30 Urbanisation and Urbanism

Prof. Dipender Nath Das

Meaning and Concept

Since the twentieth century, because of faster growth of cities and emergence of new urban centres across the globe, ‘urbanisation’ has become a buzz word. The term ‘urban’ refers to a settlement having a set of characteristics which rural settlements do not poses. These are fairly large and compact settlement, cosmopolitan population, high population density, predominance of secondary and tertiary economic activities, well developed transportation system etc. And urbanisation, simply, is the process of becoming ‘urban’.

However, more often than not, urbanisation is defined as “an increase in the proportion of the total population that lives in urban areas” (Pacione, 2002, p. 67). This is the demographic meaning of urbanisation and easy to measure. The only issue is with the identification of the ‘urban’ areas and there is no general consensus about it. Different countries have different criteria to define a settlement as ‘urban’ which have been discussed in detail in later stage. Initially, increase of population in towns or in urban areas leads to some other changes like concentration of market facilities, different types of economic activities; provision of better services and amenities; improvement of transportation system etc. Later, these changes attract more people to the town or urban area. Thus, urban growth [“an increase in the population of towns and cities” (Pacione, 2002, p. 67)] occurs. Therefore, urbanisation not only leads to urban growth but it brings some socio-economic change in the society. That is why in a broader sense urbanisation signifies the process of demographic as well as socio-economic processes changes through which an area acquires urban character.

It has been observed that level of urbanization is closely linked with the level of development. So, urban areas play a crucial role in the overall process of development and urban areas have better amenities and services, higher literacy rate, more educational achievement, facility of vocational education, better standard of living, higher aspirations, higher contraceptive protection rate, lower fertility rate and small family size and low mortality rate. In urban areas there is greater impact of globalisation, industrialisation and secularisation, greater reach of mass media, better infrastructures, roads, electricity, water supply and they are closed to the seat of powers. While these are the ideal features of urban areas, there are huge differences among these across the urban spaces in different parts of the world. Furthermore, the process of urbanisation also varies across the space and time.

In nineteenth century, just after the industrial revolution, urbanization in Europe acquired a faster pace because of large scale migration of industrial labourers to the cities. As a result of which, cities became very large in size and standard of living deteriorated. Frequent outbreak of diseases, higher death rate, high level of poverty, unemployment, lack of health institutions, political instability and crime among others were very common in most of the nineteenth century’s cities in Europe (Potter and Lloyd-Evans, 1998). On the other hand, in the last century (twentieth century) rapid urbanisation and urban growth occurred in the developing countries mainly because of comparatively high rate of natural increase. While global capital is playing an important role in the growth of large cities in developing countries, small cities and towns continue to grow based on regional or national trade and commerce. Most striking thing in the cities (especially the big cities) of developing countries is the high level of socio-economic inequality. On the one hand there are gated communities which represent the residence of rich and/or middle class population. on the other hand, millions of urban poor live in slums and other informal settlements where availability of basic services and quality of life are very poor.

Definitional and conceptual problems

As mentioned earlier the term ‘urban’ refers to those settlements that have some distinct characteristics which rural areas do not have. However, it is normal that some distinct urban characters can be found in rural areas too. On the other hand, some typical rural characters also present in urban areas as well. And for identifying ‘urban’ areas a clear definition must be there which differentiates an urban settlement from a rural settlement. Setting up that definition or some objective criteria for identifying urban settlements is very difficult because nature of settlements vary from country to country, region to region. That is why there is no uniform definition of urban; each country has its own criteria to define ‘urban’ which varies from country to country (United Nations, 2009). Therefore, if we survey different countries’ criteria to define ‘urban’, we would find that there are huge variations. Some countries define urban areas on the basis of size of population while others define urban areas on the basis of amenities and facilities. In many European countries, an area with population size of 2000 or more is called urban while it is as low as 100 in Peru and as high as 30,000 in Japan. On the other hand, in the countries like Panama, in addition to the threshold of population size (which is 1500 in the case of Panama) several urban characters like water supply, sewerage, etc. are considered to define a settlement as ‘urban’. Chile is one of such countries where urban areas are defined only on the basis of the presence of some definite urban characteristics. South Africa, Costa Rica, Guatemala etc. are the countries where only administrative criterion or the presence of local government is used to define the urban areas. India is one of few countries where the definition of urban has multiple criteria which can be identified without subjectivity. Here, the term urban is defined as all the places with urban local government (i.e. municipal corporation, municipality, municipal council, notified area, cantonment board etc.) and those places which have the population size of 5000 or more, 400 population per square kilometer area and at least 75 per cent male main workers should be engaged in non-farm activities.

Definition of ‘urban’ not only varies among the nations but also changes time to time. For instance, in India, before 1961, all the municipalities, all the civil lines and all other places with 5000 or more population were considered as ‘urban’. In 1961, a more stringent definition was adopted which is apart from the urban local bodies all the settlements with population size of 5000 or more, 400 population density and at least 75 per cent of the work force engaged in non-agricultural activities. Thereafter, several minor modifications have been made to the definition of ‘urban’ in India and the latest definition as adopted in 2011 has been mentioned in the previous paragraph.

From these examples of the definition of ‘urban’ adopted by different countries two things are clear that the data on urbanisation of individual countries based on their respective definition of ‘urban’ are not comparable and urban data of any individual country may not be comparable in different points of time. To overcome this problem recently the Geopolis approach has proposed a definition of ‘urban’ which claims its applicability across the globe (Denis and Marius-Gnanou, 2011). According to this approach, any ‘settlement agglomeration’ with population size of 10000 is ‘urban’. Here the term settlement agglomeration means continuous spread of built-up areas which are not more than 200 meters apart from each other (Denis and Marius-Gnanou, 2011). It should be mentioned that this concept is to some extent similar to the definition of ‘urban’ adopted by France.

Measurement of Urbanization

Urbanization is a multidimensional phenomenon and to measure the different dimensions of urbanization different measures are necessary. Here we will discuss some of the important measures, which are frequently used to explain urbanization process.

Growth of Urban population and its components:

The growth of urban population is calculated in the same way as we calculate the growth rate of total population. Here we only consider urban population instated of total population. Popularly two types of growth formula are used such as – Exponential and Linear. The principle of exponential growth is model is “population continues to change continuously over time” (Premi, 2010, p. 222). On the other hand, basic principle of linear growth model is “quantity of a thing (here urban population) increases by the same amount every year” (Premi, 2010, p. 221).

Exponential model

= ( ) ×

Where, = Urban growth rate

ln = Log Natural

0 = Urban population size in the base year

= Urban population size in the terminal year

= Difference between terminal year and base year Linear Model

= ( − ) ×

Components of Urban Growth

We have already mentioned that urban growth is the increase of population living in a particular city or urban area. This increase can occurs in four different ways. (a) natural increase of population which is simply birth minus death, (b) net migration to the city or the concerned urban area and (c) increase in the area of the city due to the change in statutory limit. However, with respect to the increase of urban population in a whole country or a state and so on, the fourth component adds which is reclassification of area as ‘urban’ from ‘rural’ or the emergence of new towns.

Degree or Level of Urbanization

Degree or level of urbanization is defined as the percentage of urban population to total population of an area. Following index is most commonly used for measuring the level of urbanization and is calculated as-

Level of Urbanization = (Urban population/ Total population) x 100

The calculation and interpretation of this index is very easy. Higher the percentage of urban population means higher the level of urbanization.

Tempo of Urbanisation

The tempo or speed of urbanisation refers to the change in the level of urbanization over a specified period of time. It shows the speed of urbanization. It is measured either as an absolute change in percentage point or as a rate of change in the percent urban between two time period. It is calculated using following formula-

Tempo of Urbanization (2001-2011) = (Difference in the level of urbanization during 2001-2011)/ Level of Urbanization in 2001) x 100/10

Urbanization in India

As mentioned earlier, developing countries experienced a fairly high pace of urbanization in the twentieth century. But since the last two-three decades of this century, growth rate of urbanization in these countries started to decline and this trend is still continuing. In this backdrop, here we will briefly review the trends and pattern of urbanization in India in the last few decades.

Table 1. Trend of Urbanisation in India

Source: Guin, 2015, p. 3, table 1.

Notes: *AEGR=Average annual exponential growth rate;

**RUGD= Rural urban growth differentials

As revealed in the Table 1, before independence rate of urbanization as well as its growth rate was very low which was attributed to high level of mortality owing to the frequent outbreak of epidemics, famines etc. However, immediately after the independence (1951) there was a sudden increase in the level of urbanisation (as well as growth rate of urbanization) because of migration of refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh. In the next decade (1951-1961), there was huge dip in the rate of urban growth which was the fallout of major change in the definition of ‘urban’ on the eve of 1961 census which resulted in the declassification of many earlier towns to villages. After the slump in the growth rate in 1961, it again picked up in 1971 and attained its peak in 1981. High growth rate of urbanization in 1970s was attributed by the emergence of a good number of new towns on the eve of the census 1981. However, since 1980’s the growth of urbanization has slowed down due to declining or stagnant rural-urban migration (Kundu, 2003) and slow and ever declining rate of natural increase of population in urban areas. Here it is important to note that in spite of the continuation of these two factors, the growth rate of urbanization was not declined in the decade 2000s rather it was stagnant. This was possible because of the unprecedented emergence of new towns on the eve of the Census 2011 which accounted for 40 per cent of the total decadal (2001-2011) urban growth in the country (Guin, 2015).

Table 2. Urbanisation and urban growth in the major states of India, 2001 and 2011

Source: Guin, 2015, p. 7, table 2.

Note: AEGR= Annual exponential growth rate

Fig.1: Level of Urbanization in India (2011)

Source: Census of India, 2011

With regard to the pattern of urbanization in India there is a clear (positive) relationship between the level of urbanization and level of economic development of the states (Sivaramakrishna, Kundu and Singh 2005; Bhagat and Mohanty, 2008; Guin, 2015). From the Figure 1 it may be seen that among the large states, southern and western states have comparatively high level of urbanization while the states in the eastern part of the country lag behind and this pattern corresponds to that of the state level per capita income. It is true that the rate of natural increase in the highly urbanized states is comparatively lower but as they (Kerala and Tamil Nadu are the exceptions) attract migrants from other states (Figure 2), cities and towns in these states continues to grow at comparatively higher rate.

Figure 2. Major Net Migration Flow (duration 0-9 years) in India, 2001

Source: Bhagat and Mohanty, 2009, p. 14, figure 2.

Urbanism

In the previous section we have discussed the concept of urbanization which simply signifies the process of becoming ‘urban’ and an urban area has several socio-economic and demographic as well as spatial connotations which rural areas do not posses. In the context of urban areas or cities, the concept of urbanism is very important which implies the way of life of the city dwellers. Sociologists define urbanism simply as ‘a way of life’. It displays an organization of society in the context of a complex division of labour, high levels of technology, high mobility, interdependence amongest its residents in achieving better economic functions and impersonality in social relations. Louis Wirth, an American sociologist and member of the Chicago school of sociology, coined the term ‘urbanism’ in 1938 and he has given four characteristics of urbanism-

Transiency: An urban dweller’s relation with others is short lived and he/she likely to forget his/her previous acquaintances and engage with new ones.

Superficiality: An urbanite has very few people with whom he interacts and his relationship with them are nothing but impersonal and formal. People meet each other in a very segmental manner and that too for meeting some needs in their life.

Anonymity: people residing in Urban areas do not know each other deeply. Mutual acquaintance between the residents which is explicitly observed in a neighbourhood, is absent here.

Individualism: urbanites give more value to their own vested interests only.

Wirth has identified three aspects of city- population size, population density and heterogeneity which directly determine the degree of urbanism in an urban society.

Figure 3. Factors influencing urbanism

The effect of population size:

The larger the population size, greater is the possibility of diversification and individualisation in society.

Similarly, larger the population, greater is the chances of specialization and functional heterogeneity of social norms.

Competition as well as traditional mechanisms of social control replace primary relations of kinship as a way of organizing society.

Impersonality and segregation of social interactions too escalate with the size of the city/town.

The effect of population density:

High population density reinforces the effects of large population size
It also results in to greater stress as well as tolerance for living closely with strangers.
Low density city growth causes development of the fringe and higher land value in suburbia.
Increase of population density leads to competition by compounding the effects of population size.

The effect of heterogeneity:

The greater the heterogeneity more would be the tolerance among social sects. Heterogeneity permits ethnic and class barriers to be broken down.

Individual roles and contacts become compartmentalised in accordance with the different circles of contacts. Anonymity and depersonalisation in public life escalate.

According to him, urbanism has several harmful impacts on society as it leads to loosen the unity in family, makes people isolate, tends to postpon marriage, lowers the reproduction rate etc. On the contrary, the positive effects of urbanism are it promotes freedom and toleration etc.

Although Wirth claimed his theoretical statements as general to all cities, these can be applied to the industrial cities only. What is true for the urbanism of Western societies may not be true in India. Dube (2013) has identified several key elements of urbanism in the context of India. These are as follows-

Dilution of the functions of family, kinship and jati. Formal and impersonal human relationships.

Relaxation of social norms. Prevalence of secularism.

Higher degree of privacy in life.

Organisation of life is based on community organisations and voluntary associations. Level of income or economic condition of the individuals determines their identity. People are aspired to the higher standard of living.

Conclusions

In conclusion, it can safely be commented that urbanisation is a broader concept which encompasses changing socio-economic, demographic and spatial dimensions of urbanizing areas, albeit the concept is often restricted to the increase of proportion of population living in urban areas of a country only. On the contrary, urbanism is a purely sociological concept which deals with the urban “way of life”. Therefore, it is expected that urbanization leads to urbanism but that is not happened always. A settlement can acquire the status of ‘urban’ without much change in the ‘way of life’. In fact, in small cities and towns we find that the ‘way of life’ remains in transition. Here, some sorts of relaxations in social norms are there, people have the aspiration for high standard of living, interpersonal relationship becomes partly formal. On the other hand, kinship, caste system etc. still play a crucial role in social life; people’s identity is not only determined by income but by kinship too; unity in family is not at all diluted rather sometimes it is seen that urban dwellers maintain a good relationship with other family members who still reside in rural areas and frequently visit there. In fact, urbanism is a gradual and tardy process than the urbanization is. A typical rural area can acquire urban status merely because of setting up a large industry and associated change in the economic landscape in the area. However, that does not necessarily mean that way of life will also change suddenly.

you can view video on Urbanisation and Urbanism

References

Ahluwalia, Montek. (2011). “Prospects and policy challenges in the 12th Plan”, Economic and Political Weekly, 46(21):88-105.
Bhagat, R. B. and Mohanty, S. (2008). Trends and Patterns of India’s Urbanisation: A
Demographic Assessment. http://paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/80531. Accessed on November, 2012.
Emerging Pattern of Urbanization and the Contribution of Migration in Urban Growth in India. Asian Population Studies, 5 (1): 5-20.
Denis, E. and Marius-Gnanou, K 2011, ‘Toward a Better Appraisal of Urbanization in India:
A Fresh Look at the Landscape of Morphological Agglomeration’, available from:
http://cybergeo.revues.org/24798. Accessed on December, 2012.
Davis, K. & Golden H. H. (1954): “Urbanisation and development in pre-Industrial Areas”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol.3, No 1.
Davis, K. (1962): “Urbanisation in India – Past and Future”, in Turner, R. (ed.): India’s Urban Future, University of California Press, Berkley. (1965): “The urbanization of the human population”, Scientific American, Vol. 213, No. 3, pp. 41-53.
Dube, S. C. (2013) Indian Society. National Book Trust, India: New Delhi.
Guin, D. (2015) Emerging Pattern of Urban Growth and Development in India. Man and Development, 37 (2), 1-24.
Kundu, A.(2003): “Urbanisation and Urban Governance: Search for a Perspective beyond Neo-Liberalism”, Economic Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 29, pp. 3079-3087.
Mohan, R. & Dasgupta, S. (2005): “The 21st century: Asia Becomes Urban”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 213-223.
Pacione, M. (2002) Urban Geography: A Global Perspective. Routledge: London and New York.
Potter, Robert B & Lioyd-Evans, Sally. (1998) “The Cities in the Developing World”, Longman, UK.
Premi, M. K. (2010) India’s Changing Population Profile. National Book Trust, India: New Delhi.