Pr
![](3D"JoyKarmakar_files/image002.gif")
A Peer-Reviewed International Journal of
Humanities & Social Science
=
=
IS=
SN: 2278-5=
264 (Online) 2321=
-=
93=
19 (Print)
=
=
Im=
pact Factor: 6.=
28 (=
I=
ndex Copernicus
International)
=
=
Volume=
-V, Issue-I,
July 2016, Page No. 61-74
P=
=
u=
blished by Dept.
of Bengali, Karimganj College, Karimganj,
Assam, India<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New R=
oman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-language:BN-BD'>
=
&nb=
sp; =
We
Trend, Pattern and Key Challenges fo=
r Urban
West Bengal, India
Joy Karmak=
ar
Doctoral Scholar, Department of Geography, University of Calcutta, We=
st
Bengal India
Abstract
Urbanization in India is current=
ly
characterized by two basic trends: lopsided migration to the larger cities =
and
unbalanced regional economic development. In this context, this paper tries=
to
find out the
trend and pattern of urban Centres (municipality, Municipal Corporation etc=
.)
of West Bengal. To know how t=
he
districts are consistent in terms of level of urbanization and with other
aspect of urbanization. Lastly assess the policies for small and medium tow=
ns
over the year regarding the balance regional economic development. <=
/i>Census
data has been used for analyze the trend and pattern of urban centers of We=
st
Bengal. It is apparent that since the independence Kolkata have remained the
largest urban centers in West Bengal as well as the eastern India. There wa=
s no
single million size city till 2001 in the state. Even the second million si=
ze
city (Howrah) of the state next to Kolkata emerged not outside the Kolkata
Metropolitan area. District headquarters, planned towns and other small tow=
ns
of the state perform in different way over the years. Policy intervention h=
as
played a crucial role in shaping the pattern of urbanization in the state.
There was no uniform policy of urbanization rather Policy has been shaped a=
nd
reshaped by the different political periods.
=
Key words: Urban center, Metropolitan Area, Mill=
ion
City, Lopsided migration
Background=
= The process of urbanization in India is characterized by increasing absorption = of population in larger cities. In 2001 Class I cities holding 68.7% of the to= tal urban population (defined as cities having a population of over 100,000). On the other hand 21.9% and 9.4% of total urban population was living in medium and small towns respectively. Though, in 2011 the figure slightly reduces to 60.79% of the total urban population living in the class I cities. What is remarkable is that the rate of population growth in these Class I cities has been consistently increasing over the past five decades, from 45% in 1961-7= 1 to 62% in 1991-2001 (Chattopadhyay, Basudha 2008). Similarly there is a decrea= se in population growth in smaller urban centres. Therefore it is obvious that these metro and big cities are facing challenges to their civic infrastruct= ure and service delivery capabilities (Sahasranaman 2012). In the 1980s, resear= ch on small towns and their role in economic development, as an interface betw= een agriculture and urban market and their position in ensuring rural-urban linkages and economic development was important (Raman and Alemma, et.al. 2015). By the middle of the 1980s, Hardoy and Sattertherwaite (1984) noted = that "most of the literature on urban issues in the Third World is about capital cities or large cities. Most of the concern expressed about urban problems is about problems in large cities. Yet only a small proportion of = the Third World’s population lives in large cities.” Therefore attention on small town was limited and selective. What is worthwhile to mention is that identification of small town and medium is very contentious subject. Researchers’ uses different population size parameter to identify small towns Kundu (2007) consider town below 50000 populations is a small town while Dupont (2002) believes towns below 20,000 people as “small” towns. In fact in India Number of institution prepares their own criteria to identify urban area as well as their size. These institutions include Census of India, each state government and central ministry of urban development. State government identification of urban are= a is based on their municipal act while central urban development ministry introduces size classification of urban area for disbursement of fund to central urban development project which includes JNNURM, AMRUT. The need to focus on small and medium towns as the towns of tomorrow is because of the unsustainability of current migration patterns and the need for more balanc= ed, equitable regional growth (Sahasranaman, 2012). The development of small and medium cities will be of paramount importance in ensuring sustainable urbanization for India. Appropriate planning supported by suitable financing mechanisms can help turn today’s moribund small and medium cities into the vibrant cities of tomorrow’s India. Sustained development of small and medium cities is possibly the most potent strategy to counter the curre= nt trend of lopsided development (Sahasranaman, 2012). Therefore paper will tr= y to explore the West Bengal’s cities and towns current trend, pattern and key challenges for Sustainability.<= o:p>
=
=
Objectives
=
![](3D"JoyKarmakar_files/image004.jpg")
![](3D"JoyKarmakar_files/image006.jpg")
Fig-1: Stu=
dy
Area
Database a=
nd
Methodology
For
the study, Census data of 1951 to 2011 has been collected from Census of In=
dia
and various published policy paper regarding large to small towns are colle=
cted
from ministry of Urban Development India.
