Modernization Hub

Modernization and Improvement
Mod-01 Lec-23 Theories Of urbanization and Development

Mod-01 Lec-23 Theories Of urbanization and Development


Friends, so today again we are going to talk
about urbanization. In the first lecture, I
defined what urban population is? How is an urban locality defined in censuses of
deferent countries? Then I also talked about measures of urbanization, which are used for
measuring say level of urbanization or degree of urbanization and speed of urbanization.
I suggested usual urban by total into 100 as a level of urbanization measures, then
ariyaga’s index, Kinsley Davis’s index. I also talked little bit of rank size rule
and in the previous lecture we discussed, how urban population
in India has grown over the years? I showed you the trend in the level of urbanization
from 1901 to 2001 on the basis of census data. We also talked little bit about
causes of urban growth, natural growth and migration push and pull factors and the major
causes of rural to over migration as based on census data. Let us expend some more time
on urbanization and today try to link urbanization with general developmental issues.
So, today we are focusing on theories of urbanization and development. Let to begin with, I can say and wherever
you feel like you can ask yourselves, you can
ask for clarification. If you want to add something you can add; in demographic and
economic literature, urbanization is frequently used as an indicator of development. By
this I mean that in empirical theories of fertility, mortality, morbidity, HIV aids
or health in general; wherever we use some development
indicators as independent wherever is in doing causal analysis, say causal analysis
of declining fertility or causal analysis of
declining morbidity or changes in sex ratios, and we need development as an
independent wherever. There urbanization is frequently used as a
proxy variable of development that you all know. Although development has a larger connotation
and as you are familiar with human development reports. Their development
is defined in more in terms of longevity or life expectancy, literacy, endorsement
rates and income. But in demographic literature you see if you read articles and population
and development reviews for our Indian journals journal of family welfare or demography
in India. Or population studies international journal quite often in studies
of demographic transition or even migration we use urbanization as an indicator of development.
Now is it true that urbanization is an indicator of development? We will look at
this relationship. Let me today I want to have a discussion on,
is it possible a country that is urbanized but,
not developed or is it possible that a country is not urbanized and is still developed or
a country with highly urbanization or undeveloped
or a country is not urbanization and also not developed? So, there are all kinds
of permutations and possibilities. Are they equally likely or you guess that countries
which are more urbanized are also economically more developed? May be because
urbanization has promoted development or may be that development promoted urbanization.
But the two go together, they are concomitant.
Now, the state of world population 2009 gives you data on urban populations for
different countries, it shows that the more developed countries are all highly urbanized
countries also. And the least developed countries are all low on urbanization, suggesting
that perhaps there is a link between urbanization and development. This is how
empirically we work on issues of sociological nature that if we find that wherever there
is x there is also y. So maybe there is a reason to believe that there is some connection,
now since according to data all the developed countries and these developed countries
are developed in the sense that they are very high per capita income
They have very high life expectancy, they have very high school enrolment and adult
literacy. Whatever indictor of development you take? The countries of Europe, northwest
Europe more and Eastern Europe after that United States and Australia and New Zealand
and some emerging countries of Asia and Africa like Japan or eastern Asian countries.
They are also developed countries and there too level of urbanization is very high
seventy percent, eighty percent, ninety percent of the entire population of the country is
living in so called urban areas. And in the least developed countries the levels of
urbanization are low and this size has that perhaps there is a link between the two. But perhaps there is no simple relationship;
there is a relationship but, what kind of relationship? Symmetrical, asymmetrical, direct,
indirect or through some mediating variants or if there are some moderator variables
to use the language of research methods. Then we have to identify what kind
of relationship is this and there is certain changes which are going to limit the strength
of this relationship. For example the level of urbanization in a more developed country
as almost is stabilized. In the less developed countries on the other hand urbanization is
occurring at a fast rate and this is because we
have seen that urbanization follows in logistics growth model. With time, proportion of population or percentage
of population living in urban areas grows like this. So initially these are least
developed countries, in these least developed countries not only the level of urbanization
is growing but, the rate of growth of urban population or the speed of urbanization is
also low. Then you have developing country, in developing countries levels of urbanization
is modest. But, the speed of urbanization in this part of the logistic is quite high,
as time changes then the developing country are
also increasing at higher rates of growth of urban population. And developed countries
which have already achieved a high level of urbanization say around 75 percent, here
least developed countries 15 percent, developing countries say in the range of 20 to 40
percent. So, these developed countries which have already
reached the level of urbanization 75 percent or more. Their level of urbanization
is still growing, but their rate of growth of
urban population and also of the level of urbanization is rather slow. So that means
in the future in developed countries there may be
more development, per capita income may rise further, life expectancy may rise further.
