25 Urban Policy Paradigms

Asmita Bhardwaj

Introduction

In previous modules, we have already looked at urban policy in the domains of basic services, citizen participation, small towns and others. This module attempts to provide a historical background and analytical framework for urban policy considered more broadly, and also to focus on themes that we have not been able to address in previous modules, such as the institutions of planning and regional development.

To understand the broad historical sweep of urban policymaking, note that even as late as 2008, less than a third of India’spopulation was urban(Sankhe et al 2010).At the time of Independence, this proportion was even lower: only about one-seventh of India’s population lived in urban areas (Batra 2009). It is no surprise thenthat Indian cities were slow in coming to the attention of both academics and policymakers(Batra 2009; Mehta and Mehta 2010), before the urban turn (Prakash 2002) (See Module 1.1). Indeed, in some ways, the earliest policy approach to the urban cohered in the Five Year Plans, where Shaw (1999) notes, the focus was on capital accumulation in the modern sector, which was disproportionately centred in the cities, and particularly the metropolises.

This module therefore starts with a close examination of the themes and concerns that shaped the first few decades post-Independence through the lens of the Five Year Plans, looking in particular at how the institutional framework for urban planning and policy — “the knowledge edifice” and “institutional edifice” (Module 3.1) — was shaped. We also look at how the Plans addressed questions of regional development and of urban poverty and employment.

However many of these have been piecemeal approaches; it is only after the 2005 Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) that a concerted effort has been made to create an integrated urban policy framework(Mehta and Mehta, 2010).

Why does urban policy matter? As we show, integrated policies such as the JNNURM and most recently Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) make it possible to address the state of our cities in a holistic manner. Therefore it is important to examine these policies both in light of the history of interventions in Indian cities, as well as from the perspective of concepts such as Right to the City.

This first sectionprovides an understanding of the urban policy in a thematic and chronological perspective starting from development of urban areas that wereflooded with refugees post-Partition to the development of small towns as countermagnets to the fast growing major cities. The next section critically examines the JNNURM. The last section provides an overview of recent policy initiatives and concludes.

Urban Priorities and Institutions of Planning in the Five Year Plans

The urban turn in scholarly research and policy-making was long in coming (Prakash 2002). What were some of the constraints and concerns that shaped the policy stance towards the urban in the prior period?

First, Shaw (1999) points outan important constraint: urban policy and planning are subjects on the State List. Thus more than an exercise of Constitutionally allocated legislative power, the Five Year Plans, which were framed by the Central Government of India, onlyprovided directives on urban policy.

That said, the guiding imperative for urban policy and planning has been the requirement of capital accumulation for economic development. Thus, for example, the crisis in capital accumulation in the 1960s led to greater policy focus on the urban, which was already the major contributor to the country’s annual output.

The period of theFirst and Second Five Year Plans (1951-1961), in India’s political economy, was marked by the Partition, in the words of Sanyal (2014)“one of the largest mass displacements of people in contemporary history.”As refugees flooded into India, their need for work and shelter threatened to overwhelm both central and state governments and cities such as Delhi and Calcutta. Refugee camps such as Kingsway Camp in Delhi and Coopers Camp outside Calcutta were set up to house these new arrivals, but proved inadequate. Large numbershad to resort to squattingwhen“camp life and emergency living” over the long term became unviable. Sanyal (2014)notes in an aside that “in Delhi, areas that are today considered middle class and upmarket such as Malviya Nagar, Kalkaji and Lajpat Nagar were used by the Ministry of Rehabilitation to rehouse refugees”.

Institutions of Planning

This period was important also because it saw the beginnings of an “institutional set-up for the management ofurban administration and the creation of apool of skilled professionals” that were to cometo define the urban policy paradigm in later years (Shaw 1999: 225). The influence of these organizations in shaping a particular vision of “rational” urban development and land management has influenced Indian cities into the present (Shaw 1999).

The first such organisation was the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, which facilitated speedy spatial and occupational rehabilitation of refugees. The Ministry facilitated a large number of rehabilitation coloniesin Delhi, Bombay, Ahmedabad, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and Calcutta (Batra 2009).