To
analyze the trend and pattern of urban Centres of West Bengal, census data =
for
a period of 1951-2011 has been taken. Urban centers have been classified in=
to
four types on the basis of their population sizes. This classification is m=
ade
with slight modification from the document of Integrated Development of Sma=
ll
and Medium Towns published by ministry of urban affairs and employment.
=
i) =
Small town population size le=
ss
than 20,000
=
ii) Intermediate
town population size is between 20,000-50,000
=
iii) Big
town population size is between 50,000-100,000
=
iv) Large
town population size is between 100,000-less than 1 million
=
v) Million
plus City population size is more than 1 million
This
scheme of classification is taken in keeping view that the central governme=
nt
various urban development programme follows this classification for funding
disbursement and that is crucial for sustainability for small and medium to=
wns.
Following map shows the spatial distribution of town and city size of West
Bengal as per above mentioned scheme.
![](3D"JoyKarmakar_files/image008.gif")
Fig-2:
Distribution of Different Size
Urban Centers of West Bengal 2011
A consistency te=
st of
level of urbanization along with other aspect of urbanization has been anal=
yzed
across the district. In order to know whether these (Urban Population Densi=
ty
(UPD), Share of Urban Population (SUP), and Percentage of Urban Area (PUA)
Share of Urban Area (SUA)) aspects vary consistently with LU, we examined t=
he
extent of deviation of all these aspects through their ranks with respect to
the corresponding rank in LU for individually all the 18 districts. This was
accomplished by comparing the rank of a particular district in LU with the
ranks of that district on the basis of the above mentioned aspects. By these
comparisons the districts have been grouped into three categories.
Category
A =
no deviation or coincidence of the ranks
Category B=
=
deviation by 1 or 2-ranks
Category
C =
deviation by 3-ranks
=
If a district fa=
lls
into the category-A, it will be termed as perfectly consistent; if it falls
into the category-B then moderately consistent and finally, if it falls into
the category-C, it will be considered as marginally consistent.
Symbolically,
if RL=
U-
RUPD =3D 0
perfectly consistent
if RL=
U-
RUPD =3D 1
or 2 moderately consistent
if RL=
U-
RUPD =3D 3
marginally consistent
=
Where, RLU<=
/sub>
=3D Rank of Level of urbanization, RUPD =3D Rank of Urban Popula=
tion
Density
=
On
the basis of the above discussion the comparison between level of urbanizat=
ion
and various aspects was carried out for the census years of 2001 and 2011.
Lastly a multiple correlation is tested between level of urbanization and
various other factors.
=
=
Results & Discussion
=
Growth, Tr=
end
and Pattern of Towns and Cities in West Bengal
Broadly towns and
cities can be categorized into statutory and non statutory. It should be no=
ted
that paper concern only about the statutory town’s growth, its trend =
and
pattern. Non statutory towns are called census town (It is a rural area but
have potentialities to become urban area) which identifies by the census of
India using three fold criteria includes population size, density and male =
work
participation.=
![](3D"JoyKarmakar_files/image010.gif")
Fig-3:
Absolute Growth of Statutory and Census Towns of West Bengal
It’s
apparent from the figure 3 that number of census towns is much higher than
statutory towns. From mid 1980s there is a sharp growth of census town in t=
he
state. While it indicates that municipalization of the state is very sluggi=
sh.