One day when we are talking about mathematical models I showed that how a demographer
shows that? In the future, it is still possible to raise life expectancy beyond
82 years and he gives some reasons that by reducing smoking practices. For example, we
can reduce chances of dying in certain ages then life expectancy can be increased.
Education has already reached a high level in developed countries that may not increase
further but, it still there is some optimism that developed countries can develop further.
And the level of urbanization may not grow further so, the relationship between
development and urbanization can break down there.
General assumption is that there is a positive relationship between urbanization and
development of course, but, the human development index prepared by some stail. The
states like west Bengal and Kerala he say that it is something different, because in
Kerala urbanization is very low. But, there is same
time if you consider that development indications like commodity, mortality, fertility,
life expectancy is high. So yesterday also one report published by ministry of family
health or family welfare, it say that in Kerala life expectancy by 2020 even the 6 years more
than the national awards. But, in Kerala urbanization is very low, state like in Himachal
Pradesh also this urbanization is very low but, if you consider the indicators of
development they are high. Yes, you are right. Earlier we only talking
about Kerala model of development, we are per capita Kerala model of development implied
low per capita income. But high social development, empowerment of women, education
literacy and low fertility, low mortality. Now, of course, Kerala also has
high per capita income it is not as low as much it was in the past.
But not much urbanized. But not much urbanized, because there is no
industrialization of them lack Kerala lacks industrialization and urbanization but, in
terms of other indicators of development it say
developed state. And then demographers used to said that it is social development in
Kerala which is responsible for reduction in fertility. Now, you have another equally
interesting case that is of Himachal Pradesh. We can see state Uttarakhand also the same
condition is going on there and like the industrialization and this agricultural activities
are not that. Yes, Uttarakhand may follow the Himachal model,
so. Both after Kerala Himachal and Uttarakhand
is coming in every aspect increasing. Good education, low domestic violence, empowerment
of inefficiently data show that in Himachal Pradesh the degree of domestic violence
is one of the lowest Jammu Kashmir. So, there are that means there can be different
models of development and urbanization, it is not necessary that for development you
need a high level of urbanization. And that is
why? The last you know the concept of urbanization, urban, rural plus urban, that makes
sense in the Indian context, you need not promote urbanization or industrialization
further. A mixture of urban and rural and urban outgrowth
and suburban populations and development of rural areas can pave the way
for social development, demographic transition, equality empowerment of women.
Normally, we define development in the economic sense that we are that is a problem
we redefine this, all that you said that indicators like commodity law of fertility,
law mortalities are considered as the indicators of development. But, our general assumption
is not developing, there is something economic sense that is of socio redefine,
we redefine. So, we also distinguished between economic
development and social development. Normally, we expect that for social development
some minimal degree of economic development is necessary. But they are the
two are not the same thing see you can have situations in which you can have high economic
development, but low social development. There are many gulf countries
where level of income is very high and that is because of natural resource of petroleum.
But social development is low so that is why? They are not categorized as developed
country. Despite high level of per capita income, inequality is high, illiteracy is
high, empowerment of women is low, fertility is
high mortality is also high, so infrastructure rural, infrastructure is poor.
