: This has included promotion of gender
mainstreaming issues in local government and planning. Examples include
Gender Budgeting and Women’s Safety Audits.

The problems of cities we notice and experience today is the product of the
mismanagement of the spatial economy of the country on the one hand and that of
individual cities, towns and villages on the other. Since the management of the city
systems is not geared to efficient production maintaining social equity in terms of
decision making and access to resources and civic services and enhancing
environmental quality, the dream of a sustainable city can never be realized.

3
1.2. Urbanisation in India – Trends and Issues
India is one of the major emerging economies in the world with about 60% of GDP
generated in urban areas. Urbanization is a global process. The world is in the midst
of a massive urban transition unlike that of any other time in history. Kingsley Davis
has explained urbanization as process (Davis, 1962)3 of switch from spread out
pattern of human settlements to one of concentration in urban centers. India no longer
lives in villages. In absolute terms India’s urban population is second largest in the
world after China. The urban population of India has increased ten-fold during the
last century, from 25.86 million in 1901 to 286.25 million in 2001. Between 1961 and
1991 while the total population increased nearly two times, the urban population went
up nearly three times. The decadal growth rate in urban areas during 1991-2001 was
31.55 per cent compared to 18.11 per cent in rural areas. Although, the proportion of
the urban population to the total population of the country is just about 28 per cent
and it is noteworthy that the urban population has been growing faster than the rural
population. The recent data by the provisional Census of India 2011 reveals that, the
decadal growth rate of urban areas has slightly increased to 31.80 per cent, whereas in
the rural areas has decreased to 12.20 percent. The proportion of urban to the total
population has been increased to 31.16 percent (Appendix I-1.1 & Appendix II-2.3).

The urban growth rate in India has been relatively low compared to many developing
countries. The decadal growth rate of urban population in India increased at a fast
pace from 1921-1931 until 1951. Subsequently it registered a sharp decline during
1951-1961. This drop was largely due to declassification of a very large number of
towns during 1951-1961. The decades 1961-1971 and 1971-1981 witnessed
significant improvements in urban growth rate which thereafter steadily dropped to
the present level.
The annual exponential growth rate of urban population during 1951 was 3.47 per
cent. This was the highest, the country had seen until that time and led to the
emergence of theories of ‘over urbanization’ (Kundu)4. Subsequently, this high
growth rate has been attributed to independence and partition of the country as also
non-rigorous identification of towns and cities in the 1951 Census. Formalization of
the criteria for identifying urban centers in the 1961 Census resulted in a dramatic
decline in urban growth figures in the following decade. The 1971-81, however,

4
following the same methodology of urban population enumeration, saw a very high
urban growth of 3.79 per cent, fuelling speculation that India was on the verge of an
urban explosion. Speculations notwithstanding, the growth rate came down to 3.11
per cent in the 1991. It has gone down further to 2.74 per cent in the 1991-2001 and
recent provisional Census of India, 2011 data reveals that slightly increased to 2.76
(Appendix I-1.1. & Appendix II- 2.2).
According to the projections made, India’s urban population will reach a staggering
657.06 million by 2031, more than half of the present total population of 1210.19
million (Provisional Census of India 2011).

1.2.1. Urbanization pattern

The pattern of urbanization in India is characterized by continual concentration of
population and activities in large cities (Kundu, 1983). This is manifested in a high
percentage of urban population being concentrated in class I towns and its population
has systematically gone up over the decades in the last century. It clearly shows that
population centered in class I towns. According to 1991 census, about two third
(65.20%) of the countries urban population lived in Class -I towns with a population
of more than 100, 000. Whereas in 2001, it has increased to 68.67 percent and the
provisional Census of India 2011, data reveals that, it has increased to 70 percent
(264.90 million)5, over the years there has been continual concentration of population
in class I towns, and rests of other class towns were constantly decreasing (Appendix
I-1.3 & Appendix II -2.4).

In the context of demographic dominance of urban scene by class I cities, it is

important to note that there were only 24 class I cities in 1901 that have gone up to
393 in 2001 and provisional Census of India, 2011 data reveals that, further increased
to 468. While a number of lower order towns have graduated to class I category, the
process of rural settlements acquiring urban characteristics has been weak. The
pattern of growth has remained similar over time although there is a general
deceleration in urban growth in all size categories in the past two decades. Class I
cities have maintained an edge over class II, III, IV and class V towns6 in terms of the
growth rate (of common towns). The gap, however, seems to have widened during
1991–01 (Appendix I-1.3 & Appendix II-1.4). Class I cities in the country
experiencing higher population growth is due to both aerial expansion as well as in-

5
migration. A large number of satellite towns have emerged in the vicinity of these
cities.

1.2.2. Growth of Metropolitan cities

Metropolitan cities in India are considered as vital economic, cultural and political
nerve centers. Further, the metropolitan cities in India are also regarded as a crucial
hub for regional or international associations and communications. The growth of
metropolitan or million-plus cities is another interesting phenomenon. In 1901, India
had only one metropolis, viz, Calcutta. In 1951, there were five such cities but by
1981, the number had increased to 12 and the Census of India 2001 registered as
many as 35 million-plus cities and the provisional Census of India, 2011 data reveals
that has increased to 53 (Appendix II- 2.5). The population of these metros adding up
to about 160.50 million accounts for nearly 13.26 per cent of the country’s total
population and 42.56 percent of the total urban population according to 2011
provisional census.