Table-1:
Population Growth of Different Towns and Cities of West Bengal 1951-2011
|
|
Small
Town |
Intermediary
Town |
Big
city |
Large
city |
Million
city |
|
1951-61<= o:p> |
-0.77 |
23.67 |
4.14 |
13.52 |
1.35 |
|
1961-71<= o:p> |
-2.30 |
-6.48 |
5.48 |
7.82 |
1.23 |
|
1971-81<= o:p> |
-6.96 |
-7.75 |
-4.35 |
6.24 |
1.10 |
|
1981-91<= o:p> |
7.81 |
29.80 |
6.07 |
8.76 |
0.66 |
|
1991-01<= o:p> |
-4.61 |
-0.79 |
-1.08 |
5.17 |
2.70 |
|
2001-11<= o:p> |
0.64 |
-0.25 |
2.79 |
0.80 |
-0.02 |
Source: Ce=
nsus
of India 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011
Lopsided urbaniz=
ation
& migration pattern of state is very clear from table 1. It shows that =
in
small town population growth is negative since 1951 to 1981 and 1991 to 200=
1.
Positive growth of population happens only in two decades which include 198=
1 to
1991 and 2001-2011. In case of intermediate towns the positive growth of
population occurs only in two decades i.e. 1951-1961 and 1981-1991. While in
case of big cities negative population growth occur only in two decades i.e.
1971-1981, and 1991-2001. The scenario is completely reverse both in large =
and
million cities, where population growth is positive since 1951 to 2011.
Negative population growth occurs only in million cities in 2001-2011. The
negative population growth of small town is the result of selective destinations i.e. linked with availability =
of
employment and other opportunities, leading to regionally unbalanced
urbanization as also distortions in urban hierarchy (Kundu 2008).
Table-2:
Population Share of Different Towns and Cities of West Bengal 1951-2011
|
|
Small Town |
Intermediary Town |
Big city |
Large city |
Million city |
|
1951 |
9.06 |
17.31 |
16.26 |
9.37 |
47.99 |
|
1961 |
5.02 |
35.07 |
13.83 |
13.26 |
32.80 |
|
1971 |
3.94 |
12.56 |
21.82 |
24.09 |
37.55 |
|
1981 |
1.23 |
2.90 |
12.66 |
40.26 |
42.90 |
|
1991 |
1.41 |
7.43 |
13.11 |
48.61 |
29.42 |
|
2001 |
0.58 |
5.25 |
8.96 |
56.55 |
28.64 |
|
2011 |
0.58 |
4.78 |
10.73 |
57.17 |
26.72 |
Source: Census of India 1951,
1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011
Population share of small, intermediate=
and
big cities declined over the six decade. Large and million cities population
share increases over six decades. Higher population share in large and mill=
ion
cities indicates the higher levels of poverty and greater deprivation in sm=
all,
intermediate towns and big cities leads to the migration of large and milli=
on
cities (Kundu 2008). It is significant that post 1990 million cities (Kolka=
ta
and Howrah) population share is sharply decreasing. It is to note that
population share of Kolkata Metropolitan Area (municipality and municipal
corporation and cantonment areas population are included and rural areas
population within KMA are excluded) also declined at 1.13%. Decline populat=
ion
share indicate shrinking economic base of the state. The state saw industrial projects worth Rs 312 crore being implement=
ed
in 2012, which was a fall of nearly 85% over the previous year, and 97% over
2010, according to data from the West Bengal Economic Review 2012-13 (Acharya
2013). Decentralization of urban
population can also be a cause for decline of population share. Number of
studies shows that West Bengal urbanization pattern is changing (Cha=
tterjee
2013). Urban population is spread across t=
he
fertile alluvial plain (Districts which have substantial proportion =
of
Alluvial Plain include Both N &S Dinajpur, Malda, Murshidabad,
Hooghly,Nadia,Burdwan and both N & S 24 pgs)
of West Bengal (Karmakar 2015) and earlier this was confined only in Kolkata
Metropolitan area and urban complex of Durgapur and Asansole (Dasgup=
ta
1988). It is remarkable that the spread ur=
ban
population is not restricted within statutory towns rather there is an
emergence of large number of census towns. Scholars identified this form of
urbanization into different terms. Kundu (2011) noted this form as
exclusionary urbanization the poor are downgrade to the degenerated periphe=
ries
(Kundu 2011). Revi et al. (2006) highlighted the possible interconnectednes=
s of
urban and rural in subaltern urbanization with their proposed concept of
Rurbanism. Denis et.al (2012) identified this spatial transformation of rur=
al
or peri urban area as subaltern urbanization.
District
surrounds Kolkata have large number of towns and they are large in size com=
pare
to other towns away from Kolkata. North 24 pgs have total 22 large towns wh=
ich
have population more than 100,000 but less than one million. Only Gobardang=
a,
Garulia, Baduria, New Barrakpore, Taki and Nabadiganta Industrial estate ha=
ve
less than 100000 populations. In
Burdwan there are six large statutory towns which include Jamuria, Raniganj,
Asansole, Drgapur, Burdwan and Kulti. Apart from North 24 pgs and Burdwan;
Hooghly, Nadia and Medinipur have some large no of towns. Part of Hoogly, N=
orth
24 pgs and Nadia is under Kolkata Metropolitan area and these towns are par=
t of
suburban Kolkata.
![](3D"JoyKarmakar_files/image012.gif")
![](3D"JoyKarmakar_files/image014.gif")
Fig-5: Types of Urban Centres in 2001 =
Fig-6: Types of Urban Centres in
2011
The
distribution of urban centers among four categories shows that dominance of
large cities is declining while intermediate and small towns are growing. I=
t is
remarkable that number of big city emerges in backward districts like
Murshidabad, Birbhum, Nadia, Kochbihar and south 24 pgs and Medinipur. All =
the
districts have at least 3 big cities. Such towns have significant role in
shaping the pattern and level of urbanization of the district. Consistent t=
est
of 2001 and 2011 shows how level of urbanization is consistent with some ot=
her
aspects of urbanization across 18 districts of the state.
Table-3:
Consistency Status of the Distric=
ts in
the Census Years of 2001and 2011
|
Census
Years |
Consistent |
Moderately
Consistent |
Marginally
Consistent |
|||
|
Urban
Population Density (UPD) |
||||||
|
2001 |
Kolkata, South
24 Pgs |
North
24Pgs,Hooghly,Howrah, Bankura,
Murshidabad, Darjeeli=
ng |
South
Dinajpur, North Dinajpur, Malda, Birbhum, =
Nadia,
Kochbihar, Burdwan, Medinipur, Puruliy=
a, Jalpiguri |
|||
|
2011 |
Kolkata |
North 24
Pgs, Hooghly, Medinipur, South 24 Pgs |
South
Dinajpur, North Dinajpur, Malda,Birbhum, Nadia, Kochbihar, Burdwan,
Howrah,Bankura,Murshidabad,Darjeeling,
Jalpiguri,Puruliya |
|||
|
Census Years |
Consistent |
Moderately Consistent |
Marginally Consistent |
|||
|
Percentage of Urban Area (PUA) |
||||||
|
2001 |
Kolkata, Burdwan, Hooghly, North Dinajpur, |
North
24 PGS, Howrah, Nadia, Jalpiguri,
South 24 Pgs, Puruliya, Kochbihar, Birbhum, Bankura, Malda |
Darjeeli=
ng
South Dinajpur, Murshidabad, Medinipur |
|||
|
2011 |
Kolkata, Burdwan,Howrah, North Dinajpur, North 24 PGS, Banku=
ra |
Darjelin=
g,
Hooghly, Jalpiguri, South 24 Pgs, Nadia, Birbhum, Puruliya, Kochbihar |
Murshida=
bad,Malda,
Medinipur, South Dinajpur |
|||
|
Share of Urban Area (SUA) |
||||||
|
2001 |
North 24=
Pgs,
Birbhum |
Howrah,
Hooghly, Nadia, Jalpiguri, Murshidabad, Kochbihar, Malda |
Kolkata,
Burdwan, Darjeeling, South 24 Pgs, South Dinajpur,North Dinajpur, Puruliy=
a, Medinipur,Bankura |
|||
|
2011 |
Bi=
rbhum |
Howrah,
Hooghly, Nadia, Jalpiguri, Murshidabad, Kochbihar, Malda, North Dinajpur,
North 24 Pgs |
Kolkata,
Burdwan, Darjeeling,Jalpiguri, South 24 Pgs, South Dinajpur,Puruliya, Medinipu=
r,
Bankura |
|||
|
Share of Urban Population (SUP) |
||||||
|
2001 |
Hooghly, Malda, =
North
Dinajpur, Puruliya |
Kolkata,
Burdwan, Howrah, Nadia, Sou=
th 24
pgs, Murshidabad, Kochbihar,Bankura |
Darjeeli=
ng,Jalpiguri,
South Dinajpur, Birbhum
,Medinipur |
|||
|
2011 |
Kolkata,
Nadia, Malda, Birbhum, Puruliya, North Dinajpur, Kochbihar, |
Darjeeli=
ng,
South 24 Pgs, South Dinajpur, Medinipur |
Howrah, =
North
24 Pgs, Burdwan, Hooghly,Jalpiguri,Murshidabad, Bankura |
|||
Source: Ce=
nsus
of India 2001, 2011, Data compiled by author
=
=
Rouf
and Jahan (2001) used this method to analyze the trend and pattern of
Bangladesh urbanization. Paul and Chatterjee (2012) also used this method to
analyze North 24 Pgs urbanization pattern.=
The above table 3 shows that there exists a significant difference
between the census years of 2001 and 2011 regarding the consistency status =
of
the districts. It is also evident from the table 3 that there are two kind =
of
consistency trend across the districts with different aspect. In case of UPD
and SUA number of consistent district reduces in 2011 compare to 2001 while=
in
case of PUA and SUP number of consistent district increases from in 2011 compare to 2001. It indicates=
the
dispersal of urban population across the various district as well as growth=
of
share of urban area. It is remarkable that from 1991 to 2001 growth of
statutory urban was only 1.92 percent where as this figure become 5.27 perc=
ent
in 2001 to 2011.
=
=
Coefficient
of rank correlation was computed for all the four aspects, viz., PUA, UPD, =
SUA
and SUP with LU separately for both of the 2001 and 2011 census years (Table
4). The obtained results support our findings.
=
=
&nb=
sp;
Table -: Rank Correlat=
ion
Coefficient
|
Spearman
Rank Correlation |
||
|
|
2001 |
2011 |
|
LU-UPD |
0.432 |
0.279 |
|
LU-PUA |
-0.147 |
0.905 |
|
LU-SUA |
0.690 |
0.574 |
|
LU-SUP |
0.824 |
0.828 |
Source: Calculated by author<= o:p>
=
It
is evident from Table 4 that in both census years SUP remain highly consist=
ent
aspect with coefficients of rank correlation 0.824 and 0.828 respectively. =
In
case of PUA it is lowest consistent in 2001 with coefficients of rank
correlation -0.14 and become highest consistent aspect in 2011 with
coefficients of rank correlation 0.90. It is due to fact that decadal growt=
h of
statutory urban area in west Bengal increases 5.27 percent in 2011 and it w=
as
1.92 percent in 2001. UPD is =
lowest
consistent with coefficients of rank correlation 0.27 in 2011 and in 2001
coefficients of rank correlation 0.43 was just ahead of the PUA.