So, there are many permutations and combinations and we make a distinction between
development, economic development, social development. So, that means you are rising
an interesting question, an interesting research question also, that if you want to relate
development to urbanization. To what aspect of development urbanization will related to
economic development or to social development? Yes, it is still interesting.
We can combine both aspects to know exactly. Or we can combine the two.
Yes. As it varies from culture to culture in society,
which society? So, like any other concept in sociology development
is also or can be seen as a subjective and a culture specific contact is specific
concern. Now, coming back to developed and developing countries, in developed countries
population of urban areas has almost stabilized. You see also because the natural
growth is very low due to low fertility or below replacement level fertility, the rate
of growth of urban population is very low. And, whatever growth is occurring, that is
because of rural to urban migration or because of migration from other countries. In least
developed countries, urban populations are growing fast due to both high natural increase,
high fertility and also due to rural to urban migration.
Now, several of them are urbanizing at a rate which is higher than the rate at which the
developed countries historically urbanized. When they were at the similar level of urbanization, so there are two ways of looking
at a speed of urbanization in a country like India, you saw that according to 2001
census India was 27 percent of urban and the speed of urbanization was 0.8. One can so
0.8 is a small increase in urbanization and one
can say that India is not urbanizing as fast as it was expected. But, if you compare the
speed of urbanization at which today developed countries grows when they have level of
urbanization 27 percent. Then you find that India or less developed
countries at corresponding levels of urbanization are urbanizing much faster. And
that is because of both natural increase and transfer of population from rural to urban
areas. Several of the least developed countries are growing at a rate which is higher than
the rate at which this is the meaning of this statement. There many other and new factors
that affects development, in the present day developing countries which were absent when
today’s developed countries were urbanizing. This report when appear a report also show
some other interesting facts or data shows data on urbanization. That in year 2009 first
time the world becomes nearly 50 percent urban, in the history of mankind you know
we are in that era when world for the first time become 50 percent urban. The level of
urbanization in the more developed country is 75, in less developed country it is 45.
And in the least developed countries in the category of developing country, certain countries
have been identified as the least developed, there the level of urbanization
is 29. Merely looking at this figures one would
say that development that cause urbanization more development, more urbanization.
The urban population in the world is growing at 2 percent rate per year; the urban
population in the more developed countries however is growing at 0.6 percent per year
only. Low natural increase and lots of restrictions on migration. The urban population in
the less developed countries is growing at 2.6 percent per year, mainly because of natural
increase and the urban population in least developed country is growing at 4.1 percent
per year, very high 4 percent. That means in about 16 17 years time population of their
cities is more than doubling. It is a big problem for them, urban population is growing
at 4 percent per year and doubling 16 17 years
time, you have to provide for infrastructure and.
In the less developed country this around 2.6 percent.
Yes In India is the below two.
No, when I said speed of urbanization was 0.8 that was the percentage change on per
year basis in the level of urbanization. Otherwise in the case of India growth of urban
population as such is slightly more than this. India is urbanizing at a higher rate than
2.6 growths of we must distinguish between rate
at which urban population is growing and the rate at which level of urbanization is
increasing. So this figure of this figure of 2.6 or
0.6 for developed countries and 2.6 for less developed countries refers to growth of
urban population, cities, medium sized towns. So, this 2009 is very important, first time
we become 50 percent urban, more on nature on relationship urbanization, industrialization
and development are concomitant processes. It is difficult to say what exactly
is the cause of what the changes may be symmetrical? How? Because agricultural society
is a village society and it was with industrialization and creation of new opportunities
for employment. Better opportunity, more productivity more lucrative wages, more
security, more modern values, western, in dualism, freedom autonomy, secularism and
independence from several primordial loyalties caste can shift this and that attracted
people towards cities or urban areas. Here it must be said that at this point it
was last time that the urbanization in developed countries and urbanization in less developed
countries are qualitatively two different phenomena. When we say that industrialization
and economic development promoted urbanization and city was a source of modernization
that applies more to developed countries. In our country demographic pressure
in rural areas has been a major source of urbanization and then colonial policies in
all in all countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, there urbanization is started not
as a spontaneous process or concomitant of development and social development.
