urbanization and development in selected empowered … · 7642 kumar & reshmi socio-economic,...

Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management StudiesXISS, Ranchi, Vol. 16, No.1, March 2018, pp. 7641-7658

URBANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN SELECTEDEMPOWERED ACTION GROUP (EAG) STATES IN INDIA

Gulshan Kumar1 & Reshmi R. S.2

In India, around one-third of the total population is settled in urbanareas, but the distribution of the urban inhabitants is unequal andvaries with the level of development at both state and district level.The present paper tries to analyze the level of urbanization anddevelopment in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand.Secondary sources of data from census and various sources havebeen used for the study. Level of urbanization and growth rate ofurban population have been calculated for state and district level.For the level of development socio-economic indicators are used.The result of the study shows that level of urbanization anddevelopment is higher in Uttarakhand as compared to Jharkhandand Chhattisgarh. There exists significant intra-state and interstatevariation in terms of level of urbanization and development. Thereis urgent need to focus on less urbanized districts in terms of creatingjobs, education and health facilities.Keywords : Urbanization, Development, Urban centers, EAG states.

IntroductionUrbanization and development are complimentary process for thetransformation of human lives. The process of urbanization isconsidered as one of the significant dimensions of the process of socio-economic and human development (Anisujjaman, 2015). Developmentis a multidimensional approach which is explained in terms of socio-economic development, Development consists of many indicators suchas health and life expectancy, education, decent standard of living,political freedom, creativity and productivity, environment, socialrelation, culture and arts (Alkire & Santos, 2010). The main aim ofdevelopment is to build an enabling environment for people to enjoylong, healthy and creative lives ( Haq, 1990). Development can be seenas a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy (Anand &Sen, 1997).

Urbanization and development are intricately related, but thereis no one to one straight relationship (Narayan, 2014). Associationbetween these two elements varies from place to place and time totime. Urbanization is not only regarded as the concentration of thepopulation in cities and towns, but it also contributes in thetransformation of economic activities (Davis, 1965). Urbanizationexposes itself through spatial, sectoral and temporal changes in the

7641

1 Ph.D. Research Scholar, International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS),Mumbai, India. Email Id - [email protected]

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Migration and Urban Studies, InternationalInstitute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai, India. Email Id –[email protected]

7642 Kumar & Reshmi

socio-economic, demographic, technological and environmental aspectof life in a given society. The true essence of urbanization is the growthof population in the urban area and economic activities which bringsmore development to the towns (Datta, 2006). Many studies argue thaturbanization is viewed as an essential indicator for development (Wirth,1938; Bhagat, 2012). However, higher level of urbanization does notprovide guarantee that the level of development will be high;urbanization provides opportunity as well as challenges for thedevelopment (MHHDC, 2014).

Globally, more than half of the total population of the world isresiding in towns and cities (United Nation, 2014). The level ofurbanization has been increasing over a period of time in India. At thebeginning of the twentieth century, the urban population of Indiacomprised of only 25.8 million (10.8%) which has been increased to 377million (31.2%) (Bhagat, 2011).The level of urbanization varies fromstate to state and region to region in India. Economically advancedstates of south India namely Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Goa, northernstates (Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi), western states (Maharashtraand Gujarat), West Bengal among eastern states and Mizoram in thenortheast have a high level of urbanization as compared to nationallevel. While less economically advanced states such as HimachalPradesh, Bihar and Assam have less than 15 percent of the level ofurbanization (ibid.). The level of urbanization pattern in India showsvast inequality in the distribution of urban population along witheconomic development.

Empowered Action Group (EAG) states were formed in order toimprove the socio-economic and demographic status of these statesand also to the solidification of the primary health care infrastructure,as a prerequisite for efficient delivery of family welfare services. EAGstates were constituted to prepare area specific programs with particularemphasis on those states which are lagging behind in holdingpopulation growth to manageable limits. Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand andUttarakhand were formed in the year 2000 as separate states fromMadhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh respectively. All thesethree states are a part of Empowered Action Group (EAG) states.Geographically, both Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have hilly andplateau topography and Uttarakhand is a mountainous state. The shareof the population in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand islower as compared to Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Uttar Pradeshrespectively, but the level of urbanization is higher in Jharkhand andUttarakhand with referance to their origin states.