Around the same time, organisations such as School of Planning and ArchitectureDelhi, National Building Organisation and Town and Country Planning Organisation were set up in 1941, 1954 and1962 respectively. Initial urban policies were based on Town and Country Planning Act 1947 of Britain and a Model Town Planning Act was prepared in 1957 by the Town and Country Planning Organisation. The masterplan became a key instrument for guiding urban growth (Ravindra 2010).The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was created under an Act of the same name in 1957(Batra 2009). It which confers the power of land acquisition, holding and disposing the properties to the DDA.

The masterplan incorporates various proposed uses of land in the form of zoning, reservation of land for public purpose uses, earmarking roads and railway network, schedule of implementation and development control regulations. Proposed land use puts each parcel of land under a specific land use category. It also provides a legal binding for development of a particular land parcel for a particular category of land use (Mahadevia 2009).

Nonetheless, as Shaw (1999: 225) has argued, the effect of these ideas was also that “the application of policy …often failed tosee the urban as an organic whole rooted inlocal culture.”Batra (2009:8) argues that the master planning approach often relied on “uncritical importfrom the then prevalent town planning andregulatory practices in Britain and the United States of America.”

Around the same time, planning-related legislations were enacted in the states, and Master Plans for other major cities were prepared. The state capitals of Gandhinagar and Bhubaneswar were developed (MOHUPA, 2015; Batra 2009).

To continue to provide housing for the urban poor, in 1970, during the Fourth Plan period, the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) was set up. This organisation aimed to provide loans to urban development authorities and state housing boards for housing and other development projects such as infrastructure development, land acquisition and essential services (Batra2009).

In 1985, under the leadership of Charles Correa, the National Commission of Urbanisation was formed, which emphasized the need for spatial planning as a component of sectoral planning. It was a landmark event that would define later urban policy frameworks. It also preceded the introduction of the 74th ConstitutionalAmendment (See Module 6.1). The 74thConstitutionalAmendment consisted of devolution and decentralisation of urban planning functions to urban local bodies as the third tier of government, making them viable units of self-governance (Sivarmakrishnan 201).

Regional Development

The second Five Year plan gave an early recognition of the role of planning beyond the purview of the city. As slums were proliferating,the concept of the regional plan was introduced in the Second Five Year Plan.

However the major fillipcame in the period of 1961-66 (Third Five Year Plan)which recognized the need for balanced spatial and demographic development (Batra 2009).

City region is a concept used by economists and urban planners to note a metropolitan area and its hinterland, usually divided administratively but with shared resources and markets. The concept of regional development is based on the development of such city regions, as well as regions which have been bypassed by development as a whole such as tribal areas. The major objective of the regional development is to remove regional disparities in respect of economic and social development and bring out the region at par with other regions of the country. This is different from social, economic and physical planning

The efforts to promote balanced regional development continued in the period of 1969-74 (Fourth Five Year Plan). The Plan stressed the need to prevent further growth of population in large cities and need for decongestion or dispersal of population. This was envisaged to be achieved by creation of smaller towns and by planning the spatial location of economic activity (MoHUPA 2015).

Urban regional development authorities were created, such as Mumbai Metropolitan RegionDevelopmentAuthority, the Madras MetropolitanDevelopment Authority and others (Batra 2009). It is important to note that like the DDA, these new authorities were also responsible for implementing the respective masterplans in these cities (Batra 2009).

A major strategy adopted during this period was the development of small and medium towns. In 1975, a Task Force was set up for development of small and medium towns, followed by the scheme of Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT) that was launched in towns with population below one lakh for provision of roads, pavements, minor civic works, bus stands, markets, shopping complex etc. It proposed setting up new industries and commercial and professional establishments in small, medium and intermediate towns (MoHUPA2015).

Regional developmentcontinued to be emphasized in later plans including the Sixth and the Seventh Plans. In the Seventh Plan period the coverage of the scheme was extended to 102 additional towns. The Plan reiterated the need to integrate town level plans into the regional systems. Thus in 1985, the National Capital Region Planning Board was formed to reduce population pressure on Delhi by dispersing and diverting population and economic activity to other urban centres within the National Capital Region thereby ensuring the balanced development of the region asa whole.