But as a result of colonial policies by which they are trying to sell their projects of
developed countries industries of developed countries and buying primary goods and
agricultural goods at cheaper rate from internet. So, you find that more developed countries
which is started urbanizing in nineteen century are the most urbanized countries today.
Economic development and industrial development have done this, less developed
countries most of which are the colonies developed countries did not experienced industrialization
and remain less urbanized. We have lots of statistics to show that during
the British period level of industrialization in
India fail from reasonably good layer. At one time industry of India was famous
worldwide, textile, Indian textile, muslin, India‘s irrigation societies, India’s
metal industries.
India was doing good in many non agricultural or allied activities also, but during the
colonial times industrial activities, artisanal activities and also in industry declines,
so the level of industrialization went down. And
perhaps that was the reason why urbanization also did not increased to that level. You
have seen when I presented sensor data on organization that initially in the last century
in India urbanization sometimes rose sometimes fails there was a fluctuation in
the level of urbanization. Because we did not
have expansion of industry, we did not have expansion of cities it was only at the second
half of 20th century, when they became independent that destroyed Asia, Africa, Latin
America tired of these countries. Then they have started building infrastructure
providing various services to their population and developing industry. So in
India after independence, we had big industry big educational institution, big dams hospitals,
special research centers in health and associated growth of banking transport and
communication and information. So, they now the less developed country started urbanizing
several of their city is now developed as business service and administrative cities.
Sometimes we make a functional classification of cities whether there are
religious towns or business towns or industrial towns or cities or service towns. Many cities
in less developed countries are developing as business service and administrative cities
along with industrial cities. One can also say that there is a symmetrical
relationship in the sense not only economic development would promote urbanization. Urbanization
can also promote economic development. How? How will cities promote
development and industrialization? The reasons are associated with the following
high density of population, urban areas have high density of population by definition they
have high density of population. You are saying about Kerala or something, you know
although Kerala is rural, but Kerala has the highest high density of population in India.
So, the remaining rural they are benefitting from this high density thing and from the
economic of scale. In other state where high density of population
in rural areas is low, urbanization of those states will produce more density of population
at places of concentration cities, outgrowth, and suburban areas. And, so the
industry business and service can benefit from economy of scale. Initially you said that the urbanization,
the density of population link to the industry of
but, in Kerala it is something different, not industry but, the service sector.
Transport communication house endings roads education hospital urbanization is also
contusive to cultural change and it promotes more creativity and innovation cities. And
towns are places of creativity and innovation; rural populations are mostly traditional and
urban areas free individuals from traditional institutions. Change you see he change from
joint family to nuclear family changes in kingship pattern, changes in relationship
with church or in case of Hinduism, rituals, supernatural
believes or religious practices [FL] Then there is greater participation in global
processes, urban populations are more mobile. They move more from one urban area
to another within the district or within the state or between the states or between countries.
And they have better transport and communication facilities better infrastructure
and conditions that more need for achievement. In physiological sense also urban
areas can lead to development, because they have positive values on things like meet
for achievement. Why need for achievement? you see long back when we started
theorizing about development social theories development in their own way, physiologic
theories developed in their own way anthropologies and others look at their development
in their own way in respective dissipate their own work.
McMillan, one physiologist came to India to study what are causes of development under
development? And, after expending quiet sometime in Indian industry, he found that one
thing in which Indians are lacking is the need for achievement. From that physiological
prospective India is not developed mainly because Indians lack in need for achievement.
And he also defined need for achievement in an interesting way. Somebody who is
incapable? And has high aspirations, high ambitions, high dreams, he does not have high
need for achievement. Somebody who has very high level of competent and therefore, he
also has high aspirations that may also not be necessarily a fit case for high need for
achievement. For McMillan need for achievement was defined
as a characteristics of taking calculated basis, calculated a little more, with the
with full assessment of our capabilities if we want
to achieve a little more, ability to take risk calculated risk say image in that there
is some friends of yours from you villages and town
a useless fellow. Throughout spending 2 years 3 years in his class and passing high
school after 2 3 year time with third division intermediate third division B A third division
and preparing for civil service exam. We will not say that this person has high need
for achievement he is not taking calculated risk, he is a fool.