The level of urbanization is lower in all six states as compared tonational level. Nearly one-third of total population resides in urban

Urbanization and Development in selected Empowered Action Group 7643

areas of Uttarakhand, and around one-fourth of the population inChhattisgarh and Jharkhand resides in urban areas. Kumar, (2014)found that the level of urbanization in Jharkhand has been increasedin all districts and remarkable growth rate (2.3) have been found indistricts such as Ranchi, Dhanbad, Bokaro and Purbi Singhbhum.Islam and Khan (2014) found that growth rate of urban population inJharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand have increased during theperiod 2001-11 as compared to 1991-2001. The level of development iscomparatively low in these newly developed states. There are only afew studies which focus on urbanization and development issues inthese newly formed states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand andUttarakhand (Islam & Khan, 2014; Kumar & Rai, 2014; Ranjan, Singh,& Kuan, 2014). Therefore, the present paper focuses on the levels andtrends of urbanization and its association with development inChhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand.MethodologyDataThe data for the present study has been gleaned mainly from Censusof India. Census of India provides a large amount of demographic andsocio-economic data. In order to study the development, data have beengathered from various sources. Table 1 shows detailed informationabout the various indicators used for the study and its data sources.Table–1: Indicators and data sources

Indicators Data sources

The total population of the A series in primary census abstract data, 2011state with decadal variation A-2 Decadal variation in population since 1901

The urban population of states Town directory of 2001 and 2011 for Jharkhand,and districts Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Uttar

Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh

Development indicators as Primary Census abstract series, separately forliterate population, working all three states for the census year 2001 andpopulation, male, female 2011total population

Per Capita Income (PCI) And http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/Gross State Domestic Product(GSDP)

Life Expectancy, IMR, TFR, Sample registration system datasheet, 2001 andNatural Increase (2001,2011) 2011RGI Publication 2001 and 2011

Human Development Index UNDP, Indian development report 2011(HDI)

MethodsThe level of urbanization has been computed using percentage ofpopulation living in urban areas. The percentage of population livingin urban areas is the single most used and simple method for studyingthe level of urbanization, and it is widely used to measure the level ofurbanization. Apart from this, urban- rural-ratio is calculated tomeasure number of urbanites for each rural person in an area-basedunit. The annual growth rate of urban population is calculated byusing exponential growth rate by given formula.

Expo.GR = 1/n* ln*(Ut+n / Ut)*100

Where, ‘Ut+n and Ut ‘is the urban population at time ‘t’ and‘t+n’years, ‘ln’ is the natural log and ‘n’ is the duration between twoconsecutive censuses.

The tempo of urbanization is another method which shows anannual rate of the population growth in the urban area. The tempo ofurbanization is calculated using the following formula:

TU= 1/n [ln (PUt+n / PUt)]*100

Where, ‘TU’ tempo of urbanization, ‘ln’ natural log, ‘PUt+n’ and‘PUt’ percent urban in ‘t+n’ year and ‘t’ year, ‘n’ census interval.

The spatial pattern of urbanization by districts in the states ofChhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand were represented by usingQuantum GIS software. The newly formed districts of Chhattisgarhand Jharkhand which were formed during 2001 and 2011 census aremerged with their mother district for comparative study. However,there was no change in the number of districts in Uttrakhand duringthe period 2001-11. To study the level of development by districts, socio-economic indicators such as male literacy rate, female literacy rate,the gender gap in literacy, sex ratio, non-agricultural worker amongmain and marginal worker were analyzed for the year 2001 and 2011census. To find the association between level of urbanizationand development, spearman’s rank correlation was calculated usingSPSS 20.Findings and DiscussionLevel of urbanization in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand andUttarakhand and their parent statesThe level of urbanization in selected states was computed and it hasbeen compared with their parent states. The results from table 2 showthat the level of urbanization in India has increased from 28 percent

7644 Kumar & Reshmi

to 31 percent during the period 2001-11. There is a positive changein the level of urbanization in all the states. But, there exists significantgap in the level of urbanization among these states. It is evidentfrom the table that Uttarakhand (30.2%) has the highest and Bihar(11.3%) has the lowest level of urbanization in the year 2011.The change in level of urbanization illustrate that Bihar experiencedlowest (below 1 percentage point) and Uttrakhand experiencedhighest (4.6 percentage point) during the period 2001-11. The gap inthe level of urbanization between parent states to newly formedstates shows that Bihar and Jharkhand have the highest (13 percentagepoint) difference and Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh have thelowest (5 percentage point) difference, while 8 percentage point differencewas observed between Uttar Pradesh and Uttrakhand in 2011census.

The difference in the level of urbanization among parent states(Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) and newly formed states(Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand) is significantly high forinstance, Jharkhand (24%) and its parent state Bihar (11.2%) havethe highest difference in the year 2011.

Table 3 and figure 2 illustrate level, trend and tempo ofurbanization in selected states along with India during 1981-2011. Theresults highlight that the size of urban population has been increasedmore than twice in all three states and India during the period 1981-11. The urban population of India has been increased from 159.5 to

Tota

l Po

pula

tion

(Mill

ion)

Shar

e of

tot

alpo

pula

tion

(%)

Urb

anpo

pula

tion

(mill

ion)

Urb

anpe

rcen

tage

Table–2. Urbanization in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh andUttarakhand with their parent states and India. (2001 – 2011)

2001 2011State

Tota

l Po

pula

tion

(Mill

ion)

Shar

e of

tot

alpo

pula

tion

(%)

Urb

anpo

pula

tion

(mill

ion)