=
Table
-5: Correlation between levels of urbanization and other aspects
|
UP |
SDPUA |
PCSDP |
NSSIU |
DSR |
ESSI |
ERF |
|
|
UP |
1 |
||||||
|
SDPUA |
0.931 |
1 |
|||||
|
PCSDP |
0.696 |
0.867 |
1 |
||||
|
NSSIU |
0.864 |
0.878 |
0.740 |
1 |
|||
|
DSR |
0.183 |
0.095 |
0.127 |
0.323 |
1 |
||
|
ESSI |
0.676 |
0.667 |
0.505 |
0.711 |
0.205 |
1 |
|
|
ERF |
0.705 |
0.473 |
0.220 |
0.636 |
0.378 |
0.397 |
1 |
Source:
Calculated by author
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> UP- Urban Population, SDPUA-State Domestic Product of Urban Area, =
PCSDP-
Per Capita State Domestic Product, NSSIU-
No of Small Scale Industry Unit, =
DSR- District wise Surface Road in Km, ESSI- Employment in Small S=
cale
Industry, ERF- Employment in Registered Factory
It is important =
to
find out the factors to identify the recent changes of pattern of urbanizat=
ion.
Factors include SDP of Urban Area=
, Per
Capita SDP, no of Small Scale Industry unit; district wise Surface Road in =
Km,
Employment in Small Scale Industry, and Employment in Registered Factory. T=
hey
have played crucial role in reshaping the pattern of urbanization in West
Bengal. `Urban population is highly correlated with three factors which inc=
lude
State Domestic Product of Urban Area, No of Small Scale Industrial Unit, and
Employment in Registered Factory, and employment in small scale industry. S=
DP
of urban area and per capita SDP increase due to the growth of small scale
industrial unit and its growing employment. The following table 6 is shows =
the
Entrepreneurs Memorandum to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises of West Ben=
gal.=
Table-6: Number of EMs issued=
to
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises of West Bengal
|
Year |
Manufacturing |
Service |
Total |
|
2006-07 |
7379 |
783 |
8162 |
|
2007-08 |
16164 |
1465 |
17629 |
|
2008-09 |
12225 |
1206 |
13431 |
|
2009-10 |
10682 |
906 |
11588 |
|
2010-11 |
9089 |
1012 |
10101 |
|
2011-12 |
12199 |
1260 |
13459 |
|
2012-13 |
9542 |
788 |
10330 |
|
2013-14 |
9759 |
1621 |
11380 |
|
2014-15 (March) |
13243 |
2001 |
15244 |
|
Total |
100282 |
11132 |
111414 |
Source:
State Industrial Profile of West Bengal 2015-16 by MSME
It
is apparent that over the decade number of Entrepreneurs Memorandum to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises incre=
ases
and these units are established mainly in small and medium towns of the sta=
te.=
Critical
Aspect of Urban Policy Making and its Effects on Urban Centers
Today
urban policy making is a serious agenda to both central and state governmen=
t.
The importance of urban policy making was recognized in third five year plan
(1961-1966). Though, its focus was very limited. Its concerns include master
plan preparation, promotion of housing and outlay for urban development
programmes. It is to be noted that this was the period when urban policy fo=
cus
was lay largely to the metropolitan city. There was grater ignorance to the
small and medium towns. Development economist conceptualized this way of po=
licy
making as urban bias or metropolitan bias through overtly taxed agriculture=
and
transferred resources to industry and other urban activities (Lipton
1977). Ferre, Ferreira and La=
njouw
(2010) also showed the same thing by examining the case of 8 developing
countries. They noted that any strategy for urban poverty reduction that pl=
aces
greater focus on, or allocates more resources to, metropolitan areas, suffe=
rs
from a “metropolitan bias” analogous to the urban bias of
old’. Shaw (2013) noted that top down approach was followed during
nationalist period and it gave priority to urban based industrial developme=
nt,
focusing on already developed areas i.e. the large cities and particularly =
the
metropolitan cities. Integrated Urban Development Programme (IUDP) was
introduced in the fifth five year plan as broad programme for over all
development. However the programme focused on metropolitan cities like
Calcutta, Bombay and Madras and areas of national importance. The scheme was
discontinued in 1979. The sixt=
h five
year plan (1980-85) put down emphasis on the development of small and medium
towns. The sixth five year plan notes the negligence of urban services and
infrastructure in the small, med=
ium
and intermediate towns and point out that it is necessary for future to foc=
us
on small, medium and intermediate towns. With this vision Integrated Development of Small and Medium
Towns (IDSMT) was launch in 1970=
-80.