And somebody who have lot of potential, you can also find in several such friends who
are extremely good throughout first class, very good scholastic achievement. And they
are contained type Indian culture produces constrained type people, so they also have
low need for achievement, even when they are doing better than others. Need for
achievement is the ability to take calculated risk. And urban populations are obviously
much better in developing these psychological characteristic among people as compared
to rural population. Rural populations make you traditional, you have borned in a
tradition and you remain in tradition. You follow traditional occupation, you follow
traditional believe system, you remain at the place where you born. Urban populations
by making you free from traditional institutions and making you a participant
in global processes by exposing you to new ideas. And by also creating some kind of insecurity,
because the traditional security tradition was bad but, tradition was also
good. Tradition was a source of security in urban areas traditional security has gone
so you become a little insecure. Now, in presence of all these factors you develop
high need for achievement and that is good for
economic development and modernization. And, yet there is a difference in urbanization
and development when we use these terms in population sociology. Urbanization is quintessentially
a demographic phenomenon while development is an economic and social
phenomenon. Urbanization is merely a process of population concentration, when
people move from rural areas where density of population is lower to urban areas where
density of population is higher. Urbanization takes place as simple as looked at from this
perspective when wanderers and food gatherers developed settled agriculture and
started living in villages, urbanization started. Today we project rural population as something
oppose to urbanization, but actually it was settling down rural villages that pave
the way for urbanization, because they are settling down in rural areas, in villages,
where the first from of concentration of population. Gradual increase in the size of village habitation
led to more urbanization in the developing countries where urbanization is
occurring quiet fast. This is because people are moving from rural areas to urban areas
and also from smaller urban areas to big cities. There are both types of movements
from rural to urban and also from smaller places to bigger place, that if you look at
the class composition of the students present here. You will find that most students have
moved from smaller towns or moderate sized towns smaller cities to bigger cities. On
the other hand development requires huge investments and improvement in productivity. So, far we saw that there is a integral and
positive link whether relationship is from urbanization to development side or development
to urbanization side. But, there is a definite relationship which is positive, thus
some sociologist have also looked at rural urban relationship as the relationship of
conflict. And as a relationship in which urban areas are exploiting rural areas or urban
areas are preventing growth of rural areas or
large cities or urban agglomerations are preventing growth of nearby urban population
nearby’s towns and cities. Some political analyst sees this relationship
between urban and rural areas as exploitative. They focus on urban rural conflict
and ways in which urban areas grow at the expense of rural areas. According to this
thesis growth of urbanization may not lead to development and growth of all urban areas
will grow and rural areas will decay. Now to some extent this kind of observation has
been mired in our 5 year plans one after another in all including your eleventh 5 year
plan inclusive growth. They say that we have developed a lot we have grown we have
urbanized we have industry But, the rural populations have not grown
or sometime the structural processes of growth have been such that rural and tribal populations
have suffered as a consequence of development of the whole country. So expansion
of urbanization may rather lead to marginalization and exploitation of rural
masses, relations of conflict. Can we say the relations between urbanization
relations? The first process I do not know whether. You know the first process, you say
that it is migration, it may lead to urbanization.
Yes. So, in this case as you mention if urbanization
means the concentration of population. Yes.
So some need of insecurity will arise which means the need the achievement. So, some
industry will start that these are industrialization, then the next process would be the
development if people are developing, I think it will lead to modernization, I do not.
Modernization, yes, you are right. Migration led to urbanization.
Yes. Like I do not know may be.