Land for urban development

As the need for planned urban development grew, the need for developed land became pressing,especially after the 5thFive Year Plan (1974-79). According to Ahluwalia (Undated),planned development of Indian cities have been greatly hampered by the lack of a properly functioning land markets, based on clear property rights, ease in transacting the purchase or sale of land, effective enforcement of contracts to buy and sell developed properties, and transparent rules and regulations for redeveloping land and/or property. A major reason for distortion of land markets has been urban land ceiling and rent control (Ahluwalia undated).

One such legislation is the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act (ULCRA), which was enacted in 1976to prevent concentration of land holding in urban areas and to make available urban land for construction of houses for the middle and low income groups (MoHUPA 2015).Promulgated as a social equity measure during the period of suspension of civil liberties known as the Emergency (Narayan 2003), the Act was pretty much in tune with the larger economic policy of land reforms adopted by Indira Gandhi,in the 1970s, as it was felt that during this period private dealings were leading to land speculation and profiteering.

Joshi (2009) points out that over the 23 years the ULCRA was in force, only 9% of the excess vacant and vested land could be acquired physically. TheULCRAfailed to meet its objectives. There was no incentive for individual landowners to declare his land, as rates of compensation were very low. Moreover, state governments allowed landowners a variety of exemptions to avoid giving up excess land (Joshi 2009). To the extent it worked, it had adverse impacts on restricting the supply of urban land by reserving too much for “public purposes” and directing it to purposes it that it deemed fit. Evidence is limited that land so acquired was used for the urban poor. Since this law enabled the government to possess large amounts of land at its disposal, it artificially created scarcity of precious urban land. Scholars came to view the Act as a major obstacle to urban development (Sridhar 2012).Others such as Narayan (2003) went further to argue that large landowners, big builders and developers were among the biggest beneficiaries of the ULCRA, with about 20 builders having monopolized apartment construction in Greater Mumbai by the mid-1980s.

Since the ULCRA has not met its intended objectives, the Government of India decided to repeal the Act with the passing of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Various states subsequently repealed the ULCRA, though Narayan (2003) notes that only a few had done so by 2002. Repeal of the ULCRA has been included as one of the mandatory reforms suggested in Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). States have to commit to repealing it within a committed time frame. It is envisaged that the repeal of the legislation would go a long way in reviving the stagnant housing industry and facilitate construction of dwelling units both in the public and private sector.

Urban Employment

The Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) scheme in 1989 aimed to provide employment to the unemployed through setting up of micro-enterprises and wage employment, but it yielded disappointing results (Rahul 1992).However, the most prominent scheme launched by the Indian government to improve the livelihood services of the urban poor, was theSwarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) in 1997, which subsumed the earlier policies. SJSRY is the only urban poverty alleviation programme of the Government of India, catering to the livelihood needs of the Below Poverty Line (BPL) urban population. It prescribes identification of the poorest of the poor beneficiaries amongst the BPL urban population (MoHUPA2015 ).

In 2013, the SJSRY was restructured as the National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM) in 2013. The mission aims to cover 786 cities in its first phase under the 12th plan enabling urban poor to access gainful self-employment and skilled wage employment. The mission would also address livelihood concerns of the urban street vendors by facilitating access to suitable spaces, institutional credit and social security.

An integrated Framework for Urban Policy ?

The period of liberalisation (1992) brought in a sea change in urban policy. It saw reduction of import tariffs,and higher level of foreign investment and transformations incentre-staterelations. The economic model that allowed greater freedom to states vis-a-vis the centre launched a new phase of inter-state competition for private investment and State governments to elaborate their own policies, for instance with regard to economic development initiatives (Kennedy et al 2013). Moreover, the major cities came to be positioned as engines for economic growth by state governments (Kennedy and Zerah 2008). As you may recall, in some ways, this emphasis simply echoed the policy focus in the Plan period on cities as sites of capital accumulation.

However, as Mahadevia (2006: 3399) noted in an early comment on the JNNURM, what distinguished the new policy regime was the idea of “world-class” city-making, to be realized throughinternationalstandard infrastructure, particularly roads,airports, public transport, open spaces, andreal estate projects.

In 2005, JNNURM, the largest central government initiative in urban development was announced. Covering 63“million-plus” cities, state capitals as well as other important cities, the thrust of the JNNURM was to ensure improvement in urban governance and service delivery so that urban local bodies (ULBs) become financially sound and could sustainably undertake new programmes. It is for that reason also described as a reform-linked incentive scheme, that support state governments and ULBs (Batra 2009). The focus is to be on efficiency in urban infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms, community participation, and accountability of ULBs/ parastatal agencies towards citizens (Batra 2009).

In these “mission cities”, the JNNURM included two sub-missions: (1) Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG), and (2) Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) (Kundu and Samanta 2011: 56).

Development of small and medium towns continued to be an important theme. The Eleventh plan introduced a focus on small townsthrough theSub-Mission for Urban Infrastructure Development of Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT)in theJNNURM (Khan 2014).

The programme also included sub- missions programmes focused on urban poverty — the Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP) and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP). The major objective of these sub-missions was to construct dwelling units for the poor and also provide basic services like drinking water, sanitation, sewerage etc respectively.

The mandated and optional series of reforms includedimplementation of decentralisation measures of the 74th Constitutional amendment; introduction of e-governance for property tax collections so as to achieve at least 85% collection efficiency within five years and introduction of similar practices in the case of financial accounting systems, work management, water tax billing and collection system, trade licensing system and passing of building plans, repeal of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, reforms of rent control law, rationalization of Stamp Duty, introduction of independent regulators for urban services and transfer, over a period of five years, all special agencies that deliver civic services in urban areas to ULBs. As Mahadevia (2006) notes, these preconditions have come in for considerable criticism.

Yet, even though the “world-class” city trope has been the driving idea behind the JNNURM, is it the only benchmark for the mission’s success? This is the question asked by Mahadevia (2006). Here, Zerah et al’s argument (2010) that urban policy in India must be evaluated against the paradigm of Right to the City (RTTC) becomes pertinent (See also Module 1.3). Quoting Harvey (2008), they point out that the “right to the city” is more than right to access urban resources; it is also the right to change the city through democratic control and citizen participation. RTTC is a “powerful political concept”, as these authors note (2010:3) and can serve as a benchmark against which to evaluate the JNNURM.

It is important to note the background against which the JNNURM has unfolded. First is the democratization of urban governance implicated in the 74th Constitutional Amendment (Mehta and Mehta 2010).

A major critique of the mission remained that investments in urban infrastructure have, however, not always resulted in corresponding improvements in levels of service delivery (Planning Commission 2010). In terms of its implementation despite its unique governance mechanisms, most of the states/ULB’swere not able to implement all the 23 reforms particularly those relating to city planning functions. (MoUD 2015).

Far more problematic from an RTTC perspective may be “full cost recovery, introduction of private participation and making land management flexible” (Kundu and Samanta 2011: 57). Assessing the conditionalities and emphasis on user charges, as well as the reliance on public-private partnerships (PPP), Mukhopadhyay (2006) sounds a dissenting note to this line of critique, noting that with sufficient accountability and strengthening of institutions, these features may empower city residents. More troublesome in his view is the separation of poor and non-poor, a gap that also applies to the Mission’s treatment of infrastructure and services, mission cities and small towns, in many ways undermining synergies between these target groups.

In a widely cited critique of the JNNURM, Mahadevia (2011) argues that perhaps the most critical shortcoming of the mission has been its fragmented goals – a little bit of this and a little bit of that. In many ways, such an approach represents the very antithesis of the mission aimed at “rapid city transformation” (p 62).The JNNURM may have been a “mixed bag”, but Mahadevia (2011:63)sees a silver lining: “The urban reality has been gradual improvements in the cities,with or without the JNNURM.” The question then becomes, how can urbanpolicy help advance this gradual augmentation of household-level and settlement-level amenities. Or in other words, how can it help consolidate the right to the city (Zerah et al 2010)?

After the National Urban Renewal Mission

Post 2005, infrastructure development and its financing was highlighted in the two major reports, Sankhe et al’sMcKinsey Global Institute and the High Powered Expert Committee report chaired by IsherAhluwalia(2010).

According to the Ahluwalia (2010), India’s economic growth momentum cannot be sustained if urbanisation is not actively facilitated. The challenge of managing urbanisation will have to be addressed through a combination of increased investment, strengthening the framework for governance and financing, and a comprehensive capacity building programme at all levels of government. Another influential report, titled India’s Urban Awakening (Sankhe et al 2010), similarly highlighted the importance of infrastructure building, financing and better governance. The theme of competitive federalism and new modes of financing infrastructure development and governance is continued in the new programs launched in 2014. These include the Smart Cities, AMRUT initiatives, Swacch Bharat Abhiyan and Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY) (MOUD 2015). However, as these schemes are fairly new, a body of scholarly evaluation is yet to emerge, although the smart cities scheme and Swacch Bharat have received much attention.

HRIDAY focusses on holistic development of heritage cities. It supports development of core heritage infrastructure projects which shall include revitalization of urban infrastructure for areas around heritage assets identified / approved by the Ministry of Culture, Government of India and State Governments. They include development of water supply, sanitation, drainage, waste management, approach roads, footpaths, street lights, tourist conveniences, electricity wiring, landscaping and such citizen services (HRIDAY 2015)

AMRUT

The purpose of Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) is to (i) ensure that every household has access to a tap with assured supply of water and a sewerage connection; (ii) increase the amenity value of cities by developing greenery and well maintained open spaces (e.g. parks); and (iii) reduce pollution by switching to public transport or constructing facilities for non-motorized transport (e.g. walking and cycling). All these outcomes are valued by citizens, particularly women, and indicators and standards have been prescribed by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) in the form of Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs).

• Appadurai,  Arjun (2000):  “Spectral Housing  and Urban Cleansing: Notes on Millennial
• Mumbai,” Public Culture, 12(3): 627–51.
• Baud, I.S.A. and R Dhanalakshmi. (2007). Governance in Urban Environmental Management: Comparing Accountability and Performance in Multi-stakeholder Arrangements in South India. Cities, 24 (2): 133–147.
• Baviskar,  A  (2003):  “Between Violence  and  Desire:  Space,  Power,  and  Identity in  the  Making of Metropolitan Delhi,” International Social Science Journal, 55(175): 89–98.
• Baviskar, B.S. (2001). NGOs and Civil Society in India. Sociological Bulletin,50(1): 7–8.
• Benjamin, S. (2000). Governance, Economic Settings and Poverty in Bangalore. Environment and Urbanization, 12 (1): 11–49.
• Chaplin, Susan. (2007). “Partnerships of Hope: New Ways of Providing Sanitation Services in Urban India”,n Annapurna Shaw (ed) Indian Cities in TransitionHyderabad:Orient Longman, pp 83–103.

• Chatterjee, Partha. (1992). “A Religion of Urban Domesticity: Sri Ramakrishna and the Calcutta Middle Class”, in Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey (eds), Subaltern Studies VII: Writings on South Asian History and Society, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p.36.
• Chatterjee, Partha (2004): “Are Indian Cities Becoming Bourgeois At Last?” in The Politics  of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World by Partha Chatterjee
• New York: Columbia University Press; pp. 131-47.
• Coelho, K and T Venkat(2009): “The Politics of Civil Society: Neighbourhood  Associationism in Chennai”, Economic and Political Weekly, 44(26/27): 358-67.
• Cohen, Jean and Andrew Arato. (1992). Civil Society and Political Theory.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Desai, Vandana (1999): “NGOs in Bombay,” Environment and Urbanization, 11 (1): 247-65.
• Fernandes Leela (2000). Restructuring the New Middle Class in Liberalizing India, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 20( 1&2), 88-104.
• Fernandes, Leela (2004): “The Politics of Forgetting: Class Politics, State Power and the Restructuring of Urban Space in India,”  Urban Studies. 41 (12): 2415-30.
• Fernandes, L and P Heller(2006): “Hegemonic Aspirations: New Middle Class Politics and  India’s Democracy in Comparative Perspective”, Critical Asian Studies, 38(4), pp: 495-22.
• Fernandes, L. (2007). India’s New Middle Class: Democratic Politics in an Era of Economic Reform. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Ghertner, Asher D (2008): “Analysis of New Legal Discourse behind Delhi’s Slum Demolition,” Economic and Political Weekly. 43 (20), 57-66.
• Ghosh, Asha (2005); “Public-Private or A Private Public: The Promised Partnership of the Bangalore Agenda Task Force,” Economic and Political Weekly, 40(47): 4914-22.
• Harriss, J. (2005). “Political Participation, Representation and the Urban Poor: Findings from Research in Delhi”, Economic and Political Weekly, VOL 40 No. 11: 1041–1054.
• Harriss, J (2007): “Antinomies of Empowerment: Observations on Civil Society,” Politics and Urban Governance in India, Economic and Political Weekly, 42 (26):2716-24.
• Hazareesingh, S. (2000). “The Quest for Urban Citizenship: Civic Rights, Public Opinion, and Colonial Resistance in Early Twentieth-Century Bombay”, Modern Asian Studies, 34(4): 797–829.
• Jain, A K (2003): “Actioning New Partnerships for Indian Cities,” Cities, 20 (5):354-68.
• Kamath, L. and M Vijayabhaskar. (2009). “Limits and Possibilities of Middle Class Associations as Urban Collective Actors”, Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (26): 368– 376.

•    Kennedy, Loraine (2008): “New Forms of Governance in Hyderabad: How Urban Reforms are Redefining Actors in the City,”in ISA Baud and J De Wit (eds) New Forms of Urban Governance in India: Shifts, Models, Networks and Contestations, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp: 253-87.
• Lama-Rewal, Stéphanie Tawa. (2007). “Neighbourhood Associations and Local  Democracy: Delhi Municipal Elections 2007”, Economic and Political Weekly. 42 (47): 51– 60.Mawdsley,  E  (2004):  “India’s  Middle  Classes  and  the  Environment,”  Development  andChange, 35(1), pp: 79-103.
• Nainan, N and ISA Baud(2008): “Negotiating for Participation: Decentralisation and NGOs in Mumbai, India,”in ISA Baud and J De Wit (eds) New Forms of Urban Governance in India: Shifts, Models, Networks and Contestations, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 115-42.
• Nair,  J  (2005):  The  Promise  of  the  Metropolis:  Bangalore’s  Twentieth  Century.  Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Nandy, Ashis(2010): The Great Indian Love Affair with Censorship,” Outlook Indiaavailable at: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267719 accessed on 20, July 2011.
• Ranganathan, Malini, Lalitha Kamath and Vinay Baindur. (2009). :Piped Water Supply to Greater Bangalore: Putting the Cart before the Horse?” Economic and Political Weekly. W
• 44 (33):53–62.
• Singh, Binti(2012a):  “Parallel Structures of Decentralization in the Megacity Context of Urban India: Participation or Exclusion?,” Space and Polity, 16(1): 111-27.
• Singh, Binti (2012b): “Changing Contours of Solid Waste Management in India,” Journal of Asian Public Policy, 5(3): 333-42.
• Upadhya, Carol. (2004). “A New Transnational Capitalist Class? Capital Flows, BusinessNetworks and Entrepreneurs in the Indian Software Industry” ,Economic and Political Weekly, 39(48): 5141–5151.
• Vijayalakshmi, V. (2004). “Fiscal Performance Audit: Public Record of Operations and Finance (PROOF) and Citizens‟ Participation”. Paper prepared for the Logo Link Study on Resources, Citizens Engagements, and Democratic Local Governance(ReCitE). Institute for Development Studies and University of Sussex. http://www.ids.ac.uk/logolink/resources/eciteConfpapers.htm.
• Mazzarella, William “ Middle Class”, Rachel Dwyer, (ed) South Asia Keywords.At http://www.soas.ac.uk/csasfiles/keywords/Mazzarella-middleclass.pdf

•    World Bank (2006). “India: Strengthening Institutions for Sustainable Growth: Country Environmental Analysis”, South Asia Environment and Social Development Unit
• South Asia Region Retrieved November 2015: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2006/12/7318913/india-strengthening-institutions-sustainable-growth-country-environmental-analysis
• Zerah,  Marie  Helene  (2009):  “Participatory Governance  in  Urban  Management  and  the Shifting Geometry of Power in Mumbai,” Development and Change, 40(5): 853-77.
• Nainan, N. and I.S.A. Baud. (2008). “Negotiating for Participation: Decentralisation and NGOs in Mumbai, India”,in I.S.A. Baud and J. De Wit (eds.) New Forms of UrbanGovernance in India: Shifts, Models, Networks and Contestations, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 115–142.