Urb

anpe

rcen

tage

India 1028.61 100 286.11 27.82 1210.85 100 377.10 31.14Bihar 82.99 8.07 8.68 10.46 104.09 8.60 11.75 11.29Jharkhand 26.94 2.62 5.99 22.24 32.98 2.72 7.93 24.05Madhya Pradesh 60.34 5.87 15.96 26.46 72.62 6.00 20.06 27.63Chhattisgarh 20.83 2.03 4.18 20.09 25.54 2.11 5.93 23.24Uttar Pradesh 166.19 16.16 34.53 20.78 199.81 16.50 44.49 22.27Uttarakhand 8.48 0.83 2.17 25.67 10.08 0.83 3.04 30.23Total 365.77 35.58 71.51 19.55 445.12 36.76 93.20 20.94


The urban-rural ratio shows the number of people residingin urban areas per 100 rural population. The urban-rural ratioof Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand in 1991 were 20.9, 26.2,and 29 which has been increased to 30.3, 31.8 and 42.8 respectivelyin 2011. It shows that more areas have become urban. The urban-rural ratio was found highest in Uttarakhand and lowest inJharkhand. The annual growth rate of urban population showeda declining trend from 1991 to 2011 at the national level. All threestates have a high level of annual urban growth rate as comparedto the national level. Jharkhand experienced the highest declinein annual growth rate of urbanization and reached to nationallevel (2.8) during 1991-2011. The tempo of urbanization indicatesthat all three states have different pace of change in level of urbanizationfrom 1981 to 2011. It is clear from the table that after 1991 the paceof urbanization in Jharkhand was highest (tempo of urbanizationwas 2.1) which has been lower down to the lowest (tempo of urbanizationwas 0.8) in 2011 as compared to other selected states. However, tempoof urbanization has been increased from 1.3 to 1.6 during the period2001-11.

377.1 million during the period 1981 to 2011. The urban populationhas been increased from 2.1 million to 5.9 million in Chhattisgarh, 3million to 8 million in Jharkhand and 1.1 million to 3 million inUttrakhand during the same period. The level of urbanization wasbelow 20 percent in all three states during 1981 which has been increasedsignificantly during the period 1981-2011.

The trend of urbanization shows that it has been increasing inJharkhand but, with a slight decline after 1991 census.

Figure 2. Trends of urbanization in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,Uttarakhand and India (1981-2011)

7646 Kumar & Reshmi

Table–3. Level, trend, and tempo of urbanization ofChhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and India during 1981-2011.

States & Year Total Urban Percent Urban Annual Tempocountry Population Population Urban Rural Expo. of

(Million) (Million) Ratio UGR Urbanization1981 14.0 2.1 14.6 17.2 - -

Chhattisgarh 1991 17.6 3.0 17.3 20.9 4.0 1.72001 20.8 4.2 20.1 25.1 3.2 1.52011 25.5 5.9 23.2 30.3 3.5 1.51981 17.6 3.0 16.7 20.1 - -

Jharkhand 1991 21.8 4.5 20.7 26.2 4.3 2.12001 26.9 6.0 22.2 28.6 2.8 0.72011 33.0 8.0 24.1 31.8 2.8 0.81981 5.7 1.1 18.5 22.8 - -

Uttarakhand 1991 7.1 1.6 22.5 29.0 4.0 1.92001 8.5 2.2 25.7 34.5 3.2 1.32011 10.1 3.0 30.0 42.9 3.3 1.61981 683.3 159.5 23.3 30.4 - -

India 1991 846.4 215.8 25.5 34.2 3.0 0.92001 1029.0 286.1 27.8 38.5 2.8 0.92011 1210.0 377.1 31.2 45.3 2.8 1.2

Note: - Pop. - Population, Expo. UGR- Exponential Urban Growth RateSource: -Towns directory 2001 and 2011 of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand andIndia.

Level of urbanization among towns and cities by size class

Level of urbanization was calculated and increment in number of townsand cities by size class of towns were analysed in all three states. Theresults from table 4 illustrates that over a period of time from 1991 to2011, there has been increase in number of towns/cities in all threestates. In Chhattisgarh, there were 78 towns in 1991 which has beenincreased to 97 in 2001 and further increased to 182 in 2011. In caseof Jharkhand number of towns increased from 119 to 228 during 1991-2011. Total number of towns and cities increased in Uttrakhand from77 to 116 during the period 1991-11. More than 100 new urban centersemerged in both Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand states during the sameperiod. The highest growth in number of towns has been observed inclass V towns in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand during 1991 to 2011which further indicates that many new small urban centers areemerging recently.


I 6 1592691 52 7 2329528 56 10 3315980 56II 6 439933 14 7 523778 13 5 391569 7III 13 378724 12 22 601245 14 32 936620 16IV 36 506519 17 38 550349 13 50 702157 12V 17 129143 4 23 180847 4 72 532286 9VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 58625 1

Total 78 3047010 100 97 4185747 100 182 5937237 100

Table–4. Level of urbanization among different classes of town/city in selected states(1991-2011)

1991 2001 2011

Stat

es

Clas

s of

tow

n &

city

Num

ber

ofto

wn

& c

ity

Popu

lati

on

Urb

an %

Num

ber

ofto

wn

& c

ity

Popu

lati

on

Urb

an %

Num

ber

ofto

wn

& c

ity

Popu

lati

on

Urb

an %

Chh

atti

sgar

hJh

arkh

and I 5 1671828 37 7 2465317 41 10 4328014 54

II 17 1144822 25 18 1381825 23 12 882716 11III 30 964938 21 37 1227809 20 39 1302052 16IV 36 531456 12 35 541085 9 48 674280 8V 27 197988 4 45 336624 6 90 634552 8VI 4 18651 0.4 10 41081 1 29 131546 2

Total 119 4529683 100 152 5993741 100 228 7953160 100

Utt

arak

han

d I 3 523365 33 3 763079 35 6 1383057 46II 3 211412 13 5 399023 18 6 337540 11III 15 443644 28 16 508110 23 19 535713 18IV 16 236802 15 16 255202 12 33 453903 15V 14 92067 6 28 205323 9 37 281203 9VI 26 76729 5 18 48337 2 15 34787 1

Total 77 1584019 100 86 2179074 100 116 3026203 100

Note: - Size of population in Class I - (more than 100000), II - (50000-99999), III-(20000 - 49999), IV- (10000 - 19999), V- (5000 - 9999) and VI- (Less than 5000).

Further table 4 illustrates that the concentration of urbanpopulation is highest in class I urban centers in all selected states.More than fifty percent of the urban population in Chhattisgarh (56%),Jharkhand (54%) and 46% in Uttarakhand are living in class I citiesduring the year 2011. The percentage distribution of urban populationin Jharkhand and Uttrakhand states have continuous increase during1991 to 2011 but it is observed that in Chhattisgarh there is no changein percentage distribution of urban population in class I urban centers.Level of urbanization among top ten urban centers inChhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand (1991 – 2011)The pattern and trend of urbanization process was analyzed in top tenurban centers of these states. The main reason behind the selection oftop ten urban centers in each state was to find out the pattern ofurban growth and concentration of urban population. Towns/cities ofall three censuses (1991, 2001 and 2011) were arranged in descending

7648 Kumar & Reshmi

order and the top urban centers have been selected in each state. Afterselection of these cities/towns in all three censuses, it was furtheranalyzed to understand whether the rank (on the basis of population)and growth rate of those urban centers have been changed overtime.The results from table 5 suggest that capital cities are in the firstrank in Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand but in Jharkhand, it fallsunder second rank. Findings also suggest that among ten urbancenters, there is a change in their rank during the period of 1991 to2011. The distribution of urban population among cities suggests thatthere is huge inequality in the concentration of population. For example,the city Raipur of Chhattisgarh which is on the topmost position interms of population have more than one million population. On theother hand, Bhilai Nagar is the second most populated city with 628thousand population and the city is in the 10th position, having only102 thousand population in 2011 census. It shows that the city ratedfirst rank has ten times more population than urban center having10th rank in Chhattisgarh. In case of Jharkhand, result shows thatDhanbad city was on top most rank and Ranchi was on second rankcity having more than one million population. In Uttrakhand, Dehradunwas top most city with 569 thousand population whereas the tenthrank town Manglaur has only 52 thousand population. Rank amongten cities in Jharkhand was having more variation during this periodsuch as Dhanbad was in the fourth rank in the year 1991 and 2001which got the first rank in 2011 census. It shows that, during 2001-11there was more concentration of population towards Dhanbad city.Deoghar city followed the same pattern. On the other hand, Giridihshows decline in rank, that is, Giridih was in the seventh positionin1991 census which dropped down to 10th rank in 2011census.Table 5. Levels and trends of urbanization and growth rateduring 1991-2011

1991 2001 2011 1991-2001 2001-2011

Stat

e

Tow

n/C

ity

Popu

lati

on

Ran

k

Tow

n/C

ity

Popu

lati

on

Ran

k

Tow

n/C

ity

Popu

lati

on

Ran

k

Tow

n/C

ity

Exp

o.D

GR

Exp

o.D

GR

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

RA 452301 2 RA 697013 1 RA 1027264 1 RA 43.25 38.79BH 461352 1 BH 556366 2 BH 627734 2 BH 18.73 12.07BI 207965 3 BI 275694 4 BI 365579 3 BI 28.19 28.22KO 146727 5 KO 315690 3 KO 365253 4 KO 76.62 14.58DU 166932 4 DU 232517 5 DU 268806 5 DU 33.14 14.50RJ 125371 6 RJ 143770 6 RJ 163114 6 RJ 13.69 12.62RG 90265 7 RG 115908 7 RG 150019 7 RG 25.00 25.80JG 84578 9 JG 103123 8 JG 125463 8 JG 19.82 19.61CM 89460 8 AM 90967 10 AM 121071 9 AM - 28.59DM 69357 10 CM 93373 9 DM 101677 10 DM 19.00 19.00


Jhar

khan

dDH 151789 4 DH 199258 4 DH 1162472 1 DH 27.21 76.37RC 599306 1 RC 847093 1 RC 1073427 2 RC 34.60 23.68JA 478950 2 JA 573096 2 JA 677350 3 JA 17.95 16.71BO 333683 3 BO 393805 3 BO 414820 4 BO 16.57 5.20MA 108100 5 MA 166125 5 MA 223805 5 MA 42.97 29.80DO 76380 10 DO 98388 9 DO 203123 6 DO 25.32 72.49AD 77803 8 AD 119233 7 AD 174355 7 AD 42.69 38.00HA 97824 6 HA 127269 6 HA 142489 8 HA 26.31 11.30SA 76691 9 CH 97221 10 CH 141640 9 CH - 37.63GI 78097 7 GI 98989 8 GI 114533 10 GI 23.71 14.59

Utt

arak

han

d

DE 270159 1 DE 426674 1 DE 569578 1 DE 45.70 28.89HR 149011 2 HR 175340 2 HR 231338 2 HR 16.27 27.72HK 104195 3 HK 158896 3 HK 201461 3 HK 42.20 23.73RU 61280 6 RU 88676 6 RU 140857 4 RU 36.95 46.28KA 69870 5 KA 92967 5 KA 121623 5 KA 28.56 26.87RO 80262 4 RO 97516 4 RO 118200 6 RO 19.47 19.24RS 44487 7 RS 66189 7 RS 70499 7 RS 39.73 6.31BR 38381 9 PT 44964 10 PT 56044 8 PT - 22.03RM 37281 10 RM 46205 9 RM 54787 9 RM 21.46 17.04

DCB 43031 8 DCB 53675 8 MG 52971 10 MG 22.10 -Note:- Towns and Cities- Dhanbad (DH), Ranchi (RA), Jamshedpur (JA), BokaroSteel City (BO), Mango (MA), Deoghar (DO), Adityapur (AD), Hazaribagh (HA),Chas (CH), Saunda (SA), Giridih (GI), Raipur (RA), Bhilai Nagar(BH), Bilaspur(BI), Korba (KO), Durg (DU), Rajnandgaon (RJ), Raigarh (RG), Jagdalpur(JG),Ambikapur(AM), Dhamtari (DM), Chimiri (CM), Bhel Ranipur (BR) Dehradun(DE), Hardwar (HR), Haldwani Kathgodam (HK), Rudrapur (RU), Kashipur(KA),Roorkee (RO), Rishikesh (RS), Pithoragarh (PT), Ramnagar (RM), Manglaur(MG), Dehradun census block (DCB)

The growth rate of the urban population of top ten selected citiesin Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand states during 1991 to2011shows that only few cities recorded increase in growth rate ofurban population such as Dhanbad, Deoghar cities in Jharkhand,Haldwani Kathgodam, Rudrapur, cities in Uttarakhand. All otherselected cities showing declining trend in growth rate of urbanpopulation in all three states during 1991 to 2011 (figure, 3).Figure– 3. Growth rate of urban population in top ten selected urbancenters in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand during 1991-2011

7650 Kumar & Reshmi

Note: - AM (Ambikapur), CH (Chas), PT (Pithorgarh) and MG(Manglaur) are new urban centers which comes under top ten in 2011census. EXPO DGR (Exponential decadal growth rate)

Pattern of urbanization at district level in Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand and Uttarakhand: 2001-2011In order to understand the change in the spatial pattern of urbanization,level of urbanization is calculated at the district level for all threestates during 2001 and 2011. Using GIS software (Quantum GIS), thespatial pattern of urbanization at district level was analyzed andpresented on the map. Newly formed districts were merged forcomparative analysis in both Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand states,because the number of the districts have been increased from 16 to 18in Chhattisgarh and 18 to 24 in Jharkhand during 2001-2011.

The results from table 6 and map 2 illustrate that three districtsof Chhattisgarh namely Raipur, Korba and Durg were the mosturbanized districts (30-40 percent) in the year 2001 and in 2011 censusKoriya district was also included in the range of 30-40 percentage. Theshare of urban population in these four districts (Raipur, Korba, Durg


and Koriya) have more than half (57.6%) of urban population ofChhattisgarh. On the other hand, the level of urbanization in tendistricts of Chhattisgarh lies between 10-20 percent in 2011 census,which contributed 30 percent of urban population of the state. Jashpur(4.6%) and Kanker (4.8%) were the least urbanized districts ofChhattisgarh.

In case of Jharkhand more than half of the districts lies below20 percent of level of urbanization in 2001, but positive change is thatthere is an increase in the number of districts having high level ofurbanization (above 40 percent) which has increased from three tofour. These four districts are Dhanbad (52.4%), Bokaro (45%), PurbiSinghbhum (55%) and Ranchi (43%). Godda and Garhwa were the twoleast urbanized districts with a level of urbanization of below 5 percentin 2011.

Table–6. Distribution and share of urban population withlevel of urbanization in selected state (2001-2011)

2001 2011

Stat

e Level of Number of Urban Share of Number of Urban Share ofurbanization districts population Urban districts population Urban

(%) population population(%) (%)

Chh

atti

sgar

h Below- 10 6 429686 10.27 1 75992 1.2810-20 5 737686 17.62 10 1761732 29.6720-30 2 661485 15.80 1 679870 11.4530-40 3 2356890 56.31 4 3419643 57.60

Above- 40 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00

Total 16 4185747 100.00 16 5937237 100.00

Jhar

khan

d

Below- 10 8 593807 9.91 7 746528 9.4110-20 5 741825 12.38 5 1371325 17.2920-30 1 529069 8.83 1 694262 8.7530-40 1 977821 16.31 1 1302317 16.42

Above- 40 3 3151219 52.58 4 3818629 48.14Total 18 5993741 100.00 18 7933061 100.00

Utt

arak

hand Below- 10 5 147804 6.78 3 43309 1.42

10-20 4 234189 10.75 6 412500 13.5320-30 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0030-40 3 1118339 51.32 3 1651588 54.16

Above- 40 1 678742 31.15 1 941941 30.89

Total 13 2179074 100.00 13 3049338 100.00

Note: - New districts of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand are merged into motherdistrict for comparative study.

In Uttarakhand there was no change in the number of the districtsduring 2001-11. There were five districts having below 10 % level ofurbanization. Three towns namely Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagarand Nainital remained with high level of urbanization in the range of30 to 40 percent of urbanization in 2011 census. Dehradun was the

7652 Kumar & Reshmi

Map 2: Level of urbanization in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand andUttarakhand (2001-2011)

only one town which has above 40 percent of urbanization in 2001census. There was no change observed in percentage share ofurbanization for the districts having higher level of urbanization, whilethe change was more apparent among districts having 10-20 percentof level of urbanization. Overall, findings show that a significant shareof the urban population of all states are clustered in few districts whichdirectly indicate that there is a huge inequality in the distribution ofthe urban population.


Level of development in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand andUttarakhand During 2001- 2011Table 7 represents the level of development in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhandand Uttarakhand. The indicators used to assess the level of developmentare work participation rate (WPR), infant mortality rate (IMR), totalfertility rate (TFR), life expectancy for both male and female, literacyrate, sex ratio, per capita income, gross state domestic product (GSDP)and human development index (HDI).Table–7. Level of development in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,Uttrakhand and India 2001- 2011

Development 2001 2011Indicators CH JH UTT India CH JH UTT India

Urban % 20.1 22.2 25.7 27.9 23.2 24.1 30.0 31.6WPR 46.5 37.5 36.9 39.1 47.7 39.7 38.4 39.8IMR 81 60 68 66 51 42 38 44TFR 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.6 2.1 2.4Life expectancy male 58.5 64 62 63.1 63 67.5 66 67.3Life expectancy female 62 62 66 65.6 66 66 69.5 69.6Literacy rate % 64.7 53.6 71.6 64.8 70.3 66.4 78.8 73Sex ratio 989 941 962 933 991 947 963 940Per capita income (¹ ) 10808 9980 14932 16648 27156 21734 44723 35993GSDP (¹ ) 47862 59758 24786 2971464 79166 78045 51107 4885954HDI 0.278 0.268 0.336 0.387 0.358 0.376 0.473 0.4671. Note: - CH-Chhattisgarh, JH- Jharkhand, UTT- Uttarakhand and WPR- Work

participation rate in percent,Per capita income (PCI) and Gross State Domesticproduct (GSDP) is used at constant price for FY 2004-05. Per capita income isgiven annually, and GSDP is in (‘000’ rupees). Sex ratio – per 1000 male, IMR-per 1000 live birth, HDI- Human Development Index.

Source : Work participation rate - Primary Census Abstract, IMR, TFR and fromSRS Bulletin for 2011, Life expectancy- Registrar General of India publication2001, for 2011 Report of the Technical group on Population projection 2001-2026, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Sex ratio- Primary Census Abstract,per capita income, GSDP- Planning Commission website and HDI- UNDP Indiandevelopment report 2011.

Work participation rate (WPR) has been increased in eachstate during 2001 to 2011, but the rate of change in states is higherthan the national level. Work participation rate was highest inChhattisgarh and lowest in Uttrakhand in both the year 2001 & 2011.Infant mortality rate is one of the vital health indicators to measurethe overall health status of that states. Infant mortality rate hasdeclining tendency in all selected states and national level during theyear 2001 and 2011. Uttarakhand has better level of IMR (38 per 1000live birth) as compared to Chhattisgarh (51per 1000 live birth) andJharkhand (42 per 1000 live birth) which is lower than the national

7654 Kumar & Reshmi

level (44per 1000 live birth) in the year 2011. Total fertility rate hasdeclined from 2001 to 2011. Uttarakhand has reached the replacementlevel of fertility in the year 2011. However, Jharkhand has higherTFR (2.6) as compared to other states. Life expectancy at birth for amale is the highest in Jharkhand with 67.5 years and the lowest inChhattisgarh with 63 years. Female life expectancy in Uttrakhand isclosed to reach the national level (69.6 years). Change in life expectancyof male in Chhattisgarh was the highest (4.5 years) during the period2001-11.

The literacy rate of Jharkhand has increased from 53.6 in 2001to 66.4 percent in 2011. The level of literacy is highest in Uttarakhandwhich is 5.8 percent point higher than the national level (73%). Thesex ratio (per 1000 male) of Chhattisgarh was highest (989) as comparedto Jharkhand and Uttrakhand in 2001 which further increased to 991in 2011 census. Jharkhand has the lowest sex ratio in both the years,however it improved from 941 in 2001 to 947 in 2011 census. Percapita income has been increased in all three states during the sameperiod. The pace of change in per capita income is higher (three fold) inUttarakhand. The gross state domestic product (GSDP) has beenincreased in all three states as well as national level.But, the rate ofchange is higher in Uttarakhand. Human development index (HDI)which indicates the overall development shows that the level ofdevelopment in Uttarakhand is high. There has been an improvementin HDI in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and India duringthe period 2001-11.Linkage between urbanization and socio-economic indicatorsThe linkages between urbanization and socio-economic developmentindicators are well stabilized by many researchers. To find out theassociation between urbanization and socio-economic indicators rankcorrelation analysis is performed where the level of urbanization isused as a dependent variable and the socio-economic indicators areused as independent variables. Table 8 depicts the correlation betweenthe level of urbanization and socio-economic indicators of Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand and Uttarakhand for the year 2001 and 2011. The correlationcoefficient is positively correlated with the level of urbanization andnon-agricultural workers in both male and female. The coefficient ofcorrelation is high and significant in both years 2001 and 2011. Femaleliteracy and male literacy are correlated significantly in Jharkhandand Chhattisgarh in 2011. Child sex ratio is negatively correlated withthe level of urbanization in Jharkhand in 2001 and 2011. While childsex ratio and overall sex ratio in Uttrakhand is negatively correlatedwith level of urbanization in 2011.


Table–8. Relationship between level of urbanization and socio-economic indicators : A correlation matrix

Chhattisgarh Jharkhand Uttarakhand

Socio economic indicators 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011

Urban percentage 1 1 1 1 1 1Sex ratio (per 1000 male) -.474 -.342 -.247 -.421* -.786** -.720**

Child sex ratio (per 1000 male) -.354 -.298 -.566* -.686** -.682* -.478Male literacy % .441 .538* .899** .639** -.390 .445Female literacy % .329 .556* .831** .801** .368 -.462Gender literacy gap % .226 -.079 -.055 -.150 -.764** -.841**

Non-agricultural worker % .929** .893** .841** .862** .890** .956**

Male non-agricultural worker % .968** .948** .913** .868** .720** .956**

Female non-agricultural worker % .735** .773** .564* .776** .896** .929**

N 16 18 13

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The analysis shows that the level of urbanization in all thesestates is lower as compared to national level. The level of urbanizationin Uttarakhand (30%) is the highest as compared to Jharkhand (24%)and Chhattisgarh (23%) and nearer to the national level (31%). Maniet al. (2015) also confirms that level of urbanization in Uttarakhand isgradually increasing at state level as well as city level. They furtherexplained that difference in the level of urbanization at district level isdue to relief features, connectivity, and migration from hilly district toplain areas.

The annual growth rate of the urban population shows a decliningtrend from 1991 to 2001. Further there was slight increasing trendduring 2001-11 and this finding is also aligned with the finding ofBhagat (2011). The growth rate of urbanization in Jharkhand has beendeclined more as compared to Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand. Changein the percent of urbanization is higher in Uttarakhand as comparedto Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. More than half of the urban populationare currently living in class I urban centers in Jharkhand andChhattisgarh but share of the population living in class I urban areasis below fifty percent in Uttarakhand. There is a significant gap in thelevel of urbanization among districts of all three states.

The districts Jashpur, Kanker, Gooda, Garhwa, Bageshwar, andRudraprayag have below five percent of the level of urbanization. Onthe other hand, the districts Ranchi, Dhanbad, Bokaro, PurbiSinghbhum and Dehradun have above 40 percent of urbanization level.The growth of class V (small towns) show rapid increase during 1991to 2011 which highlights new emergence of small towns in all threestates. The level of urbanization highlights that medium and smalltowns are emerging in India and they are geographically dispersed.This has implications in development because these small and medium

7656 Kumar & Reshmi

towns are comparatively deprived as compared to large cities (Bhagat,2012). Kundu (2011) further explained that the process of urbanizationin India has oriented towards large cities due to higher demographicgrowth attributed by both natural increase and net rural urbanmigration. Large cities are economically stronger as compared to smalltowns and they provide better facilities in terms of education,transportation, health, job, etc.

The analysis of socio-economic and health indicators highlightsthat level of development is highest in Uttarakhand. However, most ofselected development indicators show that the level of development iscloser to national level of development. Development level is low andgap in most of the indicators are low between Jharkhand andChhattisgarh. A study on development carried out in EAG states bySing and Keshari (2016) found that Uttrakhand was most developed,Chhattisgarh was in middle level of development and Jharkhand wasin least developed on the basis of HDI ranking. At the districts levelthey found that all the districts which have administrative capital ofthe state have better rank as compared to other districts. The associationbetween level of urbanization and development indicators shows thatthere a positive correlation between the level of urbanization and non-agriculture worker and literacy rate in both male and female. Theliteracy rate is positively related with urbanization level in Jharkhand.Conclusion and RecommendationsThe present paper was an attempt to understand the levels and trendsof urbanization and the relationship between urbanization anddevelopment in three newly formed states of India Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand and Uttarakhand. Urbanization and development havesignificant association. The present study highlights that policy makersand planners should focus on those aspects which attract people tolarge cities. There should be further research on the factors whichcontribute in unequal distribution of population. As recent trend ofurbanization and development indicates that in Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand and Uttrakhand only few districts have higher concentrationof urban population. These districts have either capital districts orhaving industries and mining. Generally, the growth rate of capitalcities is much higher than other small towns. Thus, there is need tofocus on less urbanized districts and small towns in terms of creatingjobs, education and health facilities. The study further concludes thatthere is negative association between urbanization and sex ratio. Hence,there is a need to emphasize on those factors which contribute lowerchild sex ratio in urban areas of these states. Low urbanized districtsand urban centers should be given more priority regarding developmentwhich would eventually reduce population pressure to class I cities.


REFERENCES

Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new indexfor developing countries. United Nations Development Programme,Human Development Reports Office Background Paper No. 2010/11.doi:10.2139/ssrn.1815243

Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1997). Concepts of human development and poverty: Amultidimensional perspective. Poverty and human development: Humandevelopment papers. New York: United Nations Development Programme

Anisujjaman, M. (2015). Urbanisation and human development: A study of westBengal. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention,4(7), 2319–7722.

Bhagat, R. B. (2011). Emerging pattern of urbanisation in India. Economic &Political Weekly, XLVI (34), 10-12. Retrieved from http://suburbin.hypotheses.org/files/2011/09/RBBhagatUrbanisation.pdf

Bhagat, R. B. (2012). A turnaround in India’s urbanization. Asia-Pacific PopulationJournal, 27(2), 23-39.

Datta, P. (2006). Urbanization in India. Population Studies Unit Indian StatisticalInstitute, 75, 1-16.

Davis, K. (1965). The urbanization of the human population. Scientific American,213(3), 40–53. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0965-40

Haq. ul Mahbub. (1990). Human development report 1990. United NationsDevelopment Programme. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_complete_nostats.pdf

Islam, U. M., & Khan, E. M. (2014). A spatio temporal analysis of trends andpatterns of urbanisation in India. Excellence International Jurnal ofEducation And Research , 2(4), 563–575. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/6731382/A_Spatio_temporal_analysis_of_Trends_and_Patterns_of_Urbanisation_in_India

Kumar, A., & Rai, A. K. (2014). Urbanization process, trend , pattern and itsconsequences in India. Neo Geographia, 3(4), 54-77.

Kumar, R. (2014). Spatial pattern of urbanization in districts of Jharkhand.. InAalok Ranjan & B. P. Singh (Eds.), India 2014: Population and Development(105–118). Bhopal: MLC Foundation ‘Shyam’ Institute. Retrieved fromhttp://www.shyaminstitute.in/monograph_14.pdf#page=113

Kundu, A. (2011). Trends and processess of urbanization in India. London; NewYork: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED);United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10597IIED.pdf

Mahbub-ul-Haq Human Development Center .(2014). Human development inSouth Asia 2014. Urbanization: Challenges and opportunities. Lahore:Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Welcome/Downloads/sahdr_2014_urbanization_challenges_and_opportunities.pdf

Narayan, L. (2014). Urbanization and development. International Journal ofResearch,1(8), 901-908.

Ranjan, A., Singh, B., & Kuan, M. K. (Eds.). (2014). India 2014:Population anddevelopment. Bhopal: MLC Foundation ‘Shyam’ Institute. Retrieved fromhttp://www.shyaminstitute.in/monograph_14.pdf#page=113

Singh, P. & Keshari, S. (2016). Development of human development index atdistrict level for EAG states. Statistics and Applications, 14(2), 43-61.Retrieved from http://ssca.org.in/media/4_2016_HDI_t1hcMZm.pdf

UNDP. (1990). Human development report 1990. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.(2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision, highlites (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). New York: United Nations. Reterieved from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/files/wup2014-highlights.pdf

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology,44(1), 1–24. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2768119

7658 Kumar & Reshmi

urbanization and development in selected empowered … · 7642 kumar & reshmi socio-economic,...

Documents