No, you are right. What you have in mind is? Yes you are right, that sometime rural to
urban migration may be caused by push factors. But, then it leads to greater
concentration of population in urban areas, makes people insecure and look for all kinds
of awareness, opportunities, alternatives and the entrepreneurs and industrialist or
organizers of informal labor market can take advantage of people. And economic
activities start, which leads to economic development and also to urbanization. Yes
and by changing need for achievement or various
others types of needs, need for power, locus of control, urbanization can change,
locus of control in place of activating your successes and failures to some outside thing
or god or religion or some super natural entity.
The moment you start activating your successes and failures to yourselves, you have
high locus of control and we believe that urban areas are more conducive to create
internal locus of control. Now, for students of sociology another interesting question
would be the relationship between demographic transition and urbanization. Because we
are passing through the secular stage of demographic transition. What are possibilities here? It is possible to argue that in developing
countries, demographic transition and not the development contributed to growth of cities
weakening the correlation with urbanization and development. If urbanization
occurs because of demographic transition, then its it has no or very weak connection
with development When the population of developing countries
started growing at a fast rate above 2 percent. Due to fall in the death rate it
could not be absorbed in agriculture which are
which was almost stagnant to improve agriculture, to improve productivity of
agriculture. You need irrigation facilities, you need modernization mechanization of
agriculture, and you need modern high variety seeds, chemicals, fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides. You need industrialization and you also have to provide some alternative
supplementary employment for processing of agricultural products or household industry
or for artisanal family, something supplementary and which require industrialization.
So therefore, the surplus population started moving towards cities, whether there was any
need for them? Or there was no need for them in urban areas which also explains asish
bose’s concept of push back. That people are pushed from rural to urban areas, you
know they are going to urban areas not because
of pull but, because of push factors. But where
they when they do not due to lack of skills, lack of connections network, social capital,
the modern day sociological term social capital due to lack of social capital trusts
institutions networking culture. When they do not find satisfactory source of
employment in urban areas, many of them want to return back, so this is push back.
Anywhere this demographic transition leads to rapid growth of urbanization though
without development. Sir, but at the time it is also cause a lot
of problem because in a. Yes.
Lot of place where are people more number of people but, lacks of development today.
Lack of development. Today’s slum.
Slums yes. Sociologic also this. So, this is a character of urbanization in
India. Undoubtedly India is a developing countries and India has one of the oldest
civilizations and has had a long history of cities.
There is lot of documentation of city culture, city life, city religions, city values in
pali and Sanskrit, in buddhist literature. Old
cities of India were however fort cities or places
or pilgrimage or universities, education center, gurukul, rishikuls and they were small in
number and size. Their functions were sometime political and religious fort cities.
The large cities of today are so large, that their population is larger than the population
of many countries. This kind of city you know
city of the size of Mumbai these kinds of cities did not exist in the past. And administration
trade and commerce industry and transport and communication have emerged at
the new functions of cities. So, this is this produces a kind of over urbanization
thesis. The studies of urbanization in the less developed countries contradict that
there is a positive correlation between urbanization and development. And produce
the over urbanization thesis means even though the rate of urbanization may be slow,
slower than our expectation but, we are over urbanized from the perspective that we
lack in urban infrastructure, employment health, social sector and in modern and western
values. Urbanization, urban places or cities are not the places of modernization
or change of the population. According to this thesis the present day less
developed countries are more urbanized than the developed countries were at the same level
of development. I have already mentioned this and the quality of urban population in
the developing countries is poor. So, you have
slums, unemployment, high mortality, high morbidity, illiteracy, crime violence in urban
areas more than was perhaps the case when developed countries were at this level. This also produces morphologically the concept
of dual city in almost all cities, Delhi, old Delhi, new Delhi, Kanpur, civil lines,
old Kanpur, you go to any city, Hyderabad, any city you have old. And new old is dying
highly dense traditional market, traditional life style, poverty and new is modern malls,
new means malls, modern, big roads, good infrastructure, better electricity, better
roads, better schools, government offices. And, if