The decadal growth rate of metropolitan cities in India increased at a fast pace in
1951. This is due to the marked concentration of economic activities, attracting more
people from the country-side as well as from smaller urban centers. Subsequently it
registered a sharp decline up to 1971-1981. This drop was largely due to
declassification of a very large number of towns during 1951-1961. At present, the
decadal growth rate of metropolitan cities is marginal decreasing whereas the decadal
growth rate of urban population increasing (Appendix I-1.4 & Appendix II -2.6).

1.2.3. Indian Mega cities

There are Three Mega cities (Urban areas with 10 million or more people) in India:
Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata. The highest annual exponential growth rate of urban
population of five metropolitan cities in India during 1991-2001 is Delhi (4.23%)
followed by Bangalore (2.78%), Mumbai (2.64%), Kolkata (1.92%) and Chennai
(1.80%) respectively. Delhi is the World’s fastest-growing megacity, adding nearly
one-half million people per year. Although the city has long since expanded beyond
the original inhabited area, it still has room to grow both within its borders and in
adjacent suburbs. The recent data released by the provisional Census of 2011, the
decennial growth rate of Bangalore is highest (49.65%), followed by Chennai

6
(35.51%), Delhi (26.69%), Mumbai (12.05%) and Kolkata (6.87%) respectively. Now
Bangalore becomes the World’s fastest growing metropolitan city. The researcher has
projected, by the year 2031; Bangalore will overtake Kolkata and Chennai and
became a third most populous city in the Country (Appendix I-1.5 & Appendix II -
2.7).

A recent report by McKinsey Global Institute says that India will have 68 cities by
2030 with a population of over 1 million, 13 cities with more than 4 million people,
and 6 megacities with populations of 10 million or more. As many as 590 million
people will be living in cities in India, and Mumbai and New Delhi will be among the
five largest cities in the World7.

The spatial growth differentials of Mega cities in India substantiate that, in case of
Bangalore - growing core and declining periphery whereas in Delhi - declining core;
growing periphery and rest of the four cities such as Greater Mumbai, Kolkata,
Chennai and Hyderabad shows that declining core and declining periphery8.

1.3. Urbanization in Karnataka

The Karnataka State had a population of 61.13 million (Provisional Census of India,
2011), ranks by ninth position for total population of India. Karnataka is one of the
fastest growing and urbanizing states of the country, with more than 1/3rd of its
inhabitants or 33.98 per cent of its population residing in urban areas, well above the
National average9. The provisional Census of India 2011, data reveals that the
population residing in the urban areas has increased to 38.57 percent; it is well above
the National average. Karnataka's decennial growth rate of urban population has been
consistently progressive with gradual increase in the share of urban population, from -
4.64 percent in 1911 to 31.27 percent in 2011 (Provisional Census of India, 2011).
During 1951, the decennial growth rate of urban population has rapidly increased to
61.75 percent; the main reason for such high urban population growth peak during
1951-61 in Karnataka was the state's initiatives for industrialization. This was the
period when India as a whole and Karnataka encouraged massive industrial
development by establishing several large- and medium-scale public sector industries,
like Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT), Indian Telephone Industry (ITI), Bharath
Electronics Ltd (BEL), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), Government Electric

7
Factory (GEF), Radio Manufacturing Company etc., in the state. The second boom in
the urban population growth during 1971-81 was also attributed to industrialization
and commercialization, but with more stress on development of the Information
Technology (IT) sector in its formative stage. A similar spurt in the growth of
population and manufacturing workers during 1941-51 and 1971-81 was also evident
in Bangalore city, the capital of Karnataka (Rao and Tewari 1979)10. It is projected
that by 2021 & 2031, the urban population will go up to 31.13 & 41.09 million
respectively. The share of urban population will go up to 49.95% in 2031 for an
average annual exponential growth rate of 2.75 % (Appendix I-1.6 & Appendix II-
2.8).

It is a leading state in the field of industry, in particular with regard to the production
of computer software. Karnataka has emerged as a key state with knowledge-based
industry such as IT, biotechnology and engineering. The state also leads in
electronics, computer software and biotechnology exports, with US$ 19.13 billion for
2009-10. It is the science capital of India with more than 100 Research and
Development (R&D) centres, and a preferred destination for multinational
corporations with more than 650 such companies. The state is well connected to its
five neighbouring states and other parts of India via 15 National Highways11 that run
through the state. The state has a rail network of 3,244 km, which includes broad
gauge and meter gauge (Economic survey of Karnataka, 2010-11). Five important
airports of the state are located in Bangalore, Belgaum, Mangalore and Hubli and
newly added of Mysore Airport. The state has an all-weather seaport at Mangalore,
which mainly handles cargo vessels. One of Asia’s biggest naval bases (INS
Kadamba) is situated at Karwar in Uttar Kannada district (GoKa, 2005).

Appendix I- 1.7 shows the changes in sectoral contributions to Karnataka’s economy.

Over the years, Karnataka has witnessed high growth with the economy of the state,
which was predominantly agrarian, shifting significantly towards an industrial and
service-based economy. In 2009-10, the tertiary sector contributed 54.1 percent to the
state’s GSDP at current prices, followed by secondary sector (28.1 percent) and
tertiary sector (17.8 percent). The tertiary sector has been the fastest growing among
the three sectors from 2004-05 to 2009-10. The growth has been driven by trade,
hotels, real estate, finance, insurance, transport, communications and other services.