The programme was applicable to all towns/cities with a populati=
on
of up to 5 lakh. The scheme continued till the middle of the 10th plan peri=
od
and covered 1854 towns till 2004-05. After which it was subsumed in UIDSSMT.
The programme is running only 25 urban centers in west Bengal till 2010. Th=
ough
such programme focus on infrastructure development in small and medium towns
which include water supply, sewerage, solid waste management and roads, this
programme are not spread across all the small and medium towns. In West Ben=
gal
its coverage is only 19 percent. Under this programme all the small and med=
ium
towns of the state are mainly involved in water supply program. Apart from
limited coverage, slow and small disbursement of fund is major challenge. S=
uch
limitations have greater effect on large and mega cities. On June 2015 mini=
stry
of Urban development government of India introduces new programme called Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban
Transformation for 500 Indian cities population with more than 1 lakh. =
This
programme mainly focused on improvement of urban services which include wat=
er
supply, sewage, transport etc. It shows policy level apathy towards small a=
nd
towns.
Kundu
and Sarangi (2005) also point out that there is an inverse relationship bet=
ween
poverty rates and the size of towns, with the poverty rate in large (one
million plus) cities at 14.2% and in small cities at 24.2% in 1999-2000.
Conclusion=
Paper
focuses on number of aspects of urban centers of West Bengal. It shows that
small and intermediate towns are negatively growing and big and large city =
are
positively growing. Population share of small, intermediate and Million plus
city is decreasing while it’s increasing in case of big and large cit=
y.
Therefore people are staying more in large city compare to million cities. =
It
may be due to higher cost of living in million city while poor service and
infrastructure in case of small and intermediate towns. Urban area both in percent and sha=
re has
very high correlation with level of urbanization. Dispersion of urban popul=
ation
is also a remarkable and it is highly correlated with number of small scale industry units which helps to transform the sma=
ll
towns and surrounding rural areas economy. But lack of infrastructure in small=
and
intermediate town is major problem and there is no major programme or strat=
egy
to develop small and intermediate town more attractive.
References
=
1. Acharya,
N (2013) West Bengal saw 97% decline industries since 2010, available at
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/west-bengal-saw-97-=
decline-in-industries-since-2010-113122800521_1.html
- Budhya, G. AND S. BENJAMIN. (2000) "The
Politics of Sustainable Cities: The Case of Bengare, Mangalore in Coas=
tal
India." Environment and Urbanization 12, no. 2, 27-36.
- Bhagat, R.B (2011) Emerging Pattern of
Urbanization in India." Economic and Political Weekly XLVI,
no. 34, 10-12
=
4. Chatterjee,
M (2013) A preliminary Discussion on the census 2011 Results, Urban Indi=
a,
Vol-33, Issue- I, Jan-June,
- Chattopadhyay, B (2008):
“Public Policy and Sustainable Development of Small Towns–=
A
Review” NIUA, New De=
lhi
=
6. Dasgupta,
B et al (eds) (1988) Urbanization Migration and Rural Change- A study of
West Bengal, New Delhi, A Mukherjee & Co Pvt Ltd 7. Denis, E. Mukhopadhyay, P. et al (2012)=
“Subaltern
Urbanization in India” Economic & Political Weekly, vol xl=
vII
no 30 =
8. Ferré
C, Ferreira H.G. F and Lanjouw, P (2010) “Is There a Metropolitan Bia=
s?
The Inverse Relationship between Poverty and City Size in Selected Developi=
ng
Countries” Poverty and Inequality Team, Development Research Group
Working Paper, World Bank. p 21 9.
Government of India (1995)
Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns, ministry of urban affairs=
and
employment, Department of Urban Development, New Delhi 10. Government of India (2007) National Urb=
an Housing
and Habitat Policy 2007, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviatio=
n,
New Delhi =
11. Government
of India (2011) Provisional Census of India, New Delhi =
12. Government
of India. Planning Commission. Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-79) =
13. Government
of India. Planning Commission. Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-85) =
14. Government
of India. Planning Commission. Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-85). Para 23.31 15-15. 16. Karmakar,J (2015) Emergence of Census T=
owns
and its Socio-Economic Condition: Case of West Bengal, Pratidhawani The Echo, Volume-III,
Issue-IV,pp-22-34 17.&=
nbsp;
- Kundu, A and Gupta, S
(1996): “Migration, Urbanisation and Regional Inequality”,=
Economic
& Political Weekly, 28 December.
19. Kundu, A. (2011) Trends and processes of
urbanisation in India. Human Settlements Group International Institute for
Environment and Development (IIED) and United Nations Population Fund (UNFP=
A
=
20. Kundu,
A (2008) =
;Migration and Urbanisation in India in =
the
Context of Poverty Alleviation, available at
http://www.networkideas.org/ideasact/jun07/Beijing_Conferen=
ce_07/Amitabh_Kundu.pdf
- Kundu, A. (2007) "A
Strategy Paper on Migration and Urbanisation in the Context of Develop=
ment
Dynamics, Governmental Programmes and Evolving Institutional Structure=
in
India." A Paper commissioned by United Nations Population Fund
(UNFPA),
- Kundu, A AND SARANGI, N
(2005) “Issue of Urban Exclusion”, Economic & Polit=
ical
Weekly, 40(33): 3642-46
=
23. Lipton,
M (1977) “Why Poor People Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World
Development”. London: Temple Smith.
- Mahadevia, D., and A. Mukherjee (2003)
"Municipal Finances and Development in Small and Medium Towns:
Comparing of Gujarat, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh." In Working
Paper
Series n°18: Institute for Human Develop=
ment
=
25. Paul,
S and Chatterjee, K (2012) Urbanization and Consistency measurement: A Study on District of North 24 Pargan=
as,
West Bengal, India, Archives of App=
lied
Science Research, 4 (5):2052=
-2067
- Rajan, I. and K.C. Zachariah (2011)
"Impact of Emigration and Remittances on Goan Economy." In <=
i>Migration
, Identity and Conflict: India Migration Report, edited by Irudaya
Rajan.New Delhi: Routledge India,
27.
Raman, B and Alemma, P.M. et.=
al.
(2015) Selected Readings on Small Town Dynamics in India, suburbin working
papers series no. 2.
28. Revi, A, Prakash, S. Mehrotra, R et.al.
(2006): .Goa 2100: The Transition to a Sustainable Urban Design Environment=
and
Urbanization., Environment and Urbanization, Vol 18, Issue 1, pp 51-=
65
(London: Sage).
29.
Rouf, A, M and Jahan, S (2001=
) Urban Centres in Bangladesh: Trends, Pa=
tterns
and Characteristics, available at
http://www.unesco.org/most/isocarp/proceedings2001/cases/cs01_0222/isocarp_=
r.pdf
- Sahasranaman, A (2012) <=
span
style=3D'mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>Financing the Development of Small=
and
Medium Cities, Economic and
Political Weekly, vol xlviI
- Shaw, A (2013)
‘Emerging Perspectives on Small Cities and Towns’. In R.N
Sharma and R.S Sandhu (eds). Small Cities and Towns in Global Era:
Emerging Changes and Perspectives. Rawat Publications