there is a temple and the quality of temple in new city is much better than the quality
of temples or churches or mosque in the old city
which are dirty and crowded and temples of new city are more modern with all modern
facility. Actually in the less developed countries, you find three things, rapid growth
of large cities large cities are growing fast. In India also this was happening till very
recent time that larger cities were growing fast
and tiny towns were declining in size tiny towns were facing a negative rate of growth
rapid growth was observed in large city. Then division of city into two different parts
one modern and developed the other as traditional and poor. Then over population in the
urban areas particularly large cities leading to creation of large squatter settlements
and slums. Now, we have lot of data on slums for
all cities of India and a very high proportion of population in all cities of
size 100000 plus and more, so in cities of size 1
million plus you find squatter settlements and slums. Data show that the large cities are growing
faster still than the smaller cities. As a matter
of fact many tiny towns have experienced a declining trend, register general 2009 in
one report said, this phenomenon produces city
primacy that is a situation in which large cities have disproportionately more population
than smaller cities and towns. In the western countries demographers and mathematical
modern builders talked of some kind of rank size rule but, this rank size rule
this statistical pattern does not apply in less
developed country like India, because of city primacy and primacy of large urban
populations. Making them unmanageable by city planners
and requiring large investment to keep them livable for development planning a good
option would be to develop smaller cities and towns. And restrict movement of people
towards the largest cities, so perhaps you have to do both the things. You have to develop
urban areas to provide better facilities and you also have to develop rural areas,
so that less people are moving towards urban areas due to push of rural factors. Consequently, though cities are still the
places and sources of modernization and yet they
have a traditional part, slum areas or squatter settlement. Where the rural social
institutions and arrangements are maintained, most of the Indian cities including Delhi
have a new city or a civil lines and an old part, old Delhi, old Hyderabad, old luck now.
They are all dual cities in that sense, in the old city one finds continuity of traditional
kinship, caste, regional networks. The new poor migrants depend upon them for
decisions regarding the choice of destination and also for their adjustment to the harsh
conditions of urban living. Desouza who has worked on urbanization of India make this
comment. So, there are some new concerns, growing size
of slums, informal sector and its role in modernizing economy, influence of kinship,
caste religion and region of origin on the migrants adaptation. To the new situation
the condition of urban poor and structural and
cultural, marginalization, income savings and loan pattern organization, health, education
welfare and self reliance among the poor. These are some new concerns for study of
urban population, slum improvement programmes and consequences of urban poverty
for women and family and identity and social stereotypes these are going to be big
issues. Now, let me finish today’s lecture, from
my side I will finish today’s lecture by presenting a quote from parry’s study of
bhilai steel town. He says to quote; it is true that
even 40 years on regional identities continue to be marked in terms, for example, of diet
dress, the worship of deities and the language of home. It is in the home rather than the
world that the distinctions are most manifest and the maintenance of them is significantly
gendered. Even after years of bhilai the Hindi spoken by many south Indian women
remains rudimentary, in the masculine space of the plant, regional ethnicity is the focus
of legitimized joking; but outside the topic is more touchy and ethnic stereotyping has
a harder edge.
Malayalis are clever; you know there is no such biological connection. But it says that
the malayalies are believed to be clever, cunning and clannish, and always get on;
Telugus are feckless and often inebriated, and generally do not. Where there are Bengalis
there is [FL] political bassism and where biharis [FL] or gangsterism. This last identity
which includes people from eastern Uttar Pradesh, so bihari does not mean only from
Bihar, people from eastern Uttar Pradesh are also called bihari, because of Bhojpuri is
particularly strongly freighted and Bhilai’s social problems are routinely laid at their
door. See the nature of city in less develop country,
this is city of a less developed country. This is not the cities which were the source
of modernization in western history of urbanization. So, implications of this for future growth
son of now in this situation. When these kinds of stereotypes, poverty, traditions and rural
institutions prevail then the following things are obviously more likely. Son of soil demands,
stigma and segregation politics this is stigma saying that biharis are like this,
malayalis are like this is also a stigma. Exclusionary politics, weak governance or
soft state, deteriorating quality of life, class
conflicts and increasing role for civil society actor. In the next lecture then we will talk about
urbanization in India’s future. And, role of
civil society, particularly the role of bhagidari movement, yes.