8
The secondary sector decline 29.0 to 28.1 percent between 2004-05 and 2009-10 and
the primary sector decline to 19.80 to 17.80 percent between 2004-05 and 2009-10.

1.4. Absence of Metropolitan Governance

The growth of urban population has created serious challenges and imposing greater
demands for municipal governments in India. The urban centers contribute to the
national economies in far greater proportion to their population share, and are the
engines of enterprise, innovation and culture. One of the interesting phenomenon is
continual increase of metropolitan cities and their population and these Metros adding
up to about 160.50 million, accounting for 42.56 percent of the total urban population
(Provisional Census of India 2011).

The Metropolitan cities are characterized by multiple municipalities each delivering

services within their own jurisdiction. The majority of urban services (transportation,
water supply, solid waste management, and housing, for example) spill over
municipal boundaries. As the physical expansion of large cities extends into the rural
hinterland and crosses into other political jurisdictions, there is an increasing need to
coordinate service delivery. The popular perception is that urban areas are better
served with regard to water supply, sanitation and other amenities. But the perception
of well serviced cities hides the harsh reality of gross inequalities. According to a
2002 NSS report on ‘Housing Conditions in India’, 22 cities with more than a million
people, had slum population ranging from 10 to 54% of their total population.

There are large gaps among demand & supply of urban services such as water,
sanitation, solid waste management, public transport etc. The enormous disparity in
quantity of water supplied in Class I cities. Out of 393 cities, around 77 cities have
cent percent water supply coverage. In case of sewerage only around 70 cities have
partial sewerage treatment facilities. About 62 percent of the urban population had
access to toilets, either connected to sewers or septic tanks or to pit latrines and
serviced latrines and the solid waste generated in Indian Cities varies from 0.20 to
0.60 kg per capita per day12. The National Council of Applied Economic Research
(NCAER) estimates that though India’s Tier I cities remain the country’s richest;
those in Tier II are emerging as the new growth centers. While Tier I cities represent
6 percent of the population and contribute about 14 percent of the India’s GDP, Tier

9
II cities represent about seven percent of the nation’s population and contribute about
13 percent to GDP13.

The latest data provided by the 58th round of the National Sample Survey (2002)
specify the level of disparities in the modes of access for water supply across states.
The states performing poorly in providing tap water to urban households are Bihar
(35 percent), Assam (35.5 percent, Kerala (40 percent), U.P. (50 percent) and Orissa
(50 percent). In nine other states including large states such as Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh and Gujarat, 90 percent of the urban population receives tap water.

Data on sanitation services, from the 54th round of NSS (1998)14 also indicate
considerable state wise variations. Sanitary standards are abysmally low in the urban
areas of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh where more than 45 percent of the population has
no access to any type of latrine. The septic tank is the most common mode of
sanitation in use with more than one third of the urban population relying on them.
Sewerage is virtually non-existence in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Assam.
Punjab, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu are placed better (Zerah, 2006).15
National Sample Survey had given press note on Housing Condition and Amenities in
India, 2008-091 data reveals that 74 percent of urban households with ‘tap’ as major
source of drinking, 11 percent did not have any latrine, Nearly 22 percent of urban
households no bathrooms, 62 percent who were residing in own dwelling and 92
percent of the urban households lived in pucca structures.

The Urbanization is not a side effect of economic growth; it is an integral part of the
process. As in most countries, India’s urban areas make a major contribution to the
country’s economy. Although less than 1/3 of India’s people live in cities and towns,
these areas generate over 2/3 of the country’s GDP and account for 90% of
government revenues16. India’s towns and cities have expanded rapidly as increasing
numbers migrate to towns and cities in search of economic opportunity. Slums now
account for 1/4 of all urban housing. In Mumbai, more than half the population lives
in slums, many of which are situated near employment centers in the heart of town,
unlike in most other cities in developing countries.

1
National Sample Survey Office. (2010). Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, Press Information Bureau, Government of India, dated the 24 Kartika, 1932
Saka, 15th November, 2010

10
With urban growth comes the challenge of delivering services, finding the resources
to pay for those services, and coordinating service delivery across municipal
boundaries. These challenges are particularly acute in developing countries like India
where the population is poor and resources are limited. To deal with this problems
metropolitan governance are imperative.

1.5. Metropolitan cities - Governance issues and problem statement

The paradox of cities is evident from their stark display of economic and social
disparities with extremes of wealth and poverty co-existing side by side. As the UN-
Habitat (2006: viii) notes, “urban poverty and inequality will characterize many cities
in the developing world, and urban growth will become virtually synonymous with
slum formation in some regions”. Metropolitan governance today can be seen as a
composite function of overlapping institutions. Neither a centralist model with
instruction and execution, nor the federal model with subsidiary delegation of
functions is adequate in forming lasting solutions. Metropolitan governance therefore
falls quite naturally into the debate on describing and understanding the functionality
of polycentric development.

The following issues are common in Indian Metropolitan cities. They are:

1. Fragmentation and Jurisdiction conflicts – the most serious problem faced by

many metropolitan cities in India is political and administrative
fragmentation. Typically, a Metropolitan region is made up of a central city
and adjacent municipalities, towns, districts, wards, or villages that compete
against each other for resources. Some of these units may have organically
evolved from indigenous settlements or may trace their origins from colonial
legal structure. A common feature of these local organizational units is a
strong adherence to local autonomy and an antagonism to the powers and
prerogatives of higher-level governments. The complex and confusing
interrelationships among the various agencies in Metropolitan region seen in
Mumbai. A World Bank study reveals that although the Mumbai Metropolitan
Region Development Authority (MMRDA) is formally charged with
coordinating transport in the region, it actually has little influence on the
planning and provision of this important service. For one jurisdiction over, the

11
 suburban railway service rest with Indian Railways, a specialized central
government agency. Two zonal railway systems in the Mumbai suburbs are
also run by independent agencies that pursue their separate policies and
activities without any significant efforts at service integration.
2. Inappropriate decentralization schemes: Conceptually, there are two types of
decentralization. They are: the process of decentralization delegation of
authority and process of decentralization is devolution. The process of
delegation of authority and responsibility from the central government to field
units to enable these units to carry out specific functions. For example Mayors
of municipalities under the direct supervision and control of the central
government in China (Beijing, Shanghai etc) are appointed by the center. The
other meaning of decentralization is devolution, which is the transfer of both
responsibility and authority to local government units from the central
government.
3. Issues related to transparency and accountability: Metropolitan region
require investments in urban services, such as transit systems, water and
sewerage, energy supply, roads, ports, harbors and other high-priced items.
The large amounts involved and profits that can be gained from these projects
provide opportunities for graft and corruption. Unless governmental processes
can be instituted to ensure transparency and accountability in public
transaction, inefficiency, waste and moral decay could afflict urban
governance.
4. Metropolitan Service delivery- Important task of metropolitan governance is
delivery of essential services. The deficiency in delivery of services varied
widely from city to city. What were formerly straightforward, limited types of
services and delivery systems confined to local areas (urban areas), have often
needed urgent expansion on a vast, metropolitan scale. The abilities of
efficiency, responsiveness, and quality of service delivery are insufficient,
inadequate, and lagging behind any sound standard of quality of services that
could be offered to the citizens of the metropolitan cities. While poor service
delivery is evidenced in most of these services, their cost appears to be high.
One of the reasons for deficiencies in the urban basic services delivery is very
poor revenue base of the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and dependency of the

12
 ULBs on the financial transfers from higher levels of government (Mohanty et
al 2007)17.
5. Unsustainable land use (Spatial Planning) – Massive urbanization has serious
crash on spatial planning. At the metropolitan level, the prime issue, in terms
of spatial planning, is primarily a lack of legal constructs (including
administrative guidelines). Many metropolitan areas mix incompatible land
uses within the short distance of each other. The Metropolitan Master plans
are often unrealistic and lack of strategic sense and outcomes on the ground
diverge widely from what is proposed in the plans lose credibility, importantly
in the eyes of other government agencies and private developers.
6. Institutional Constraints- The metropolitan wide assessment of needs and
resources and the establishment of sectoral and area priorities have seldom
been undertaken on a continuing basis. Even where metropolitan development
authorities have been created, either they have not been mandated to
undertake these specific tasks or their structure has not been designed to
enable them to develop the metropolitan perspective (Sivaramakrishnan. K.C.
1986)18.
7. Economic development in most metropolitan areas is very uneven, and job
creation in the formal sector has been disappointing (Fainstein 2001)19. Most
urban regions lack economic development strategy, either in terms of
promotion of enterprises or development of entrepreneurship, much less
spatial planning and Government incentives tends to be at the senior levels
and aspatial.
8. Transportation and basic infrastructure systems have not kept pace with urban
growth, further disadvantaging the poor. Road systems are piecemeal, grossly
overloaded and under maintained, while the number of motorized vehicles
increased at extraordinary rate (World Bank 200120, Figueroa 199621). Public
transportation, which tends to be fragmented between public authorities and a
myriad of private carriers, cannot extend to many of improvised settlements
because the quality roads is so bad.
9. Water and especially sewer systems in poor areas are often totally deficient,
exacerbation of public health problems, contributing to environmental
destruction and disaster prone areas. Paradoxically the improvement of water

13
 supplies, when not mirrored by improved sanitation, aggravates surface water
drainage and water borne decease problems (UNCHS 1996). Solid waste
disposal is often the same sad state. The spatial scale of urban problems is
vast (Bartone, Bernstein, Leitmann and Eigen 1994)22.
10. The urban development patterns and the forms of urbanization are often
thousands of individual location decisions, and bear little relationship to a
land use plan, even if one exists. Massive sprawl covers the Landscape,
Industrial, Commercial and Residential uses are often poorly sited in
relationship to each other, to transportation requirements, to physical features
of topography, flood plains, natural hazards zones, acquifer re-charge areas or
protect forest. The good agriculture land consumed by random subdivision,
central area strangled under congestion and polluted air, new office towers
and hotels, usually fenced and guarded, gated communities in attractive
locations (Pirez 2002)23.
11. Lack of basic services such as public transportation, fresh water, parking
areas, waste management, sanitation and public toilets.
12. Lack of financial capacity - In a survey of 46 countries conducted in 1997, it
was found that about 82.5 percent of governmental income went to central
governments, 4.5 percent to sub national units, and 13.0 percent to local
governments (Ebel Vaillancourt 2001, 158-59)24 indicates unclear allocation
of functions and a mismatch between function and fiscal resources. In India
Constitution does not mandate the roles of different levels of Government, nor
are there national administrative guidelines per se; metropolitan functions are
often duplicated at different levels, or undertaken at inappropriate levels.

1.6. Justification for the Study

Most urban issues are not only inter - related and over-lapping; both in effect and
scale, but also public sector agencies set up to address these issues with regard to
multiplicity of agencies and overlapping mandates.

There are not many studies on Metropolitan Governance issues and choices in the
Indian context. This study attempts to bridge the gap between Metropolitan center
and Metropolitan Region in the context of metropolitan governance framework,

14
delivery of services and spatial planning. The study intends to understand the issues,
reexamine the present polices, the varieties, the decision-making processes and the
strength and weaknesses of contemporary thinking about metropolitan governance,
and its relationship with National or State Government on the one hand and local
(Municipal) government on the other.

Many planners, policy makers, public administrators and city managers have studied,
analyzed and presented the existing problems of Metropolitan Cities with regard to
Metropolitan Governance. All are aware of the problems but` are frantically striving
to arrive at a solution. We all know that something has to be done but, unfortunately
not many suggestions or answers available. It is precisely due to this situation, a need
for the study to arrive at solutions, the study has been undertake.

1.7. Analytical framework of study area

This study is on ‘Metropolitan Governance issues and choices - A study in
interrelationship between Bangalore Metropolitan Center and Metropolitan Region’.
The following framework has given a wider perspective and in-depth analysis of
metropolitan governance and interrelationship between the Metropolitan center and
Metropolitan regions. Suburban expansion, planned or unplanned, takes places
blurring the boundaries between the ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ and between one
administrative unit and another. While metropolitan development contributes to
economic growth and generates jobs, an important question that arises is who governs
the metropolitan areas? In spatial-economic or socio-economic terms, a metropolitan
area may form a functional unit but not necessarily so in administrative or
organizational matters. More often than not, a metropolis is characterized by
multiplicity of authorities and fragmentation of responsibility. An overview of
metropolitan area is given below:

1.7.1. Overview of Metropolitan area

A metropolitan area is a large population center consisting of a large city and its
adjacent zone of influence, or of several neighbouring cities or towns and adjoining
areas, with one or more large cities serving as its hub or hubs. The Metropolitan area
as ‘an area having a population of ten lakhs or more, comprised in one or more
districts and consisting of two or more municipalities’. The definition of

15
‘metropolitan areas’ and metropolitan institutions are extremely variable, and are
subject to change as populations grow and formal institutions proliferate. They may
be classified according to their spatial form, their special identifying characteristics or
their institutional configuration. Metropolitan areas are usually defined by the extent
of the urban area and its immediate surrounds. Metropolitan area is large urban
settlements with high population densities, complex and diversified economies, and a
high degree of functional integration across a larger geographic area than the normal
jurisdiction of a municipality.

Broadly there are three approaches to territorial definition. The first is the contiguous
area of urbanization, in which one would expect to find the full range of urban
services water, sewer, and a complete road network etc., for example Singapore. A
second approach is to define the functional metropolitan area – this is the approach
often used by geographers and census takers – and involves consideration of size,
population density and commuter - shed or common labour market. In the sixties and
seventies the arguments for metropolitan government were based on the need to
create structures to fit their social and physical development25. A third approach is
that of the so called ‘new regionalist’, who consider city region as the basic building
block towards new forms of governance (Savitch and Vogel 200026, Norris 2001,
Wheeler 2002)27. The dramatic resurgence of city regions since the 1990’s replaces
the concept of Megalopolis, a term coined by Jean Gottman (1961)28, to describe
metropolitan growth and fusing of metropolitan regions along with eastern seaboard
of the United States.

Michael Goldsmith characterizes metropolitan areas by: “relatively large land area,
relatively large populations, large range of economic activities, extensive number of
governmental bodies or agencies and/or some formed structure, probably
considerable social segregation and possible ethnic diversity reflected by a range of
social problems (…), poor physical infrastructure (…) and a range of environmental
problems, particularly poor air quality. But they are also honey pots, continuing to
attract people from outside to their centre. They are places in which the process of
globalisation effectively occurs, acting as centers of innovation, creators of new
markets and trends. Finally, such areas may also face public resource crisis,
particularly financial (…)” (Michael Goldsmith 2000: 326)29. All metropolises try to

16
improve their position both in a national and global economy, & what (Sassen,
1991)30 describes as “global cities” as part of a dynamic process of
metropolitanisation, emphasising the importance of new economy and of regulating
functions. Global cities have a high range of technological services, high capacity of
commercial exchanges (stock markets), financial services with a high power of
decision and new juridical services.

In Gottman’s (1979:6) own wards, “Megalopolis is a spectacular and fascinating

phenomenon. Facts so huge and stubborn only are caused by the convergence of
many powerful and sustained forces”. More precisely, agglomerations are defined
according to a variety of criteria ranging from continuous built environment, over
economic activities and centrality functions to commuter movement. Metropolitan
areas are defined by the flow of commuters between agglomerations (Schuler, 1994).

The topology suggested by Hall and Pfeiffer (2000)31 is based on the growth
characteristics. Here cities are divided into three classes, the city of hyper growth, the
city of dynamism and the maturity city. Hyper growth, typified by the cities of
Southeast Asia, implies high rates of population increase, a young population
structure, and large number of people seeking entry into the labour force, enormous
stress on housing, social and educational services, land and infrastructures. Dynamic
cities are in demographic transition, birth rates have begun to slow down with
increasing urbanization and urban services are beginning to catch up with demand.
Mature developed cities, characterized by those of Western Europe and North
America, are those with an aging population profile, in which birth rates are below
replacement levels and immigration is necessary to maintain growth and fill low
skilled jobs.

Overview of Bangalore2 – History and origin of study area- Early scene of the city till
Independence - Kempegowda I, chief of the Yelahanka Prabhus, established
Bangalore in 1537 (1510-1570). This fort area and the settlement can be recognised
as the Petta area of the city. Along with the buildings and institutions, arts and crafts
were promoted and traders settled down.

2
The State government renamed to ‘Bengalooru’. However, ‘Bangalore’ will be used all through.

17
The settlement was organised as specialised quarters based on functional activities
such as Akkipete (rice market), Taragupete (grain market), Aralepete (cotton market),
Chickpete (little town), Doddapete (big town). Following the reign of Kempegowda,
in the 17th century the town came under the Kingdom of Mysore, the Marathas as
well as the Mughals. During this period, an oval fort, whose traces remain till today,
was added to the South of the old fort by the Wodeyar kings and Chikkadeva Rajas.

In mid 18th century, Haider Ali attempted to consolidate his military position of the
town by building many defence structures. Bangalore became an important place for
exchange of silk, textiles, commerce and trade in spices. Roads were built from
Bangalore Pettah to Madras, Pondicherry, Salem, etc. In 1760, the Lalbagh garden
was built based on the model of Mughal gardens. Haider Ali’s son Tipu Sultan
continued the work of his father until his defeat by British forces in 1799.

In 1807, the British Cantonment Area was formed to the North-East of Petta
(Richmond Town, Cleveland Town, Benson Town, Ulsoor) and the general Bazaar
(presently Shivajinagar). Between the Petta and Cantonment large open spaces were
created and maintained (Parade Grounds, Cubbon Park, and Race Course). In 1859,
the East India Company created the Bangalore-Madras railway line.

New neighborhoods of Basavanagudi and Malleshwaram were established in 1898 to

the South and North of Pettah. Kalasipalyam (near the old fort) and Gandhinagar were
established between 1921 and 1931, then Kumara Park in 1947 and Jayanagar in
1948.
Bangalore after Independence - After Independence from the British rule, large scale
State enterprises (Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL), Bharat Havey Electronics
Limited (BHEL), Indian Telephone Industries (ITI), and Hindustan Mission Tools
(HMT) were set up giving the town an industrial and scientific foundation. The new
residential quarters (Jayanagar, Jayamahal, Rajajinagar, etc.) were developed under
the impetus of the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB). Between 1941 and 1951,
the population of the town went up from 786,343 to 1,206,961.
In the 1960s, along with the establishment of Peenya, “the largest industrial zone
of Asia “, in the West, and much later, Bommasandra in the South residential areas
such as Koramangala, Indira Nagar, Banaswadi, and Banashankari, among others
were also established. During the 1970s, the city witnessed development of the textile

18
and silk industries. The liberalisation of the Indian economy in early 1990s facilitated
the emergence and growth of high-tech and software industries, due to which
Bangalore became prominent in the World of new technologies.
While the municipal corporation has been in existence since 1949, the municipal
councils were created in 1996 to deal with the growing urbanization in the
metropolitan area. In planning purpose, the area divided into two, they are; The
Bangalore Metropolitan Area and Bangalore Metropolitan Region. The Bangalore
Metropolitan Area comes under the planning jurisdiction of Bangalore Development
Authority (BDA)32 and Bangalore Metropolitan Region comes under the planning
jurisdiction of Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA).

1.7.2. Bangalore3 Metropolitan Center (BMC)

The Bangalore Metropolitan Center is comprised of the area of Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) or Greater Bangalore was formed on November 1, 2006.
This covers an area of 800 [Link] and houses a population of 8.43 million
(Provisional Census of India, 2011). The BBMP has been divided into 8 zones and
198 wards for administrative purpose. The main aims for creation of Greater
Bangalore are as follows;

1. Improve and co-ordinate infrastructure development for road and

transportation network, water supply and UGD, Solid Waste Management
etc.,
2. Upgrade quality of urban civic services etc.,
3. Strengthen administrative capacity to ensure better enforcement of various
rules/regulations as also better co-ordination in service delivery etc., and
4. Optimise expenditure on establishment etc.,

1.7.3 Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR)

The BMR is comprised of three districts, namely Bangalore Urban District (BUD),
Bangalore Rural District (BRD) and Ramanagaram District (RD-a newly created
district carved out of Bangalore Rural district with Ramanagaram, Chennapatna,
Magadi and Kanakapura taluks) covering a total of 8005 sq kms. The three districts in
the BMR are further divided into 11 Taluks. The taluks in turn have 11 ULBs and 284

3
The State government renamed to ‘Bengalooru’. However, ‘Bangalore’ will be used all through.

19
Gram Panchayats covering 2551 villages. The BMR comes under the planning
jurisdiction of Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA).
It’s controlled by eight local planning authorities33 an area consists of 8005 [Link]
with a population of 11.66 million (Provisional Census of India, 2011).

1.8. Research Hypothesis, background and questions

1.8.1. Hypothesis - The Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR) requires
Metropolitan Regional Governance in order to overcome multiplicity of organisation,
jurisdiction and their interaction issues /complexes. A suitable metropolitan
governance model will synthesize harmonious relationship between Metropolitan
Center and Metropolitan Region to create a sustainable future.

1.8.2. Background - The various literatures, case studies on metropolitan governance

suggest that, Bangalore should have one ‘metropolitan governance model’ to serve
overall area of Bangalore with sector specific parastatals like Water, Sewerage,
Sanitation, Electricity, Roads and SWM etc. The research intends to test the
recommendation to a better understanding. The following questions are framed to
develop a discourse.

1.8.3. Research Questions

1. What are the key governance issues of Bangalore Metropolitan center and
region?
2. How do we agree spatial planning (Master Plan) in urban areas is related to
zoning and land use policies, and giving directions for urban growth?
3. Which are the top three issues that need to be considered in effective
implementation of spatial plan (Master Plan) for Bangalore?
4. Does the service delivery meet the citizens’ expectations in BBMP area in
terms of: Speed and Quality, Transparency and Accountability, Reliability,
Affordability and Accessibility
5. How effective are the existing institutional arrangements across Bangalore for
enabling the practice of service delivery for citizens?
6. Is constituting Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) and District Planning
Committees (DPCs) for Bangalore, would improve the effectiveness in
service delivery and allow for effective spatial planning?

20
 7. Which governance model is best suited for enhancing service delivery and
spatial planning in Bangalore Metropolitan Region?

1.9. Aims and Objectives

1.9.1. Aims
The study intends to develop a suitable governance model and to synthesize
harmonious relationship between Bangalore Metropolitan Center and Metropolitan
Region to create a sustainable future.

1.9.2. Objectives
1. To study the functions of Urban Local Bodies with particular reference to
Metropolitan Cities in India;
2. To review and appraise various Metropolitan Governance Models in India;
3. To assess the current reforms and new initiatives for governing metropolis in
the study area;
4. To review the existing institutional framework with respect to Metropolitan
Spatial Planning and Service Delivery in the study area, and
5. To work out a suitable Metropolitan Governance Model in establishing a
harmonious relationship between Bangalore Metropolitan Center and
Metropolitan Region.

1.10. Methodology
The objectives enumerated above are achieved by adopting the following methods:

Firstly, study of literature to know the present problems of Bangalore Metropolitan

center and Metropolitan region. Reconnaissance surveys have been carried out for
preliminary understanding of study area & mapping the field source. Tracing and
mapping of recent initiatives of service delivery and spatial planning mechanisms
through secondary information and field source. An in-depth analysis and
understanding of various models attempted in Indian Metropolitan cities along with
effects of 74th Constitutional Amendment Act to improve the Metropolitan
Governance for urban living (flow chart 1). This research is mainly dependent on
primary and secondary information and data. The opinion survey has been conducted
by choosing a subject expert/ policy makers/bureaucrats/NGOs members etc.

21
Data collection and samples - The structured questionnaire (closed and open-ended
questionnaire) has been used to elicit the information from subject experts/policy
makers/bureaucrats etc. while the check list are used to the collection of information
from various departments such as BBMP, BDA, BWSSB, BMRDA, BESCOM,
BMTC, KUWSDB and various other parastatals agencies within the Bangalore
Metropolitan Region. A review of all government reports, proceedings of the
meetings and recent government policy and legal framework and enforcement
mechanism have been carried out.

1.10.1. Methodology for Opinion Survey

Structured interview schedule- A structured interview questionnaire was designed
with maximum closed–ended type’s questions, few questions related with ranked or
ordinal, matrix rating types and a likert scale questions. The additional information
provided by the interviewer was recorded in the respective questionnaire to be used as
a supplement for the final interpretation of the findings.
The exploratory study (opinion survey) was conducted during the months of January,
February of 2011 and online survey was conducted in the month of August,
September during 2010. Out of 40 respondents, 3 respondents online and rest of it
were interviewed through the mode of snowball sampling, categorized into eight
groups viz. Head of the Public Stakeholders, Secretariats, Subject experts National
and International, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) members, representative
of Premier Institutions, Consulting Groups and Individual consultants who are
primarily engaged in shaping the spatial planning and service delivery models (flow
chart -2). Such a wide distribution of respondents helped not only to generate a fairly
comprehensive database, suggestions and comments but also to cursorily trace who
are involved in metropolitan governance in the context with service delivery and
spatial planning within the Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR). The subject
experts at the international level were selected based on the criteria of who are
involved in Bangalore projects and well aware about governance and service delivery.

The Survey were carried out using snow ball sampling techniques grouping of
samples and having limited constraints to use DELPHI METHOD for making
repetitive rounds for interaction of all the key interviewers. A 5-point Likert - scale
(ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) were used.

22
1.10.2. Data Analysis
SPSS version 16.0 for Windows was used to calculate frequencies and descriptive
statistics (Means and SDs) of panel scores on each statement. The consensus level
was set between 80 and 100% agreement or disagreement, and is considered to
represent high. The statistical level of agreement with a statement was set at the
mean response of >3.00 (Agree) or higher, with a SD of <1.000, whereas the
statistical consensus of disagreement with a statement was set at the mean response of
2.00 (Disagree) or lower, with a SD of <1.000.
The correlation matrix is used to arriving results of correlation among the various
indicators of water utilities in Bangalore.

23
 Flow Chart 1: Methodology

TASK I: LITERATURE SURVEY: to know the problem of:

• Concept of governance
• Governance of Metropolitan center and region
• Governance models

TASK II: RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY

• For preliminary understanding of study area
• Mapping the field resources

TASK III: UNDERSTANDING THE METROPOLITAN ISSUES

• Structure of Metropolitan Government of Bangalore Metropolitan
Center and region
• Primary polices and overall outcomes
• Decision making process for metropolitan issues through
horizontal and vertical integration
• Mapping Institutional service delivery matrix

REVIEW OF ISSUES

TASK IV: TRACING AND MAPPING OF RECENT INITIATIVES OR CHOICES

• Effective Service Delivery
• Spatial planning mechanisms

TASK V: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS AND UNDERSTANDING

• Various governance models attempted in Indian and other cities
• Effects of 74th CAA to improve metropolitan governance

REVIEW OF CHOICES

TASK VI: FINAL REPORT

24
 Flow chart 2: Breakup of Cross Section of Respondents

OPINION SURVEY – Bangalore Metropolitan

Spatial Planning & Service Delivery

Public Secretariats Subject Subject Expert- NGOs Institutions Consulting Individual

stakeholders expert- International members (N=4) groups Consultant
(N=3)
(N=9) National (N=3) (N=3) (N=5) (N=6) (N=7)

TOTAL KEY INTERVIEWER

(N=40)

25
1.11. Scope and Limitations
The problems of Metropolitan Center and Metropolitan Region with respect to delivery of
service and spatial planning aspects only are studied in detail. Specifically, the Bangalore
Metropolitan Center and Metropolitan Region are studied. A Governance model is
proposed to be suggested at the end of the study for Bangalore Metropolitan Region which
may not applicable to the other cities of different nature.

The scope of this research is to find out what urban local governments and various
parastatals are doing to meet the human and community needs and what they could have
achieved through better governance, examine the ways to close the gap between local
government’s present performance and potential performance.

This study mainly concentrates on metropolitan governance issues and choices and their
interrelationship between the Metropolitan Center and Metropolitan Region which may
provide the solutions to current city functioning. Further the analysis are carried out with
the actual city government of Bangalore Metropolitan center and Metropolitan Region to
understand the practical nature of the barriers impending improved performance and the
difficulty of removing them if any. This research begins with analytical and diagnostic
approach and concludes with a prescriptive model.

26
27
1.13. Chapter Outline

This research is divided into eight chapters including Chapter I which gives an
introduction to the research, issues and problem statements, significance of the study,
general framework of the study area, hypothesis, research questions, aims & objectives,
methodology, data analysis, scope & limitations and work plan.

Chapter II reviews work done by other scholars in the field of Good Urban Governance,
Metropolitan Governance, models, Institutional framework, reforms and Initiatives,
followed by Metropolitan Spatial Planning and Service Delivery Framework in India and
Abroad.

Chapter III examines the Bangalore Metropolitan Center growth and its changes,
institutional framework, metropolitan governance institutions and its governance absences
and overlapping mandates.

Chapter IV discusses the Bangalore Metropolitan Region growth and its changes,
institutional framework of urban local bodies, and other Parastatals agencies and
overlapping mandates.

Chapter V reveals the existing Bangalore Metropolitan Governance constitutional and

legal frameworks, various planning and development authorities Acts and Polices. Review
of present governance model and various reforms and initiatives on governance.

Chapter VI is the integrated metropolitan spatial planning and service delivery on

governance framework. Mainly focuses on evolution of spatial planning, review of master
plans, structure plans and interim plans and issues of spatial planning, integrated service
delivery for effective implementation water supply services.

Chapter VII reveals that opinion survey results of Metropolitan Spatial Planning and
Service Delivery with respect to speed and quality, transparency and accountability,

28
reliability, accessibility and affordability. Followed by existing institutional arrangement
for efficient service delivery and best suited model for the metropolitan governance.

Chapter VIII reveals that conclusion of research, suggestion and models for harmonious
relationship between integrating the Bangalore Metropolitan Center and Bangalore
Metropolitan Region and gives future research directions.

Future Direction of Research

In India, we have so many success stories, best practices and plenty of studies on Urban
Governance. In the scale of metropolitan level one can say that it’s very limited. The
major issues of Metropolitan governance are Spatial Planning and Service Delivery both
are interlinking and correlated. There is a scope for further detailing the ‘CITY GROWTH
STRUCTURE VERSUS EXPANSION OF SERVICES AND ITS IMPACT ON CITY
GOVERNMENT’.

1.14. Summary
This chapter first presented the urbanisation in global phenomenon, Indian urbanization
and its pattern, growth of metropolitan and mega cities, urbanisation trends in Karnataka
supported by analysis confirming the growth trends. Followed by absence of metropolitan
governance, issues and problem statement supported by case examples, analytical
framework of metropolitan area in context with study area, research hypothesis,
approaches and questions, aim and objectives, methodology, scope and limitations, plan of
work and chapter outline.

29