Urbanisation: Meaning and Concept
Since the twentieth century, because of the faster growth of cities and the emergence of new urban centres across the globe, ‘urbanisation’ has become a buzzword. The term ‘urban’ refers to a settlement having a set of characteristics which rural settlements do not poses. These are fairly large and compact settlements, cosmopolitan populations, high population density, a predominance of secondary and tertiary economic activities, well-developed transportation systems 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 is easy to measure. The only issue is with the identification of the ‘urban’ areas and there is no consensus about it. Different countries have different criteria to define a settlement as ‘urban’ which have been discussed in detail in a later stage.
Initially, the 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 into 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 developing urban areas that have better amenities and services, higher literacy rates, more educational achievement, facilities of vocational education, better standard of living, higher aspirations, higher contraceptive protection rates, lower fertility rate and small family sizes and low mortality rate.
In urban areas, there is a greater impact of globalisation, industrialisation and secularisation, the greater reach of mass media, better infrastructures, roads, electricity, and 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 space and time.
In the nineteenth century, just after the industrial revolution, urbanization in Europe acquired a faster pace because of the large-scale migration of industrial labourers to the cities. As a result of this, cities became very large in size and the standard of living deteriorate. The frequent outbreak of diseases, higher death rates, high levels 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 developing countries mainly because of a 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.
The 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 residents of the rich and/or middle-class population. on the other hand, millions of urban poor live in slums and other informal settlements where the availability of basic services and quality of life is 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 are 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 the nature of settlements varies from country to country, and 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 based on the size of their population while others define urban areas based on amenities and facilities.
In many European countries, an area with a 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 characteristics like water supply, sewerage, etc. are considered to define a settlement as ‘urban’. Chile is one such country where urban areas are defined only based on the presence of some definite urban characteristics. South Africa, Costa Rica, Guatemala etc. are the countries where only administrative criteria 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 a population size of 5000 or more, 400 population per square kilometre area and at least 75 per cent male main workers should be engaged in non-farm activities.
The definition of ‘urban’ not only varies among the nations but also changes from 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 a population size of 5000 or more, 400 population density and at least 75 per cent of the workforce 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 the data on the 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 a population size of 10000 is ‘urban’. Here the term settlement agglomeration means the 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 the urbanization process.
Growth of Urban Population and its Components
The growth of the urban population is calculated in the same way as we calculate the growth rate of the total population. Here we only consider the urban population instated of the total population. Popularly two types of growth formulas are used such as – Exponential and Linear.
The principle of the exponential growth model is “population continues to change continuously over time” (Premi, 2010, p. 222). On the other hand, the basic principle of the linear growth model is “quantity of a thing (here urban population) increases by the same amount every year” (Premi, 2010, p. 221).
Exponential Growth Model of Urbanisation
Where,
𝑈𝑟 = Urban growth rate
ln = Log Natural
𝑈0 = Urban population size in the base year
𝑈𝑡 = Urban population size in the terminal year
𝑡 = Difference between terminal year and base year
Linear Growth Model of Urbanisation
Components of Urban Growth
We have already mentioned that urban growth is the increase in the population living in a particular city or urban area. This increase can occur in four different ways.
(a) the 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 limits.
However, concerning the increase of urban population in a whole country or a state and so on, the fourth component adds which is a reclassification of the 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 the total population of an area. The 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 are very easy. A higher the percentage of urban population means a higher level of urbanization.
Tempo or Speed of Urbanisation
The tempo or speed of urbanisation refers to the change in the level of urbanization over a specified period. It shows the speed of urbanization. It is measured either as an absolute change in percentage points or as a rate of change in the per cent urban between two time periods. It is calculated using the 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, the growth rate of urbanization in these countries started to decline and this trend is still continuing. Against this backdrop, here we will briefly review the trends and patterns of urbanization in India in the last few decades.
Table: Trend of Urbanisation in India
| Census Year | No. of Towns | % Urban to Total Population | AEGR* of Urban Population | RUGD** |
| 1901 | 1915 | 10.84 | ||
| 1941 | 2392 | 13.86 | 2.77 | 1.71 |
| 1951 | 3035 | 17.29 | 3.47 | 2.7 |
| 1961 | 2657 | 17.97 | 2.34 | 0.46 |
| 1971 | 3081 | 19.91 | 3.21 | 1.29 |
| 1981 | 3891 | 23.34 | 3.83 | 2.03 |
| 1991 | 4615 | 25.72 | 3.09 | 1.29 |
| 2001 | 5161 | 27.78 | 2.75 | 1.06 |
| 2011 | 7935 | 31.16 | 2.76 | 1.61 |
Notes: *AEGR=Average annual exponential growth rate;
**RUGD= Rural-urban growth differentials
As revealed in the Table, before independence rate of urbanization as well as its growth rate was very low which was attributed to a 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 the growth rate of urbanization) because of the migration of refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
In the next decade (1951-1961), there was a huge dip in the rate of urban growth which was the fallout of a major change in the definition of ‘urban’ on the eve of the 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. The high growth rate of urbanization in the 1970s was attributed to the emergence of a good number of new towns on the eve of the census in 1981.
However, since the 1980’s the growth of urbanization has slowed down due to declining or stagnant rural-urban migration (Kundu, 2003) and the slow and ever-declining rate of natural increase of population in urban areas.
Here it is important to note that despite 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: Urbanisation and Urban Growth in Major States of India, 2001 and 2011
| State | % of Urban Population in 2011 | AEGR 2001- 11 | % of Urban Population in 2001 | AEGR 1991-01 |
| Tamil Nadu | 48.40 | 2.39 | 44.04 | 3.56 |
| Kerala | 47.70 | 6.56 | 25.96 | 0.74 |
| Maharashtra | 45.22 | 2.12 | 42.43 | 2.95 |
| Gujarat | 42.60 | 3.07 | 37.36 | 2.8 |
| Karnataka | 38.67 | 2.74 | 33.99 | 2.53 |
| Punjab | 37.48 | 2.3 | 33.92 | 3.19 |
| Haryana | 34.88 | 3.69 | 28.92 | 4.11 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 33.36 | 3.05 | 27.3 | 1.37 |
| West Bengal | 31.87 | 2.6 | 27.97 | 1.84 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 27.63 | 2.29 | 26.46 | 2.71 |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 27.38 | 3.11 | 24.81 | 3.01 |
| Rajasthan | 24.87 | 2.55 | 23.39 | 2.71 |
| Jharkhand | 24.05 | 2.8 | 22.24 | 2.55 |
| Chhattisgarh | 23.24 | 3.5 | 20.09 | 3.09 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 22.27 | 2.53 | 20.78 | 2.84 |
| Orissa | 16.69 | 2.39 | 14.99 | 2.61 |
| Assam | 14.10 | 2.46 | 12.9 | 3.09 |
| Bihar | 11.29 | 3.03 | 10.46 | 2.57 |
| Himachal Pradesh | 10.03 | 1.45 | 9.8 | 2.81 |
| India | 31.16 | 2.76 | 27.78 | 2.75 |
Note: AEGR= Annual exponential growth rate
Figure: Level of Urbanization in India (2011)
With regard to the pattern of urbanization in India, there is a clear (positive) relationship between the level of urbanization and the level of economic development of the states (Sivaramakrishna, Kundu and Singh 2005; Bhagat and Mohanty, 2008; Guin, 2015).
From the Figure, it may be seen that among the large states, southern and western states have a comparatively high level of urbanization while the states in the eastern part of the country lag behind and this pattern correspond to that of the state level per capita income.
The rate of natural increase in the highly urbanized states is indeed comparatively lower but as they (Kerala and Tamil Nadu are the exceptions) attract migrants from other states (Figure), cities and towns in these states continue to grow at a comparatively higher rate.
Figure: Major Net Migration Flow (duration 0-9 years) in India, 2001