Sir, you have discussed somewhere like the division of today’s cities in new and old
city. You discussed that old cities represented
this traditional values, Poverty. Yes.
Illiteracy and the new is totally different which is totally modern but, in India we have
another part also that is rural India which is also represented by these indicators. So
what is the difference between that old part and
this rural India? I mean they are same or is
there any difference between them. It is basically a matter of proportions, it
is not that in rural areas everybody is traditional, it is not that in rural areas everybody is
engaged in agricultural work, it is not that all
rural populations have low density of population. And it is not that in rural areas
everybody is casteist or communal, but when we make these rural urban distinctions on
the basis of institutional social and cultural factors. We only mean that these things exist
in greater proportion in urban areas as compare to rural area.
At least sir, the study of parry says that, after forty years in the case of Bhilai’s.
Bhilai. Some stigmas are actually distinction is specially
in the home rather than the world(()) means that even though you are not much urbanized,
much modern much but, some features are they want even though you are
in the U S or U K. But, some features they would not change whenever, wherever you are.
They would not, it would not affect, it will be, you know. I know in U K also from
there they say that they are very much modern but, in some cases related to the personal,
some related to. Yes.
They have very much. In social interactions.
That externally they are say that we are modern. In dress up.
You know. In language they look modern.
But they are not modern. They are not modern.
They are not you cannot change it, you cannot criticize it, the people I do not know?
Yes. How we can?
So, this is a big distinction between urbanization of developed countries and developing
countries that in developed countries urbanization occur more because of
industrialization, economic development, cultural change, and change in value.
No industrialization is taking place in India, I think, Modernized.
And, western country produces at the time many more thought leaders, philosophers,
intellectuals, political theories and so on. In our countries urbanization is more a product
of demographic transition rather than economic development. So, we are in a situation
when our and another important factor that because of this, because we urbanize more
due to demographic transition not because of economic development. And this has
produced the phenomenon of primacy, over urbanization, dual city, urban rural conflicts
a very different kind of urbanization in less developed country. So, we are
simultaneously talking of rural development and urban development.
So, while we have a greater focus on world development but we also cannot ignore the
requirements of urban development. So, if we have national rural employment guarantee
act mahatma Gandhi narega, you also have Jawaharlal Nehru national urban renewal
mission and you cannot ignore the problem. You know this mission Jawaharlal Nehru,
national urban renewal mission, what are the objectives of this? The objectives are to
ensure that the followings are achieved in the urban sector. a) Focus attention to
integrated development of infrastructure services in cities, infrastructure is poor and infrastructure has to be developed b) Establishment
of linkages between asset creation and asset management through a slew of reforms
for long term project sustainability. c) Ensuring adequate funds to meet the deficiencies
in urban infrastructural services. Government has to interfere, is not it? This
was never the case in developed country. Now, because of wide spread poverty and lack
of development everywhere including in urban areas. Now, through Jawaharlal Nehru
national urban renewal mission, government is forced to take up problems of
development in urban areas. d) Plant development of identified cities including
peri urban areas, outgrowths and urban corridors leading to disperse urbanization.
So that, some people can be shifted away from heart of the city to suburban areas, outgrowths
neighboring towns. And scale of delivery of civic amenities and
provisions of utilities with emphasis on universal access to the urban poor f) a special
focus on urban renewal program for the old city areas which are in dilapidated condition,
to reduce congestion and g) Lastly provision of basic services to the urban poor,
including security of tenure at affordable prices, improved housing water supply and
sanitation and ensuring delivery of other existing, universal services of the government
for education health and social security. I would say that, if you want to know more
about urbanization, then it will be a good idea to go through the 11 five year plan.
And, also go to the website of ministry of urban
affairs, you will find lot of material including material of Jawaharlal Nehru national
urban renewal mission. And this bhagidari, we will, in the next lecture we will talk
about bhagidari and related issues. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *