Infrastructure Development and Access to Basic Amenities in Class-I Cities of West Bengal, India: Insights from Census Data

Article Infrastructure Development and Access to Basic Amenities in Class-I Cities of West Bengal, India: Insights from Census Data Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) 36–84 © 2016 India Development Foundation SAGE Publications sagepub.in/home.nav DOI: 10.1177/0974930616640089 http://joi.sagepub.com Ismail Haque1 Abstract Examination of the city-level infrastructure data from Census databases reveals that improvements in both social and physical infrastructure parameters have occurred in class-I cities of West Bengal but not in economic infrastructure aspects while access to basic amenities and assets has improved only slightly at the household level. However, cities situated in the lowermost infrastructural development categories dominate the urban scene in this state. Furthermore, any discernible improvements in infrastructural facilities during the last decade are totally confined to a few large cities like Kolkata, Howrah, Asansol, Durgapur, Siliguri, Burdwan and Bally. As regards the overall infrastructural development, about 48 per cent of the class-I cities experienced a very low-to-low level improvement in facilities in 2011, implying the dismal status of infrastructure in the smaller class-I cities. The pace in growth of infrastructure facilities in large cities is sluggish compared to many medium and small centres, due to their inability to update the existing infrastructure base up to the required level to meet burgeoning civic demands. Whatever success is gained is disproportionately distributed across the class-I cities of the state, highlighting the tremendous inter-city disparity. JEL Classification: H54, O1, O18 Keywords: Urbanisation, urban infrastructure, principal component analysis (PCA), basic amenities and assets, class-I city, West Bengal 1. Introduction Infrastructure development is of paramount importance for achieving sustainable and equitable economic growth through providing access to amenities to all citizens. Creating and maintaining globalstandard and lasting infrastructure is therefore a basic requirement for enhancing living standards by enabling enterprises and societies to function efficiently while being environmentally responsible. These comprise, mostly (but not exclusively), transportation and communication facilities, water and power 1 Centre for the Study of Regional Development (CSRD), School of Social Sciences (SSS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India. Corresponding author: Ismail Haque, Centre for the Study of Regional Development (CSRD), School of Social Sciences (SSS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi 110067, India. E-mail: ismailhaque140489@gmail.com Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 37 Haque (electricity) supply, access to public institutions like school, colleges, hospitals, library and post offices, among others. Generally, infrastructure can be categorised into three types: first, physical infrastructure, which comprises, for example, roads, water, sanitation, sewerage, electricity and firefighting services; second, social infrastructure, which covers health, education, club and library facilities among others and third, economic infrastructure, which includes banking facility, credit and insurance facilities among others (Ghosh and De 1998, 3039). Physical infrastructure makes it possible for an economy to grow through creation of incomes and jobs, by minimising transaction costs. Social infrastructure, on the contrary, plays a critical role in the process of growth, through creation of human capabilities and capacity building by enhancing the quality of human life with better education, health and recreation facilities. However, the recent unprecedented urban population growth, bereft of adequate investment in these crucial infrastructure sectors, has exerted huge pressure on the limited existing infrastructure, such as water supply, sanitation, sewerage and health. This has caused a gigantic gap between demand and supply of infrastructure and urban civic amenities. The escalating need for essential services by a growing number of urbanities causes the gradual deterioration of the quality of services across sectors, such as roads, water supply, drainage, electricity, housing, medical facility, banking and education. It may be apprehended that the gap between demand and supply of infrastructure facilities is likely to be widened rather than reduced in future, as the creation of newer infrastructural facilities has not kept pace with their ever rising demand. Especially in West Bengal, the entire process of creating new infrastructure has lagged behind relative to the growth in its large urban centres. In this backdrop, the present article attempts to explore the trends and level of infrastructure development, and status of urban basic amenities and assets at the household (HH) level during 2001–11 in class-I cities (>100,000 population) of West Bengal. Given that the Kolkata Urban Agglomeration (KUA) exhibits a colossal metropolitan dominance housing 48.4 per cent of the total urban population of West Bengal and that nearly greater than two-thirds class-I cities (42 out of total 61) are located here, therefore, it is felt appropriate to compare briefly the variations of infrastructure development and HHs’ basic facilities and assets across class-I cities falling under KUA and outside KUA as well.1 1.1. Conceptual Framework Urbanisation in West Bengal showcases peculiarities during the last two decades. A very stagnant urban growth along with a highly-skewed nature of urbanisation indicates an irregular concentration of considerable portions of the overall urban population in the large cities, leading to the indirect collapse in civic services. Consequently, the sharply rising demand and meagre availability of urban services has given rise to severe problems in the field of housing causing a proliferation of slums, induced water scarcity, created poor infrastructure and lowered the quality of life, all of which have induced lopsided urban growths in class-I cities of West Bengal. By and large, the recent urbanisation of West Bengal is primarily a crucial manifestation of the demographic explosion as well as a poverty induced rural to city-ward migration. A higher engagement of rural people in non-farm activities has also paved the way for more villages to be classified as urban, after fulfilling the Census criteria in the past decades, leading to the emergence of the highest number of Census towns (Guin 2014; Guin and Das 2015; Prodhan 2013b; Samanta 2012). During the past couple of decades, in West Bengal, urbanisation has taken place without substantial industrialisation and a simultaneously developing strong economic base (Bose and Chowdhury 2013; Giri 1998; Khasnabis 2008).2 Although, to some extent, after the 1990s, economic reforms especially those of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation boosted the process of urbanisation in the state, markedly and optimistically, Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 38 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) through considerable investments in Information Technology (IT) industries in some pockets, an undeniable fact remains that, globalisation has affected the poor adversely. There is no doubt that liberalisation allows cheap imports, but it also ruins the traditional rural agrarian economy and HHs industries on which rural people depend largely.3 On the contrary, privatisation diminishes the expenditure of the labour class. These, in turn, propel poverty, leading to huge migration towards large urban areas in search of jobs and other economic opportunities. Thus, poverty led rural–urban migration, which is considered as one of the proximate determinants of urban growth stems not due to urban pull rather due to rural push (Sarkar 2011). A higher chunk of migrants has been working routinely in both the sectors of economy— traditional and modern, and this has invited the problems of urban services and has led to the deterioration of the quality of life in the large cities of West Bengal. In reality, large cities of this state lack the infrastructural facilities, which are not present at all in many of the small urban centres yet. The accelerating rate of urbanisation with ill-assorted infrastructure facilities gives rise to all kinds of pollution, causes scarcity of safe drinking water, leads to expeditious emergence of slums followed by very poor sanitation and health facilities as well as existence of vital problems relating to transport congestion. Above all, there is a need for suitable urban governance and planning strategies, and balanced development in the cities and towns. Usually any policies formulated, or plan assistances received by the state for urban development, are earmarked for particular urban centres like the KUA, Asansol- Durgapur industrial node and Siliguri region, causing a lagging behind of the rest of the state, leading to huge discrepancies among others class-I cities in most of the districts in terms of resource allocation, infrastructural development as well as socio-economic development. These burning issues of contemporary urbanisation in West Bengal have seldom received scholarly attention and therefore deserve a serious in-depth investigation in the context of the infrastructure development and access to basic amenities across the class-I cities. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of this study. 2. Database and Research Techniques A glorious tradition of the Indian population Census has been to provide rich data pertaining to several aspects of urban infrastructure and housing, and HHs facilities and services for urban area in general and for cities in particular. Data required for the present study have been extracted from the Town Directory 2001 and 2011, Primary Census Abstract-Houselisting and Housing Census 2001 and 2011, West Bengal. To address the prime aims outlined above, some statistical and cartographic methods have been used lucidly, for instance, simple per cent distribution, correlation analysis and PCA among others. A composite index is constructed through PCA of 19 select infrastructure indicators (grouped under three broad categories). 2.1. Selection of Indicators for Composite Indices In common parlance, the level of various infrastructure facilities as well as other basic amenities differs among cities. Contrarily, a city having better road facility may not have a sufficient number of educational institutions or adequate hospitals. Accordingly, a proper measure derived from the inclusion and amalgamation of several suitable indicators can best reflect the level of infrastructure development in a city. Hence, a composite index computed by considering the most depictive and best possible indicators can serve this objective. Here I have considered 19 infrastructure indicators. Table 1 reports the details of variables and their definitions applied. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 39 Haque Natural Increase of Population Adversity of Rural Conditions: a. b. c. d. Low wage rate, Lack of job opportunities, Low agricultural output, Less-Profitable household industries etc. RuralUrban Migration Rural-Urban Reclassification More engagement of Rural People in Non-Farm Activities Urban Growth Multifaceted/Diversified Functions of Cities: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Administrative, Trade & Commerce Communication, Transports, Manufacturing, Construction Industries, Services (Public utility, Socio-cultural, Recreational etc.) Concentration of more people from Lower Order Towns (VI-II) to Big Cities for better provisions of services & opportunities. Growth of Population in Class-I Pressure/Demand of Infrastructure, Basic Services and Amenities increase: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Roads, Power supply (Electricity), Safe drinking water, Sewerage, Education & health, Housing, Transport, & Social Security, among others. Infrastructural Development Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Source: Author’s own. These urban infrastructure indicators have been selected on the following grounds. Any urban centre, especially a city, plays a crucial role in the process of economic development and in turn acts as an ‘engine of economic growth’ (Bhagat 2011, 2). Basically, this attribute of the city is supported by an adequate, accessible and far-reaching transport network. The insufficiency of railway services across the districts of West Bengal further accentuates the significance of roads as the key means of transportation for increasing the productivity and efficiency of economic activities. Thus pucca roads (asphalted or tar-covered roads) are a vital indicator of development as they play a prime role in the economic advancement of any region. Similarly, as far as the health risk factors and sanitary environment are Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 40 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Table 1. Component Score Coefficient of the Select Indicators Pertaining to Various Aspects of the Infrastructure Development in Class-I City of West Bengal (Base Year: 2001) Select Infrastructure Indicators and Their Definitions Physical Infrastructure Indicators (PHII) Pucca road per sq. km Per cent households (HHs) having closed drainage to total HHs Percent HHs using tap water within premises to total HHs Component Score Coefficient# Percent HHs having flush latrine within premises to total HHs Number of domestic electric connections per 100 HHs Electric road light point per sq. km Social Infrastructure Indicators (SII) Medical facilities Number of health institutions per 10,000 population* Number of beds in medical institutions per 1,000 population Educational facilities Number of colleges per 10,000 population** Number of senior secondary and secondary schools per 5,000 population Number of middle and primary schools per 5,000 population Recreational facilities Number of stadium per 10,000 population Number of cinema halls per 10,000 population Number of auditorium per 10,000 population Number of public library per 10,000 population Number of reading rooms per 10,000 population Economic Infrastructure Indicators (EII) Number of banks per 10,000 population Number of agricultural credit society per 5,000 population Number of non-agricultural credit society per 5,000 population –0.074 0.596 0.168 0.248 0.696 –0.166 –0.054 0.260 0.110 0.359 0.963 0.600 0.939 0.843 0.703 0.369 0.956 –0.083 0.931 Source: Computed from Town Directory 2001 and 2011 (West Bengal), Census of India. Notes: Studies have been carried out on 58 Class-I, 2 Class-II cities of 2001 Census and 61 Class-I cities of 2011 census. #Component score coefficient has been derived from principal component analysis (PCA). *Health institution includes hospitals, dispensaries, family welfare clinics, health centres, tuberculosis clinic, nursing homes and among others. **Colleges include arts, science, commerce, arts–science, arts–commerce, arts–science–commerce, law, medical, polytechnic, engineering and among others. concerned, the system of sewerage and waste disposal methods are critical in urban areas (Snow 1854). There are several methods of waste water outlet systems across the HHs as per the data provided by the Census. Among them, closed drainage is believed to be hygienic and good. Provisions of adequate numbers of latrine facilities are of utmost important for the sustenance of a better quality of life in urban centres (UNDP 2005). As far as the 2011 Census is concerned, one in ten HHs in class-I cities still do not have latrine facility in their houses in West Bengal. Flush latrine is considered to be best in this respect. Unquestionably, water is considered to be the lifeline for human beings and nothing can be done Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 41 Haque bereft of this precious resource. Being the crucial basic amenity in cities, accessibility to safe drinking water is obviously a vital indicator of health and well-being. Mainly taps and hand pumps may be regarded as safe sources of drinking water (Bhagat 2011; Kundu 1999). I have taken tap water supplied to HHs from both the treated and untreated sources indicators in the present analysis. The availability of power, especially electricity is another inevitable aspect of urban areas. A city having larger number of electrified HHs may indicate a better quality of HH living condition and vice-versa. Recent studies also confirm this conjecture, that those states which enjoy higher electrification coverage also garner a higher rank as per the HH quality of living index (Das and Mistri 2013, 166). As far as the social infrastructure indicators are concerned, provisions for health facilities play a crucial role in human well-being. Therefore, aspects like access to medical facilities, such as hospitals, nursing homes and availability of beds in medical institutions are useful in studying the social development of a region. Similarly, the presence of educational facilities, such as numbers of schools and colleges, specially specialised skill-development centres, such as medical, engineering and law colleges, and universities and polytechnic institutes are critical for human resource creation for the progress of a society. Recreational facilities, such as presence of stadiums, cinema halls and auditoriums, public libraries and reading room facilities are nodal to community building and social integration in a city. Last, but not least, the number of banks and other forms of monetary and credit facilities act as the key agents of economic development in urban areas. Commenting on the rationale behind the different infrastructure indicators, Ghosh and De (1998) argued that the physical infrastructure (e.g., roads, electricity, housing and water supply) gave an impetus to economic growth and development resulting from increase of investment, employment, output and income in a chain of ‘cumulative causation’. Hence, ‘economics of agglomeration’ develop over a period of time resulting in further accumulation of economic functions in a particular region and perpetuating this process. According to them, the aforementioned social infrastructure indicators (which are also conducive for production activity, albeit indirectly in some instances), are no less significant. 2.2. Composite Index: Overall Infrastructure Development Index (OIDI) To generate the composite index, the following steps have been followed: 1. Making the indicators scale independent4 2. Allocation of weights to each indicator I computed weights with the help of PCA. The first principal component score coefficient derived from PCA has been used as weights for each indicator respectively as it explains the maximum amount of variance. Another crucial point is the temporal comparability of indices for the two consecutive Census periods—2001 and 2011. For this, the values of weights were fixed for both time periods. For the present study, component score coefficient for the base year (2001) has been applied to the indicators of the 2011 Census as well. The OIDI therefore consisted of three different sub-indices: Physical Infrastructure Index (PHII), Social Infrastructure Index (SII) and Economic Infrastructure Index (EII). The selected 19 indicators come under these three indices (Table 1). The whole procedure of composite indices could be expressed as follows (see Figure 2) OIDI = PHII+SII+EII PHII = Pi = a,b,c..n Xiwi SII = Pi = a,b,c..n Xiwi EII = Pi = a,b,c..n Xiwi Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 (1) 42 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Secondary database: Census PCA Houselisting and Housing Town directory Pucca road, electrified HHs, electric road light point, health institutions, number of beds in hospitals, colleges, primary, middle and secondary school, stadium, auditorium, cinema hall, public library, reading room, banks, agricultural credit society and non-agricultural credit society Indicators HHs having close drainage, access to tap water within premises and flush latrine within premises Methods Making indicators scale free by division by mean (DM) method Computation of weights for each select indicator through PCA Weights are then multiplied by respective scale free values of indicators Adding up the product to get final composite indices Figure 2. The Infrastructure Development Index Algorithm Source: Author’s own. where OIDI = Overall Infrastructure Development Index a, b, c...n = indicator of the sub-indices W = Component score coefficient of the base year (2001) X = Scale free observed indicators. 3. Major Findings and Discussions 3.1. Infrastructure Development in Class-I Cities of West Bengal: Trends and Levels (2001–11) Applying the above discussed methods, three sub-infrastructure indices have been constructed. The aggregate OIDI has been obtained by combining the score of three sub-indices (PHII, SII and EII). Cities are then ranked based on their OIDI score, where higher values indicate relatively good infrastructure Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 43 Haque Table 2. Level of Infrastructure Development in Class-I Cities of West Bengal 2001 2011 Category Composite Index Values (OIDI) Number of Cities % Number of Cities % Very high More than 40.00 12 19.67 14 22.95 High 30.00–40.00 3 4.92 7 11.48 Medium 20.00–30.00 9 14.75 11 18.03 Low 10.00–20.00 20 32.79 17 27.87 Very low Less than 10.00 17 27.87 12 19.67 61 100.00 61 100.00 Total Class-I city Source: Computed from Census 2001 and 2011 data. development while lower values represent poorer infrastructure development in them. Table 3 displays cities falling under KUA and outside KUA region and their relative status of infrastructure development during 2001 and 2011—thus variations can be analysed not only between the KUA and other urban entities in the state but also across the different urban bodies that comprise the KUA and are separate urban entities in their own right. Apart from that, to compare the level of infrastructure development, the cities have been grouped into five categories, such as very high, high, medium, low and very low level on the basis of their OIDI values and were mapped to geographically display the index scores in a visually clear way (Table 2 and Figures 7 and 8). It is observed that the overall infrastructure in the class-I cities of West Bengal has improved over the decades. The number of cities placed in the very highly developed group has increased sluggishly just from 12 to 14 during 2001–11 while the percentage of cities in the high development category has increased markedly from 4.92 per cent to 11.48 per cent, recording a more than two times increase during the last decade. Similarly, the proportion of cities under the medium development group registered a gradual increase from 14.75 per cent to 18.03 per cent during both reference periods. One could further notice the decadal improvement of infrastructure status in class-I cities, as nearly eight cities moved to the higher category of infrastructure development from the low and very low groups. Table 2 makes it quite possible to observe that a lesser number of cities now come under the low and very low level of infrastructure development category as per the 2011 Census as compared to what it was in the preceding Census. This implies that the Class-I cities of West Bengal have had better infrastructure facilities in the recent decade than in the former. An assessment of the trends and level of infrastructure development has been performed lucidly on the ground of those cities experiencing improvement in infrastructure vis-à-vis those placed at the other end of the spectrum (Figures 3–8 and Table 3). One can notice from Figures 3 and 4 that most of the class-I cities have experienced considerable improvement in their physical and social infrastructure status during the recent decade. As many as 65.57 per cent of the cities flagged some improvement as far as their physical infrastructure development was concerned, during 2001–11, whilst the corresponding figure for social infrastructure development was 60.65 per cent. Some cities exhibited exceptionally higher development in terms of their physical infrastructure in the 2011 Census from that of the 2001 Census, for instance, Uluberia, English Bazar, Baidyabati, Berhampore, North Dum Dum, Balurghat followed by Barrackpore, Titagarh, Siliguri and Baranagar. Contrastingly, South Dum Dum, Bongaon, Uttarpara-Kotrung, Naihati, Shantipur, Basirhat, Halisahar, Barasat, Kharagpur and Chandannagar have recorded a remarkable deterioration in their physical infrastructure development during the last decade. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 Table 3. Infrastructure Development Index for the Class-I Cities of West Bengal: 2001 and 2011 2011 Districts City Name PHII SII 2001 EII OIDI Rank (OIDI) PHII SII EII OIDI Rank (OIDI) Class-I Cities Falling under Kolkata Urban Agglomerations (42) Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 Kolkata Kolkata 6.6501 30.1381 162.1784 198.9665 1 5.9795 276.1291 99.9838 382.0924 1 Haora Haora 2.9313 138.1419 46.9012 187.9744 3 2.2490 43.4971 3.5038 49.2500 9 N 24 Parganas Bhatpara 1.8649 74.2629 0.8640 76.9919 7 0.9765 21.9092 0.3972 23.2829 20 N 24 Parganas Panihati 1.8540 63.9539 0.9996 66.8075 8 1.4609 41.3503 1.9967 44.8079 11 N 24 Parganas Barasat 1.3036 51.4924 –4.3243 48.4717 9 2.4946 16.3412 0.5280 19.3638 25 Haora Bally (M) 2.9172 33.1189 9.8319 45.8679 13 2.1964 33.8352 1.1699 37.2015 13 N 24 Parganas Dum Dum 3.0550 32.5118 7.5907 43.1575 14 2.0672 13.2959 0.3840 15.7471 35 N 24 Parganas Bidhannagar 4.5363 33.3872 0.8640 38.7875 16 2.3137 77.5325 1.8239 81.6700 2 N 24 Parganas Kanchrapara 0.8217 29.8799 4.6538 35.3553 19 1.1485 16.4075 0.1920 17.7480 29 Nadia Kalyani 4.5247 28.2575 0.7200 33.5023 20 3.0191 14.0024 0.3972 17.4186 31 Nadia Krishna Nagar 2.2688 26.5482 –3.8659 24.9510 26 1.3877 24.9380 –10.9670 15.3587 36 Hugli Chandannagar 1.3168 22.5994 0.6156 24.5317 27 2.0997 31.5613 0.5676 34.2286 14 N 24 Parganas Kamarhati 1.2772 21.8332 0.6240 23.7344 28 1.4038 14.1501 0.8076 16.3614 34 N 24 Parganas Habra 1.6578 19.6190 0.6720 21.9488 29 1.0489 6.9053 –16.4562 –8.5020 61 Haora Uluberia 3.9139 21.8564 –4.3243 21.4460 30 0.3379 18.4222 0.4800 19.2401 26 Hugli Serampore 2.5711 17.9610 0.7200 21.2521 31 2.3305 22.3980 0.6024 25.3309 17 S 24 Parganas Rajpur-Sonarpur 2.0143 17.9344 0.5760 20.5247 32 1.0090 18.8240 0.7944 20.6274 23 N 24 Parganas South Dum Dum 0.4965 17.4675 1.4184 19.3825 33 2.0924 44.8286 2.3579 49.2788 8 Hugli Hugli-Chinsurah 2.5384 24.3872 –9.3686 17.5569 34 1.7592 16.6354 –1.9026 16.4920 33 N 24 Parganas Bongaigaon 0.9094 15.1590 0.3840 16.4524 35 3.8204 12.2589 0.5328 16.6120 32 S 24 Parganas Maheshtala 0.8752 14.6435 0.4320 15.9507 36 1.1998 8.7259 0.4800 10.4057 43 Hugli Rishra 0.9793 13.6918 0.6768 15.3479 37 1.4444 4.8577 0.7908 7.0929 49 N 24 Parganas Khardaha 1.1739 13.5257 0.4800 15.1796 38 1.0535 6.2897 0.4584 7.8016 47 Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 N 24 Parganas Basirhat 0.6628 13.5834 0.5760 14.8222 39 1.4409 8.9975 –3.7421 6.6963 50 N 24 Parganas Barrackpore 2.8902 10.9059 0.7200 14.5161 40 1.0014 8.2193 0.8472 10.0679 44 N 24 Parganas Naihati 0.4041 12.0637 0.4800 12.9478 41 1.1440 13.0438 0.5280 14.7158 39 Nadia Nabadwip 1.4054 10.8131 0.4800 12.6984 42 1.0309 10.4044 0.5064 11.9417 42 Hugli Bhadreswar 0.7243 11.0466 0.3012 12.0720 43 0.7695 4.5793 0.1440 5.4929 52 N 24 Parganas Madhyamgram 0.7911 9.8778 1.0344 11.7033 44 0.9552 11.2170 0.5676 12.7398 40 N 24 Parganas Baranagar 1.9387 7.9113 1.3441 11.1941 46 0.8467 16.6460 0.9119 18.4046 28 Hugli Baidyabati 2.2981 7.8304 0.5280 10.6565 47 0.4740 4.6955 –3.6941 1.4755 58 N 24 Parganas Halisahar 0.6373 9.6450 0.2880 10.5703 48 1.3599 0.9579 0.2400 2.5578 56 N 24 Parganas Ashoknagar Kalyangarh 1.1497 13.8384 –4.9003 10.0878 49 0.5770 11.8065 0.1920 12.5755 41 N 24 Parganas Rajarhat-Gopalpur 1.2639 8.2133 0.4932 9.9704 50 1.8309 12.5522 0.5280 14.9110 38 Nadia Shantipur 0.2318 8.7314 0.3840 9.3472 51 0.5133 13.6515 –12.2822 1.8826 57 N 24 Parganas North Barrackpore 2.3722 6.0514 0.2880 8.7116 52 1.5236 6.6478 –3.9209 4.2506 54 Hugli Uttarpara-Kotrung 0.4263 6.0484 0.8292 7.3040 53 1.7253 6.0207 0.6372 8.3831 46 N 24 Parganas North Dum Dum 2.0191 3.9834 0.4800 6.4825 55 0.5732 4.9162 0.2400 5.7293 51 Hugli Champadani 0.7752 5.3063 0.1920 6.2735 56 0.6148 6.3541 0.2400 7.2088 48 N 24 Parganas Titagarh 3.5176 0.6022 0.3492 4.4690 58 1.3140 8.2486 0.1920 9.7546 45 Hugli Bansberia 1.5736 1.3838 0.2880 3.2454 59 1.4661 2.9183 0.2880 4.6724 53 Haora Bally (CT) 2.0543 0.6907 0.2052 2.9502 60 1.6815 1.0568 0.1572 2.8956 55 Class-I Cities Falling outside Kolkata Urban Agglomeration (19) Burdwan Jamuria 1.3648 186.2829 0.3360 187.9837 2 0.6315 63.8459 –3.4097 61.0677 4 Jalpaiguri Jalpaiguri 1.6382 161.0921 –3.1006 159.6297 4 0.7552 46.7165 –2.1341 45.3375 10 Burdwan Durgapur 3.3313 83.9105 14.6562 101.8980 5 2.7999 66.3204 2.0416 71.1620 3 Uttar Dinajpur Balurghat 2.5808 93.0610 0.7200 96.3618 6 0.8347 23.6006 –2.2865 22.1488 21 Darjeeling Siliguri 3.3146 30.0713 14.0601 47.4459 10 1.3949 28.4160 13.5342 43.3451 12 Maldah English Bazar 9.8150 39.4097 –1.8336 47.3911 11 1.9112 20.8356 –1.3470 21.3998 22 West Medinipur Kharagpur 0.8515 44.0375 1.0080 45.8970 12 1.5454 12.6437 0.9599 15.1491 37 Burdwan Asansol 1.5218 36.3951 1.9201 39.8370 15 1.7311 51.7707 2.8138 56.3156 6 (Table 3 Continued) (Table 3 Continued) 2011 Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 Districts City Name Dakshin Dinajpur Raiganj PHII SII 1.2512 33.4313 EII 2.3409 2001 OIDI Rank (OIDI) PHII SII 37.0234 17 0.7076 26.0151 OIDI Rank (OIDI) 2.1539 28.8766 16 EII Darjeeling Darjeeling 4.7476 28.2384 2.4464 35.4324 18 2.1795 51.8741 2.3111 56.3647 5 Burdwan Barddhaman 2.2848 47.1640 –17.7857 31.6631 21 1.2445 45.4730 8.9558 55.6733 7 Burdwan Kulti 1.3932 31.4198 –3.8620 28.9510 22 1.0358 3.8431 –6.7354 –1.8565 60 Bankura Bankura 2.1413 20.6476 3.0931 25.8819 23 1.1482 16.8956 2.0183 20.0621 24 Murshidabad Behrampur 1.8344 19.1534 4.7092 25.6970 24 0.4122 24.5652 –7.3006 17.6768 30 West Medinipur Medinipur 1.3331 28.1548 –4.3243 25.1636 25 1.4545 16.9367 0.4800 18.8712 27 Purulia Purulia 0.8561 14.9122 –4.3723 11.3959 45 1.3158 24.2497 –1.3866 24.1789 18 Burdwan Raniganj 2.0972 4.2077 0.7680 7.0730 54 1.5219 29.4078 0.5280 31.4577 15 Purba Medinipur Haldia 1.9169 43.3694 –39.1631 6.1232 57 1.1329 28.7012 –6.4306 23.4035 19 Darjeeling Dabgram 1.1132 0.1210 –5.0443 –3.8102 61 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 59 Source: Computed from Census 2001 and 2011 data. Note: Figures in the parentheses indicate number of Class-I cities under the concerned Region; N.A. denotes data not available. 47 Haque Figure 3. Physical Infrastructure Development Index in Class I Cities of West Bengal: 2001 and 2011 Source: Prepared from Town Directory data 2001 & 2011 Census (W.B.). Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 48 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Figure 4. Social Infrastructure Development Index in Class I Cities of West Bengal: 2001 and 2011 Source: Prepared from Town Directory data 2001 & 2011 Census (W.B.). Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 49 Haque Figure 5. Economic Infrastructure Development Index in Class I Cities of West Bengal: 2001 and 2011 Source: Prepared from Town Directory data 2001 & 2011 Census (W.B.) Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 50 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Figure 6. Overall Infrastructure Development Index in Class I Cities of West Bengal: 2001 and 2011 Source: Prepared from Town Directory data 2001 & 2011 Census (W.B.). Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 51 Haque Figure 7. Level of Infrastructure Development in Class I Cities of West Bengal: 2001 Source: Prepared from Town Directory data 2001 & 2011 Census (W.B.). Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 52 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Figure 8. Level of Infrastructure Development in Class I Cities of West Bengal: 2011 Source: Prepared from Town Directory data 2001 & 2011 Census (W.B.). Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 53 Haque In terms of their social infrastructure development, the highest improvement has been noticed in cities like Halisahar, Kulti, Balurghat, Kharagpur, Jalpaiguri, Bhatpara, Haora, Jamuria, Habra and Barasat. On the other hand, a rapid decline in this infrastructure during the last decade has been seen in 24 class-I cities, for instance, Kolkata (proper), Titagarh, Raniganj, South Dum Dum, Bidhannagar, Bansberia and Darjeeling. Unlike the physical and social infrastructure development, the economic infrastructure in class-I cities of West Bengal has displayed relatively less improvement during the last decade. The proportion of cities encountering decadal improvement in economic infrastructure base, for instance, is quite low as compared to their respective physical and social infrastructure development with the corresponding figure being 50 per cent. Figure 5 makes it evident that the length of the bar graph is higher in 2011 than that for 2001 in 31 cities, indicating some improvement in this infrastructure during last 10 years, for example, Kanchrapara, Dum Dum, Haora, Bally (M), Durgapur, Haldia, Hugli-Chinsurah, Purulia, Bhatpara and Bhadreswar. On the other hand, economic infrastructure in fewer than 50 per cent cities declined markedly during the same period, such as Ashoknagar Kalayangarh, Uluberia, Medinipur, Barasat, Burdwan, Berhampore, Balurghat, Basirhat and Jamuria among others. In the forthcoming section, analysis of the category-wise level of overall infrastructure development and their nature of decadal development has been studied (see Figures 6–8). 3.1.1 Very High Level In 2001, one-fifth of the total Class-I cities have shown a very higher level of infrastructure development such as the state capital, Kolkata, with an estimated composite index value of 382.0924, Bidhannagar (81.6700) being the second highest in this respect followed by Durgapur (71.1620) and Jamuria (61.0677). Others following them are the towns of Darjeeling, Asansol, Burdwan, South Dum Dum, Haora, Jalpaiguri, Panihati while Siliguri is positioned at the 12th rank. This can possibly be attributed to the fact that these large urban centres are the crucial nodes for business, education, health and industries besides being a hub of readily available vital services since their inception and over a long time duration. In almost all the sectors, they are well ahead of the other cities in this state, basically in terms of roads connectivity, sanitation facilities and sewerage efficiency, water supply, health and educational services, electric facilities and have a diverse economise across scales. In the 2011 Census, nearly 23 per cent of the class-I cities reported a very higher level of infrastructure development in West Bengal, which is 3.28 percentage points greater than that from the 2001 Census. Thus the pace of infrastructure development in the Class-I cities could be assumed to be increasing. Again Kolkata ranked first, with an estimated index value of 198.9665 in 2011. Jamuria, which ranked fourth in the preceding decade, moved into the second position with an estimated index value of 187.9837 as per the 2011 Census (Table 3). Haora city replaced Durgapur, acquiring the third position in 2011 while Durgapur dropped to fifth behind Jalpaiguri. Similarly, Panihati and Siliguri were positioned eighth and tenth respectively. As many as seven cities from the medium, low and high categories have moved to the very high level of infrastructure development in 2011, for example, Bhatpara, Balurghat, English Bazar, Barasat, Dum Dum, Kharagpur and Bally (M) now occupy 7th, 6th, 11th, 9th, 14th, 12th and 13th rank, respectively. Surprisingly, five entities, namely, Bidhannagar, Darjeeling, Asansol, Burdwan and South Dum Dum have lost their position during the last decade and moved down to the high and low infrastructure category, implying a relatively lower rate of infrastructure development in these cities as compared to the earlier decade. 3.1.2. High Level The colonial city of Chandannagar, mining city of Raniganj and Bally (M) were the cities of high level of infrastructure development in 2001 Census, being relatively medium and small cities with lesser base population as well as smaller area having comparatively higher road density, road alight points and other Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 54 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) social infrastructure facilities. In the next decade, Bally (M) moved to the very high category while Chandannagar and Raniganj shifted to lower level of infrastructure development in 2011 Census. As many as seven cities, namely, Asansol, Bidhannagar, Darjeeling, Burdwan from the very high category, Raiganj from the medium category and Kalyani and Kanchrapara from the low category, have been classified to have had a higher level of infrastructure development respectively. 3.1.3. Medium Level The share of cities enjoying medium level of infrastructure development recorded a gradual increase, that is, 3.28 per cent point during 2001–11. In 2001, cities like Raiganj, Serampore, Purulia, Haldia, Bhatpara, Balurghat, English Bazar, Rajpur-Sonarpur and Bankura appeared to be moderately developed in terms of their infrastructure base. Three cities namely Serampore, Raiganj and Bankura retained their erstwhile position whereas the rest of these towns, barring Purulia, were pushed upward into the higher and very higher level of infrastructure development category in 2011 Census showing some improvement in their infrastructure status. On the contrary, another ten cities from the very low, low and high category shifted to the medium level of infrastructure development group in the first decade of twentyfirst century, for example, Kulti, Bankura, Berhampore, Medinipur, Krishnanagar, Chandannagar, Kamarhati, Habra, Uluberia and Rajpur-Sonarpur. 3.1.4. Low Level Cities with a low level of infrastructure facilities dominate the urban scene in West Bengal during both the Census periods, possibly highlighting the overall malaise in the urban development scenario in this state. However, the number of cities in this category registered a marginal decline in the 2011 Census as compared to what it was in the preceding Census. However, nearly 28 per cent cities (which is also higher than that of remaining four categories) still experienced low infrastructure development in West Bengal. Along with smaller Class-I cities, many medium sized and large Class-I cities also seem to have low infrastructure facilities. From Figure 7, it becomes apparent that, out of the 61 cities in the 2001 Census, 20 were in the low infrastructure development category, for example, Barasat, Uluberia, Medinipur, Baranagar, Kanchrapara, Berhampore, Kalyani, Bongaon, Hugli-Chinsurah, Kamarhati, Dum Dum, Krishnanagar, Kharagpur, Rajarhat-Gopalpur, Naihati, Madhyamgram, Ashoknagar Kalyangarh, Nabadwip, Maheshtala and Barrackpore. Furthermore, nine of them remained in the low level of infrastructure development category also in the next decade, for example, Baranagar, Bongaon, Hugli-Chinsurah, Naihati, Madhyamgram, Ashoknagar Kalyangarh, Nabadwip, Maheshtala and Barrackpore. The possible explanation of this could be that despite having a sizable base population, these cities markedly lacked the crucial physical and other infrastructure facilities coupled with other important civic functions. Some of the cities in this low level group, however, moved to a higher category of infrastructure development in the 2011 Census, namely Barasat, Uluberia, Kanchrapara, Dum Dum and Kharagpur among others. Concomitantly, in the 2011 Census, South Dum Dum got placed in the low category from its earlier higher status, something seen also for Purulia town. Contrarily, cities like Rishra, Khardaha, Basirhat, Bhadreswar, Baidybati and Halisahar have now appeared in this category from their earlier very low category, revealing some good sign as far as their infrastructure development is concerned. 3.1.5 Very Low Level As many as 17 out of the total 61 class-I cities have flagged a very low level of infrastructure development in 2001 Census in West Bengal and the corresponding figure for the last Census is almost 12, suggesting a gradual improvement of infrastructure facilities in these Class-I cities. Notable among them were Titagarh, Uttarpara-Kotrung, Khardaha, Rishra, Champadani, Basirhat, North Dum Dum and Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 55 Haque Bhadrsewar, followed by Bansberia, North Barrackpore, Bally (CT), Halisahar, Shantipur, Baidyabati, Kulti, Dabgram and Habra. Nine of them did not report any improvement in their level of infrastructure facilities in 2011 Census, such as, Titagarh, Uttarpara-Kotrung, Champadani and North Dum Dum being followed by Bansberia, North Barrackpore, Bally (CT), Dabgram and Shantipur as well. On the other hand, three cities namely Raniganj, Haldia and Rajarhat-Gopalpur, which enjoyed relatively better infrastructure facilities in the preceding decade, have also been grouped in the very low level of infrastructure development in the last Census. Furthermore, very poor composite index values have been obtained by these cities. Basically most of them served as regional urban centre but enjoyed considerably low level of infrastructure and for some vital facilities: health, education, firefighting services, for instances, the inhabitants seem to have often depended on the nearest larger class-I cities. This implies that the population growth of these cities has not kept pace with their infrastructure development. 3.2. Pace of Infrastructure Growth in Class-I Cities Here, I have examined the temporal changes which have occurred with regard to the infrastructure growth for each city in West Bengal during 2001–11. For this purpose, the values of composite indices of both the reference periods for these cities have been utilised. For the sake of temporal comparability of the composite indices, I have used the component score coefficient of the base year (2001) as weightage for the 2011 Census as well (see the methodology section). Then I simply computed the per cent change of the index values (Table A1). The tabulated result shows that nearly 30 per cent of cities have recorded a remarkable growth in their estimated composite index values during 2001–11. A more than two to seven times increase has been achieved by the urban entities, such as Baidybati, Shantipur, Balurghat, Halisahar, Haora, Jamuria, Kharagpur, English Bazar, Kulti and Bhatpara. A positive but relatively sluggish growth of the index value has also been witnessed in 33 per cent of the total Class-I cities in West Bengal, for example, Kanchrapara, Khardaha, Kalyani, Krishnanagar, Maheshtala, Panihati, Berhampore, Kamarhati, Barrackpore, Durgapur and Siliguri. It is also discernible from this analysis that more than one-third of the total class-I cities appear to have tallied a negative change in their composite index value during the examined period, indicating some deterioration in the status of their respective infrastructure facilities in the last Census than that during the preceding one. It is quite surprising to note that some large cities, which have enjoyed a marked urban primacy since their inception, fall under this category. Such cities are the state capital of Kolkata, Asansol, Burdwan, Darjeeling, Raniganj, South Dum Dum, Chandannagar and Haldia, which are followed by Titagarh, Serampore, Rajarhat-Gopalpur, Purulia and Bidhannagar. By and large, nearly two-thirds of the total Class-I cities have experienced some positive sign in terms of their infrastructure development in West Bengal during the last decade, which is obviously a welcome phenomenon. From the entire analysis, it may be deduced that the large cities (Kolkata, Asansol, Durgapur, Siliguri, Haora, Bhatpara, Burdwan, Bally (M) and Barasat) have better infrastructure facilities whilst the relatively smaller cities in West Bengal are in a destitute situation as far as their infrastructure availability is concerned.5 This can possibly be attributed to the fact that whatever government programmes, policies are formulated and public as well as private investments are introduced, they are broadly directed towards large cities like Kolkata, Durgapur, Asansol, Burdwan, Haora and Siliguri among others. Although some programmes and policies are being initiated but due to their large population bases, available resource crunch and extreme budgetary deficits, the smaller and medium sized class-I cities benefit meagrely from the planning initiatives. Actually bigger cities have better infrastructure facilities than that of their lower order counterparts and the prime reasons behind this is that the many of the small and medium towns or cities do not have the capacity to meet the challenges of globalisation because of their destitute financial position (Bhagat 2002). Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 56 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) 3.3. Comparison of Infrastructure Development across Cities Falling Within and outside the KUA (and Variations among the KUA Constituents) As discussed in the forthcoming sections, the summary statistics for the various infrastructure indices shows a wide range of variations across and within this region. The standard deviations (SD) and coefficient of variation of the four indices—PHII, SII, EII and OIDI—are measures of dispersion across cities within the KUA region and outside it. The higher the dispersion, the more inequality there is among cities of a particular region. Table 4 displays useful insights into the concentration of infrastructure aspects within KUA and outside KUA. An additional advantage of this empiric is that it could be compared across regions lucidly on the ground that it measures variation rather than absolute levels. The findings reveal that class-I cities falling under KUA and outside KUA region are spatially unequal in various aspects. For instance, in 2001, all the four indices indicated that inequalities across class-I cities are more pronounced within the KUA than outside it and that they are even higher than that of the aggregate level inequality as well (Table 4). In 2011, however, the picture appeared to be quite different as class-I cities falling outside the KUA exhibit a notably greater inequality with respect to their physical, social and over all infrastructure development indices. Contrarily, economic infrastructure inequality across cities rises towards the KUA region. Table 4. Comparison of Infrastructure Development across Class-I Cities Falling under KUA and outside KUA 2011 Facts PHII SII 2001 EII OIDI PHII SII EII OIDI Cities Falling under KUA (42) Min 0.2318 0.6022 –9.3686 2.9502 0.3379 0.9579 –16.4562 –8.5020 Max 6.6501 138.1419 162.1784 198.9665 5.9795 276.1291 99.9838 382.0924 Mean 1.8949 21.6880 5.3257 28.9087 1.5651 22.3340 1.7024 25.6016 SD 1.3262 24.1052 25.9760 40.6095 1.0024 42.6733 16.0015 58.6110 Variances 1.7588 581.0619 674.7512 1649.1291 1.0049 1821.0084 256.0466 3435.2478 Cities Falling outside KUA (19) Min 0.8515 0.1210 –39.1631 –3.8102 0.0000 0.0000 –7.3006 –1.8565 Max 9.8150 186.2829 14.6562 187.9837 2.7999 66.3204 13.5342 71.1620 Mean 2.3888 49.7410 –1.7594 50.3704 1.2504 30.6374 0.2509 32.1386 SD 2.0451 49.3845 11.4116 51.1722 0.6494 18.8032 5.0272 20.7618 Variances 4.1825 2438.8301 130.2246 2618.5899 0.4218 353.5588 25.2732 431.0512 Total Class-I Cities (61) Min 0.2318 0.1210 –39.1631 –3.8102 0.0000 0.0000 –16.4562 –8.5020 Max 9.8150 186.2829 162.1784 198.9665 5.9795 276.1291 99.9838 382.0924 Mean 2.0488 30.4258 3.1189 35.5935 1.4671 24.9203 1.2503 27.6377 SD 1.5842 36.0596 22.6073 44.8655 0.9137 36.9521 13.5280 49.8603 Variances 2.5098 1300.2935 511.0922 2012.9096 0.8348 1365.4560 183.0065 2486.0519 Source: Computed from census data. Notes: Figures in the parentheses indicate number of class-I cities. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 57 Haque Table 5. Level of Infrastructure Development in Class-I Cities by Region Cities under KUA 2001 Category Composite Index Values (OIDI) Very high More than 40.00 High 30.00–40.00 Medium 20.00–30.00 2 Low 10.00–20.00 18 Very low Less than 10.00 15 Total Class-I city Number Cities outside KUA 2011 2001 2011 % Number % Number % Number % 5 11.9 7 16.7 7 36.8 7 36.8 2 4.8 3 7.1 1 5.3 4 21.1 4.8 7 16.7 5 26.3 4 21.1 42.9 16 38.1 4 21.1 1 5.3 42 35.7 100 9 21.4 2 42 100.0 19 10.5 100 3 19 15.8 100 Source: Computed from Census 2001 and 2011 data. Cities falling outside the KUA region have enjoyed comparatively better infrastructure facilities during both the reference periods as evidenced by the higher average OIDI values in this region than that of the KUA. This holds true even if one looks at the PHII and SII in 2011 as well. Table 5 further makes it clear that a handful number of cities exhibit a high to very high level of infrastructure development (Kolkata, Haora, Bhatpara, Barasat, Bally (M) and Bidhannagar) and huge number of small sized class-I cities (Bally (CT), Bansberia, Titagarh, Shantipur, Champadani and Bhadreswar among others) still stand in a low to very low level of infrastructure development category in KUA. The corresponding picture for cities falling outside the KUA seems to be quite better (see Figures 7 and 8). This raises a matter of some concern. The dismal infrastructure status in the relatively small sized class-I cities is well recorded in KUA. Barring a few large entities, possibly these smaller class-I cities are bereft of adequate government attention with respect to their infrastructure demand and many of them have reached saturation point in terms of their population, HHs and available resources as well. By and large, the very higher degree of inter-regional as well as inter-city infrastructure variations make one feels that prioritising some handful cities from a particular area as ‘mission cities’ under schemes like the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) or its recommended new icon called the National Urban Development Mission (NUDM) or even the so called ‘Smart Cities’ initiatives are not enough. In the context of resource allocation and central or state-level urban missions, priority should rather be given to the smaller urban centres and the weakest urban infrastructural areas and aspects where such amenities are severely deficient. 3.4. Inter Censual Changes and Inter-city Variations of Access to Basic Amenities and Assets across Class-I Cities The status of basic amenities and assets available in HHs during last two consecutive Census periods in Class-I cities of West Bengal is now examined. Table 6 reports the findings for cities falling under KUA, outside KUA and at the aggregate level. Access to basic amenities is without doubt a critical aspect for examining the HHs’ quality of living. In this respect, Bhagat (2011) stresses that access to basic amenities is the most important aspect of the quality of urbanisation. Basically, urban amenities, such as water, electricity, sanitation and clean fuel are the critical determinants of living conditions and good health of the urbanites (Ali, Isa and Rahaman 2004; Clegg and Garlick 1979). Though there are an ample number of basic amenities in a community, Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 Table 6. Status of Households’ Basic Amenities and Assets in Class-I Cities of West Bengal (2001–11) Percentage of HHs to Total HHs Basic Amenities and Assets available to the Households City Under KUA 2001 2011 City Outside KUA Change Total City Class-I Cities (2011) 2001 2011 Change 2001 2011 Change 47.18 52.6 5.42 70.73 73.23 2.5 Highest Lowest Main Source of Drinking Water (Within Premises) Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 Tap1 76.65 78.24 Tube well and hand pump 21.6 1.59 Halisahar (97.70) 21.15 –0.45 26.82 28.95 2.13 22.65 22.76 1.75 0.62 –1.13 26 18.45 –7.55 6.62 4.09 87.16 93.64 6.48 73.5 84.35 10.85 84.13 91.45 7.32 Dum Dum and Darjeeling (97.40) Dabgram (56.80) Latrines within premises 93.08 93.82 0.740 74.99 80.88 5.890 89.07 90.77 1.7 Jamuria (44.50) Pit latrine 23.07 16.71 –6.362 14.88 10.79 –4.086 21.25 15.32 –5.93 Ashok Nagar (64.80) Darjeeling (0.50) Water closet 63.90 76.35 12.449 52.47 68.95 16.478 61.36 74.62 13.26 Uttarpara-Kotrung (92.40) Uluberia (27.50) Other latrine3 6.11 0.75 –5.357 7.64 1.13 –6.511 6.45 0.84 –5.61 Dabgram (4.30) Bansberia (0.10) HHs having no latrine 6.92 6.18 –0.741 25.01 19.12 –5.891 10.93 9.23 –1.7 Rajarhat-Gopalpur (1.13) Others2 0.11 Berhampore (88.50) Dabgram (5.00) –2.53 Dabgram (87.8) Darjeeling (0.30) Dum Dum (0.30) Power (Electricity) Electricity Latrine Facilities Rajarhat-Gopalpur (98.70) Jamuria (55.50) Sewerage/Bathroom Facilities Bathroom within premises 65.28 83.6 18.32 57.20 74.58 17.38 63.48 81.46 Closed drainage 30.77 40.37 9.60 14.56 16.04 1.48 27.17 34.59 17.98 Dum Dum (87.50) 7.42 Kolkata (81.30) Dabgram (2.80) Open drainage 46.49 43.27 –3.22 50.42 58.76 8.34 47.36 46.95 –0.41 Panihati (83.10) Kolkata (13.80) No drainage 22.74 16.36 –6.38 35.02 25.2 –9.82 25.46 18.46 –7 Titagarh (2.10) 61.79 3.64 51.19 51.81 0.62 41.82 59.44 17.62 Darjeeling (92.80) Uluberia (72.50) Uluberia (23.50) Energy Consumption for Cooking LPG/PNG 58.15 Jamuria (11.60) Availing Banking Facility Banking 63.97 77.73 13.76 58.94 69.64 10.71 62.84 75.81 Radio/transistor 46.85 37.97 –8.87 36.88 16.76 –20.12 44.61 32.94 Television 63.72 78.88 15.17 60.98 73.08 12.11 63.1 77.51 12.97 Dum Dum (88.00) Dabgram (30.00) Assets –11.67 Kolkata (47.50) 14.41 Darjeeling (88.60) Balurghat (6.60) Dabgram (45.40) a. Computer/Laptop With internet Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 Without internet 9.59 5.03 8.51 Bidhannagar (29.40) Dabgram (0.90) 10.88 9.91 10.65 Khardah (14.90) Dabgram (4.60) Khardah (9.00) Raniganj (2.00) Darjeeling (81.90) Bidhannagar (42.80) b. Telephone/Mobile, etc. Landline only 5.23 3.79 4.89 Mobile only 65.19 64.50 65.02 Both land and mobile 23.14 13.39 –9.76 16.31 9.22 –7.09 21.61 12.4 –9.21 Bidhannagar (38.70) Dabgram (1.80) 40.73 47.42 6.69 61.97 66.05 4.08 45.5 51.84 6.34 Hugli-Chinsurah (82.60) Darjeeling (1.10) Two-wheelers4 8.21 12.59 4.37 17.92 26.80 8.88 10.39 15.96 5.57 Durgapur (39.60) Darjeeling (2.50) Car/jeep/van 4.37 3.34 4.14 5.64 1.5 Bidhannagar (25.60) Titagarh (1.00) Bidhannagar (24.80) Titagarh (1.00) c. Other Assets Bicycle 5.83 1.46 HHs with TV, computer/laptop, telephone/mobile phone and scooter/car 7.04 7.04 Assets not specified 5.43 –13.36 18.80 18.89 5.03 1.68 7.94 7.94 8.23 –10.67 7.26 18.82 6.1 –12.72 Raiganj (17.80) Source: Computed from Census data 2001 and 2011. Notes: 1Tap includes both treated and untreated sources. 2 Include well, spring, river, canal, tank, pond, lake and others sources. 3 Include night soil disposed into open drain, service latrine: night soil removed by human, service latrine: night soil serviced by animal. 4 Two-wheelers include scooter/motorcycle/moped. North Barrackpore (2.50) 60 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) various literatures, however, accentuate three main aspects, namely, drinking water, sanitation and electricity (Das and Nipun 2012; Kundu 1999; Shaw 2007). 1. Source of drinking water: Want for clean drinking water is crucial but minimal as it is less than 1 per cent of the aggregate water demand (Planning Commission 2008). There is a multi-faceted impact of safe drinking water as basically it lessens risk of diseases and deaths, decreases expenditure on health and thus saves money and enhances the quality of human life. Sources of safe drinking water covers taps (treated and untreated), hand pumps and tube wells. It is observed that (Table 6, see also Figure 9) more than 78 per cent HHs of class-I cities falling under the KUA are getting access to tap water within their premises in 2011, which is also 1.59 per cent points higher than in the earlier decade. The corresponding igure for cities located outside the KUA is only 53 per cent in 2011, which is also lower than the total average. In this regard, however, the outside KUA cities have witnessed the highest decadal improvement (5.42 per cent). Halisahar (97.70 per cent) tops the ranks in tap water usage while Dabgram (5 per cent) is at the bottom. The proportion of HHs having tube wells and hand pumps as the main source of drinking water appears to be higher outside the KUA than within it. Berhampore in Murshidabad district is the top user (88.50 per cent) in this category and Darjeeling (possibly due to its topographic location) is in the last position (0.30 per cent) as per the 2011 Census. Per cent of HHs receiving drinking water from other sources like wells, ponds, rivers, canals and tanks also seems to be higher outside the KUA in 2011, however recording a 7.55 per cent point reduction from preceding 2001 Census. The corresponding igure for the KUA in this category is marginal. 2. Power (electricity): Provision of electricity in the HHs is positively correlated to a higher quality of living (Das and Mistri 2013, 166). Results from correlation analysis (Table 7) helped infer that the supply of electricity to the HHs is strongly and positively correlated to ownership and use of radios, televisions, availing of banking facility, having a bathroom within the premises and liqueied petroleum gas (LPG)/piped natural gas (PNG) connections, while the electricity supply was moderately but also positively correlated to owning a computer or laptop with or without an Internet connection, having a cellular phone, access to tap water and latrine facilities within the premises. Thus all these select basic amenities and assets seem to have a statistically signiicant positive relation with the HHs electricity and indicate that the HHs having them are more well off in terms of living standards. However, the picture of electricity facilities depicts a wide inter-city disparity (Figure 10). As many as 93.64 per cent of HHs in class-I cities under the KUA get electricity services in 2011, which is notably higher than that outside the KUA. However, highest decadal improvement has occurred outside the KUA (10.85 per cent), possibly due to a lower initial base value. Dum Dum and Darjeeling (97.40 per cent) are the highest electriied HHs cities and Dabgram (56.80 per cent) is the lowest electriied city as far as 2011 Census is concerned. This suggests that the provision for electricity facilities in class-I cities in West Bengal has improved considerably during the last decade. However, almost 16 per cent HHs do not have electricity connections in urban areas outside the KUA and this needs to be addressed at the earliest. 3. Sanitation: The third vital basic requirement is sanitation facilities. In common parlance, when one talks about quality health and hygiene, two prime aspects are involved, provision of safe drinking water as well as sanitation. Basically sanitation is a broad concept consisting of personal hygiene, clean potable water, domestic sanitation, garbage disposal, excreta disposal and waste water outlet (Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2012). It has unequivocally been believed that a sanitary toilet, within or near the HHs, gives privacy and dignity to women (Planning Commission 2008). Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 61 Haque Figure 9. Percent of HHs having Access to Tap Water Facility within the Premises in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 62 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Table 7. Pearson Correlations between Electricity and Households Assets and Basic Amenities, Class-I Cities, West Bengal (2011) Facts Electricity Radio TV Electricity 1 Radio 0.621** 1 TV 0.798** 0.489** 1 0.475** 0.132 Mobile 1 0.580 ** 0.816 ** 0.461 ** Latrines 0.441 ** Bathroom 0.690** LPG/PNG ** Computer/laptop Bank Tap 2 0.648 Mobile Tap LPG/ Latrines2 Bathroom PNG 0.539** 1 0.536 ** 0.546 ** 0.295 * 0.483 ** 0.712** 0.082 0.865 ** 0.391 0.427 ** 0.426 ** 1 ** 0.741** 1 0.051 0.365** 0.482** 0.222 ** ** 0.410 0.522** 0.917** 0.411** 0.503 Computer/ Laptop1 Bank ** 0.851 ** 0.421 ** 0.394 0.705** 0.832** ** ** 0.751 0.774 1 –0.133 0.379** 0.207 1 0.587** 0.657 ** 1 0.892** 1 Source: Computed from Census data 2011. Notes: 1Computer/laptop with and without internet connections; 2Latrines within premises; **Correlation significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed), *Correlation significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed), N = 61. i. Latrine facility: Nearly 94 per cent of the HHs have in-house latrine facilities in class-I cities under KUA in 2011. The corresponding igure for cities outside the KUA is 81 per cent, which is lower than the aggregate level as well, but reporting a 6 per cent point decadal growth. RajarhatGopalpur ranks top (98.70 per cent) in HHs with latrine facilities within their premises and Jamuria is at the bottom position (44.50 per cent). Percentage of HHs having pit latrine facilities reduced in both the regions in 2011 than that in the preceding Census. Ashoknagar Kalyangarh is the top ranker (64.80 per cent) in this respect and Darjeeling is at the bottom (0.50 per cent). Higher than 76 per cent HHs have water closet latrine within the KUA as per the last Census. Though the inter-censual improvement is considerably higher in areas outside the KUA, still 31 per cent HHs do not have access to this facility within their premises. Uttarpara-Kotrung is the highest user (92.40 per cent) whilst Uluberia is the least (27.50 per cent). The per cent of HHs using other category of latrine facilities recorded a sharp decline during the recent decade. This implies that the people are more likely to accept relatively sophisticated means of latrine facilities, such as water closet. However, about 10 per cent of HHs do not have any latrine facility at all in their premises across all Class-I cities in West Bengal and the corresponding igure for the outside KUA region is about 19 per cent (Table 6). For instance, as many as 55.50 per cent of HHs do not have latrine facility in Jamuria city (Figures 11 and 12). It seems that the smaller cities are quite devoid of such crucial facilities. ii. Sewerage/bathroom facility: Table 6 also reveals that about 84 per cent of HHs in cities under the KUA enjoyed bathroom facilities within their own premises in 2011, while the corresponding igure for cities outside KUA was much lower (75 per cent). Furthermore, a satisfactory decadal improvement in terms of access to bathrooms within premises is discernible during the recent decade in all regions. Dum Dum tops (87.50 per cent) in this regard and Uluberia in the bottom position (23.50 per cent). There is a huge variation in the methods of sewerage disposal system across the cities (Figures 13 and 14). It is evident that the per cent of HHs having wastewater outlet connected to a closed drainage (CD) system has increased by 10 per cent Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 63 Haque Figure 10. Percent of HHs having Electric Connection in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 64 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Figure 11. Percent of HHs having Access to Latrine Facility within the Premises in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 65 Haque Figure 12. Percent of HHs without Latrine Facility within the Premises in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 66 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Figure 13. Percent of HHs having Access to Bathroom Facility Within the Premises in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 67 Haque Figure 14. Percent of HHs having Closed Drainage Connectivity in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 68 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) points in KUA during the last Census, that is, from 31 per cent in 2001 to 41 per cent in 2011. Contrastingly, cities outside the KUA have witnessed little success in this respect, having only 16 per cent of HHs with CD system. The state capital Kolkata is in the highest position with 81.30 per cent HHs having this facility whereas Dabgram is at the bottom (2.80 per cent). With respect to open drainage, Class-I cities outside the KUA recorded the highest decadal improvement with 59 per cent HHs in this category in 2011. Panihati holds the top position (83.10 per cent) and Kolkata is in the lowest position in terms of these facilities. It is observed that the proportion of HHs having no drainage has declined remarkably in the regional as well as aggregate levels during the last 10 years, indicating a good sign as far as sewerage facilities is concerned. However in places, such as Uluberia about 72.50 per cent HHs do not have any drainage facility for wastewater outlet, which is a matter of concern. From this analysis, it is apparent that the sewerage system in class-I cities of West Bengal is still in a dismal situation as nearly half of the HHs are connected to open drains and 18.46 per cent HHs have no bathroom facility within their premises, which in turn makes them severely prone to polluting their neighbouring environments and can further cascade into detrimental ill health effects. 4. Energy consumption for cooking: LPG or PNG is considered as the cleanest fuel for cooking in the HHs. Energy consumption pattern for cooking in the HHs in Class-I cities registered a rapid improvement in the last Census, that is, an almost 17.62 per cent points increase from 41.82 per cent in 2001 to 59.44 per cent in the 2011 Census, indicating a rising pace of overall socio-economic advancement of HHs during the last decade. In this respect, cities under the KUA have enjoyed a better position compared to those outside the KUA, recording 62 per cent of their HHs using LPG/ PNG. Darjeeling is the top (92.80 per cent) user of LPG/PNG while Jamuria is the least (11.60 per cent), exhibiting wide inter-city variations in this respect (Figure 15). 5. Availing of banking and credit facilities: Wide and easy access to banking and credit facilities for all levels of society is a crucial factor in promoting economic growth and urban development. One could expect that a higher per cent of HHs availing banking facilities could have a positive impact on the economic status of a community. The Government of India (GoI) tries to implement the Banking Correspondent (BC) model where each beneiciary will have a ‘UID Bank Account’ (Das and Mistri 2013). Furthermore, it could be immense useful to avert discrimination and corruptions for transferring payments of various government programmes and policies, for instance, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) payments, Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) and pensions and wages paid to Accredited Social Health Activities (ASHA). Previous works also conirm that more than half of the HHs enjoy banking facilities in India (Das and Mistri 2013). In West Bengal, about 75.81 per cent HHs avail banking facilities in class-I cities in 2011, which is 12.97 per cent point higher than what it was during the preceding decade. Cities under the KUA have 78 per cent HHs having access to banking services, which is almost 10 per cent points higher than for HHs outside KUA. Both regions have witnessed a considerable decadal improvement in this respect as well. Dum Dum ranked irst with 88 per cent HHs enjoying banking facility and Darjeeling is in the lowest position (30 per cent) revealing a colossal regional disparity in this facility (Figure 16). 3.5. Households Assets Assets are primarily stocks of resources which are gathered and held over the period and it offers for future consumption and means of security against contingencies (Nam et al. 2008). Actually, the ownership Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 69 Haque Figure 15. Percent of HHs Using LPG/PNG for Cooking in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 70 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Figure 16. Percent of HHs Availing Banking Facility in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 71 Haque status of HHs assets is an indirect method for analysing their poverty. Despite this, Gammage (2006) felt that intra-HHs assets ownership within the members of HHs is also an indirect method to anticipate intra-HHs inequality. HHs’ assets may be of variety types, such as financial and non-financial (Booysen et al. 2005) or human, social and natural followed by physical and financial assets (Serrat 2008). In India, the population Census is undoubtedly a valuable source of information pertaining to various HHs assets (as enlisted in Table 6, see also Figures 17–22), where HHs having computers or laptops, with or without Internet connections as well as mobile phone ownership were newly added enumeration parameters in the 2011 Census. It is discernible that all HHs assets have increased in both the region-wise and aggregate level from the 2001 Census to the 2011 enumeration, with the exception of radios and HHs having both landline and mobile phone ownership (Table 6). 1. Radio/transistor/TV: The proportion of HHs having radios or transistors decreased sharply in 2011 Census from that in 2001 and it is reported to be very high in cities outside the KUA (20.12 per cent points). The possible reason behind this may be the escalating growth of mobile phones that in turn offers a two-in-one function. Kolkata is the top (47.50 per cent) user of radios or transistors and Balurghat is the least (6.60 per cent). Concomitantly, HHs enjoying TV facilities recorded marked increase in class-I cities of West Bengal in 2011 and KUA emerged as the highest, with a 15.17 per cent point increase during last decade, indicating the considerable spread of entertaining facilities over the last decade. 2. Computer/laptop: Overall, about 8.51 per cent of HHs possess either a computer or a laptop with an Internet connection while nearly 11 per cent HHs have the same without the Internet facility, as per the 2011 Census, in class-I cities of West Bengal. Cities under the KUA showcase a much better condition in this respect compared to those falling outside it (Table 6). A marked inter-city variation has been noticed as Bidhannagar is the highest (29.40 per cent) in computer or laptop user-ship with an Internet connection and Dabgram is the lowest (0.90 per cent) (Figure 19). On the other hand, Khardaha (14.90 per cent) is the top ranker with HHs possessing a computer or a laptop without any Internet connection, whereas Dabgram is at the bottom position (4.60 per cent) with the same facility. 3. Telephone/mobile: As per the 2011 Census, a robust growth has been discernible in case of mobile phones, that is, around 65 per cent HHs own them, whereas only 4.89 per cent HHs have only landline facility. In this respect, cities falling under the KUA and outside it showed quite negligible variations. Basically, gradual liberalisation and institutional reforms within the telecom sectors in the wake of 1980s are conducive for this drastic change (Das and Mistri, 2013). Similar to other assets, a wide inter-city disparity persists here. Darjeeling is the top ranker (82 per cent) having maximum mobile users and Bidhannagar is at the bottom (42.81 per cent). However, HHs possessing both landlines and mobile facilities declined notably in this decade as compared to the previous one and this decline is higher for areas under the KUA. 4. Other assets: The most recent Census witnessed that about 66 per cent HHs have bicycles among cities situated outside the KUA as compared to 47.42 per cent within the KUA. Hugli-Chinsurah (82.60 per cent) is the top bicycle user and Darjeeling (possibly due to terrain conditions) is the lowest (1.10 per cent). HHs possessing two-wheelers are also recorded to be higher in areas outside the KUA (27 per cent) with 9 per cent point decadal growth in this aspect. Durgapur is on top (39.60 per cent) and Darjeeling (2.50 per cent) is at the bottom position. Similarly, HHs having cars, jeeps or vans also increased but only marginally in 2011 as compared to the earlier enumeration and this aspect is higher for cities within the KUA. This asset also reveals regional disparity Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 72 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Figure 17. Percent of HHs having Radio in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 73 Haque Figure 18. Percent of HHs having Television (TV) in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 74 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Figure 19. Percent of HHs having Computer/Laptop with Internet Connections in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 75 Haque Figure 20. Percent of HHs with Bi-Cycle in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 76 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Figure 21. Percent of HHs Possessing Two-Wheelers in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 77 Haque Figure 22. Percent of HHs Possessing Car in Class I City, W.B. (2011) Source: Prepared by Author using Census 2011 data. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 78 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) in its distribution as Bidhannagar is the top user of these vehicles (25.60 per cent) and Titagarh is the lowest (1 per cent) (Figures 20–22). Per cent of HHs possessing each of the following assets— televisions, computers or laptops, landline telephone or mobile phones and two-wheelers are almost equal in 2011 across both the region. Bidhannagar is at the top (24.80 per cent) and Titagarh is at the bottom position (1 per cent) in this respect. One should bear in mind that still more than 6 per cent HHs did not report any assets in their Houses as per 2011 Census, this igure being 13 per cent point less than that enumerated during the 2001 Census. From the above assessment, it could be argued that the HH level availability of infrastructure in class-I cities during last decade (basic amenities and assets) has improved strikingly. It is also found that the Class-I cities falling under the KUA enjoyed much better urban amenities and owned more essential assets as compared to the cities located outside the KUA. Therefore, whatever success is gained towards the development of all the Class-I cities in West Bengal is disproportionately distributed across them and thus reflects a marked inter-city disparity. This could possibly be responsible for the fact that the relatively larger Class-I cities have a higher per capita income, accrue a larger share of manufacturing activities and correspondingly, a higher level of investment in basic amenities across the board. Medium and smaller class-I cities, on the other hand, are quite different in terms of their economies of scale and other factors. These affect their level of basic infrastructure and other vital basic services, resulting in a yawning disparity across the various cities (Kundu 1999, 1895). 4. Conclusion The forgoing analysis helps conclude that infrastructure development in Class-I cities in West Bengal is in an apparently accelerating phase. The present study strongly manifests that the status of physical and social infrastructure across the class-I cities has improved reasonably while economic infrastructure has rather lagged behind, during the last decade. As far as the overall infrastructure development is concerned, many cities have shifted towards medium, high and very higher level of infrastructure development category from their earlier low and very low level categories. It implies that some progress in providing infrastructure facilities has been achieved during the most recent decade. It is further observed that cities in the low and very low level of infrastructure development category dominate the urban scene in West Bengal. Whatever improvement in terms of the infrastructural facilities has been discernible during the last decade are almost totally confined to a few large cities like the state capital Kolkata, Haora, Asansol, Durgapur, Siliguri, Burdwan and Bally (M). These cities have enjoyed a fairly higher level of infrastructure facilities and civic amenities as well. The relatively smaller Class-I cities report poorly in this regard with very low composite index values. This can possibly be attributed to the fact that big cities received greater attention from policy makers and larger investments, thereby enabling good finance management in urban service delivery mechanisms. Thus, the rest of the small cities get severely marginalised as they have been pushed to the very low and low level of infrastructure development over the decades, thus cumulating into a colossal inter-city disparity. In terms of their overall level of infrastructure development, about 48 per cent of the total Class-I cities encountered very lowto-low level of infrastructure facilities in 2011 implying a dismal status of infrastructure in these smaller sized Class-I cities. It is further evident that three-fourths of the total cities examined recorded considerable growth in their infrastructure base during the 2001–11 time frame. The pace of infrastructural facility growth in larger cities is recorded as sluggish (possibly due to the higher base values) as compared to many medium Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 79 Haque and small cities, apparently due to their inability to update the existing infrastructure base at the required level. Comparatively higher inequalities in infrastructure development across Class-I cities were found within the KUA than outside it in 2001, and they were even higher than that of the aggregate level inequality. However, the Class-I cities falling outside the KUA exhibit notably greater inequality with respect to their physical, social and over all infrastructure development in 2011. Cities falling within the KUA highlighted comparatively poor infrastructure development during both the reference periods as 60 per cent of these Class-I cities still ranked in the low to very low level of infrastructure development category. The corresponding scenarios for cities situated outside the KUA seem to be comparatively much better. The HH level availability of infrastructure in class-I cities during last decade (basic amenities and assets) shows favourable improvements. It is found that in class-I cities falling under the KUA, much better urban amenities and essential assets could be availed by the residents as compared to the cities situated outside the KUA. Still, whatever success is gained in providing the services, is disproportionately distributed across the class-I cities in the state giving rise to marked inter-city disparities. By and large, it is evident that bigger cities enjoy better infrastructure facilities as compared to smaller ones and that the majority of the smaller cities have served simply as regional service centres, such as markets, without having adequate infrastructure base for self-growth and development. They are devoid of some crucial facilities like hospitals and many other civic amenities despite having a sizable population base. This suggests that the availability of infrastructural facilities in urban West Bengal has not kept pace with city growth. Presently, a greater understanding of the requirement and necessity for introducing new infrastructures alongside the upgradation of the existing ones had occurred. Since the status of a city’s infrastructures and its productivity and output are inextricably linked, it is highly of paramount importance that the management and upgradation of the civic infrastructures be considered seriously. In doing so, the policy maker should furthermore give top priority to the backward regions as well as to the smaller and medium sized class-I cities through schemes like Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT)/JnNURM)/NUDM, without its loopholes, for strengthening the overall infrastructure and economic base. The above is urgently required so that these urban areas are able to offer employment at a satisfactory level of productivity and suitable earnings for the increasing labour force, ensure access to basic amenities for all and finally support an adequate population which would lessen the congestion in the large cities and reinforce balanced urban growth and infrastructure development. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 Appendix A Table A1. Per cent Change of Composite Index Values in Class-I Cities of West Bengal (2001/2011) OIDI OIDI Districts City Name 2011 2001 % Change Rank 2011 Districts City Name 2011 2001 % Change Rank 2011 Class-I Cities Falling under KUA (42) Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 Kolkata Kolkata 198.9665 382.0924 –47.93 1 N 24-Pargonas Halisahar 10.5703 2.5578 313.25 48 Haora Haora 187.9744 49.2500 281.67 3 N 24-Pargonas Ashok Nagar 10.0878 12.5755 –19.78 49 N 24 Parganas Bhatapara 76.9919 23.2829 230.68 7 N 24-Pargonas Rajarhat Gopalpur 9.9704 14.9110 –33.13 50 N 24 Parganas Panihati 66.8075 44.8079 49.10 8 Nadia Santipur 9.3472 1.8826 396.50 51 N 24 Parganas Barasat 48.4717 19.3638 150.32 9 N 24-Pargonas North Barrackpur 8.7116 4.2506 104.95 52 Haora Bally (M) 45.8679 37.2015 23.30 13 Hugli Uttarpara Kotrung 7.3040 8.3831 –12.87 53 N 24 Parganas Dum Dum 43.1575 15.7471 174.07 14 N 24-Pargonas North Dum Dum 6.4825 5.7293 13.15 55 N 24 Parganas Bidhannagar 38.7875 81.6700 –52.51 16 Hugli Champdani 6.2735 7.2088 –12.97 56 N 24 Parganas Kanchrapara 35.3553 17.7480 99.21 19 N 24-Pargonas Titagarh 4.4690 9.7546 –54.19 58 Nadia Kalyani 33.5023 17.4186 92.34 20 Hugli Bansberia 3.2454 4.6724 –30.54 59 Nadia Krishnanagar 24.9510 15.3587 62.46 26 Haora Bally (CT) 2.9502 2.8956 1.89 60 Hugli Chandannagar 24.5317 34.2286 –28.33 27 Class-I Cities Falling Under Outside KUA (19) N 24 Parganas Kamarhati 23.7344 16.3614 45.06 28 Burdwan Jamuria 187.9837 61.0677 207.83 2 N 24 Parganas Habra 21.9488 –8.5020 –358.16 29 Jalpaiguri Jalpaiguri 159.6297 45.3375 252.09 4 Haora Uluberia 21.4460 19.2401 11.47 30 Burdwan Durgapur 101.8980 71.1620 43.19 5 Hugli Serampore 21.2521 25.3309 –16.10 31 Uttar Dinajpur Balurghat 96.3618 22.1488 335.07 6 S 24 Parganas Rajpur-Sonarpur 20.5247 20.6274 –0.50 32 Darjeeling Siliguri 47.4459 43.3451 9.46 10 N 24 Parganas South Dum Dum 19.3825 49.2788 –60.67 33 Malda English Bazar 47.3911 21.3998 121.46 11 Hugli Hugli-Chinsurah 17.5569 16.4920 6.46 34 West Medinipur Kharagpur 45.8970 15.1491 202.97 12 N 24 Parganas Bongaigaon 16.4524 16.6120 –0.96 35 Burdwan Asansol 39.8370 56.3156 –29.26 15 S 24 Parganas Maheshtala 15.9507 10.4057 53.29 36 Dakshin Dinajpur Raiganj 37.0234 28.8766 28.21 17 Hugli Rishra 15.3479 7.0929 116.38 37 Darjeeling Darjeeling 35.4324 56.3647 –37.14 18 N 24 Parganas Khardaha 15.1796 7.8016 94.57 38 Burdwan Barddhaman 31.6631 55.6733 –43.13 21 N 24 Parganas Basirhat 14.8222 6.6963 121.35 39 Burdwan Kulti 28.9510 –1.8565 –1659.46 22 N 24 Parganas Barrackpore 14.5161 10.0679 44.18 40 Bankura Bankura 25.8819 20.0621 29.01 23 Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 N 24 Parganas Naihati 12.9478 14.7158 –12.01 41 Murshidabad Behrampore 25.6970 17.6768 45.37 24 Nadia Nabadwip 12.6984 11.9417 6.34 42 West Medinipur Medinipur 25.1636 18.8712 33.34 25 Hugli Bhadreswar 12.0720 5.4929 119.78 43 Purulia Purulia 11.3959 24.1789 –52.87 45 N 24 Parganas Madhyamgram 11.7033 12.7398 –8.14 44 Burdwan Raniganj 7.0730 31.4577 –77.52 54 N 24 Parganas Baranagar 11.1941 18.4046 –39.18 46 Purba Medinipur Haldia 6.1232 23.4035 –73.84 57 Hugli Baidyabati 10.6565 1.4755 622.24 47 Darjeeling Dabgram N.A. 61 Source: Computed from Table 3. Note: N.A. denotes that data are not available. –3.8102 N.A. 82 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Acknowledgement The author is thankful to the anonymous reviewers whose precious comments and views helped improve this article. The assistance of Priyank Pravin Patel, assistant professor of Geography, Presidency University, Kolkata, India during the revision of this paper is gratefully acknowledged. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. KUA consists of several towns/cities of six adjoining districts such as Nadia, North 24 Parganas, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata, Haora and Hoogly. It is the third most populous (total population in 2011: 14,035,959) urban agglomeration in India after Mumbai and Delhi. In West Bengal, industrial stagnancy especially decline of large-scale organised industries had started in the 1960s and it was much rapid in 1980s (Giri 1998; Khasnabis 2008). Overall economic growth in West Bengal has lagged behind the national average over the last two plan periods. Average growth rate of NSDP (Net State Domestic Product) share from agriculture and industrial sectors also slowed down during 10th and 11th plan respectively (Bose and Chowdhury 2013). Bhalla’s study (2007) is evident that agricultural employment in West Bengal decelerated markedly in the 1990s. Some crucial reasons have been put forth to show how agriculture became unproitable, at least for the small and marginal farmers, who comprise a huge portion of the farmer in this state. For instances, with the adoption of Structural Adjustment Policy (SAP) offered by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), subsidies on fertilisers and electricity among others, were declined to such a magnitude that the cost of irrigation, fertilisers and insecticide hiked by 78.01 per cent between 1991–92 and 1996–97, yielding in a huge increase in paid-out costs of farming (Guin and Das 2015; Khasnabis 2008). Expansion of land under boro cultivation was minimal by the scarcity of adequate water and food grain prices also fell due to a lack of demand within the state (Sarkar 2006). All these issues forced many small and marginal farmers to quit farming (Khasnabis 2008). Apart from that, many HHs industries (handlooms, handicrafts) got affected adversely after economic reforms. There are several methods to standardise or to eliminate the scale bias that characterises each indicator, for instance, Range Equalisation (RE) method and DM method among others. Here, I used the DM method that permits the coeficient of variation of different indicators to remain different despite making them scale free and lets these differences be relected in the composite index and ranking (Kundu 1984, 2004). The DM method involves: • • 5. Computation of the mean for each indicator. For the jth indicator belonging to the rth category, the mean X*rj would be_Xrij/Z where Xrij is the value of the ith city for jth indicator in the rth category and i= 1,2,… Z. Z is the number of cities, which is 61 in the present case for each indicator and each category. Division of each observation of the indicator (Xrij) by respective mean (X*rj).We thus obtain Xrij/X*rj. These may be called the scale-free values of the indicators. However, their pace of infrastructure growth is quite slow in the 2011 Census, even Kolkata and Asansol have witnessed negative change in their composite OIDI (Table A1). References Ali, Osman, Z.M. Isa and M.R.A. Rahaman. 2004. ‘The Effect of Urbanization on the Health of Urban Residents’, Akademika, 65 (July): 111–24. Bhagat, R.B. 2002. ‘Challenges of Rural–Urban Classification for Decentralized Governance’, Economic and Political weekly, 37 (25): 2413–16. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 83 Haque Bhagat, R.B. 2011. ‘Urbanization and access to Basic Amenities in India’, Urban India, 31 (1): 1–14. Bhalla, G.S. 2007. Indian Agriculture since Independence. New Delhi: National Book Trust of India. Bose, P. and S. Chowdhury. 2013. Looking at the Economy. Retrieved from www.indiaseminar.com/2013/645/645_ prasenjit_bose_other.htm (accessed on 25 January 2016). Booysen, F., S. van der Berg, R. Burger, M. von Maltitz and G. du Rand. 2005, 29–31 August. ‘Using an Asset Index to Assess Trends in Poverty in Seven Sub-Saharan African Countries’. In International Poverty Centre of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Multidimensional Poverty, 1–33. Brasilia, Brazil: UNDP. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.3288&rep=rep1&type=pdf Clegg, E.J. and J.P. Garlick. 1979. ‘The Ecology of Disease in Urban Societies’, Current Anthropology, 20 (4): 798–99. Das, B. and A. Mistri. 2013. ‘Household Quality of Living in Indian States: Analysis of 2011 Census’, Environment and Urbanization, 4 (1): 151–71. Das, B. and D. Nipun. 2012. ‘Urbanscape: Basic Amenities across Size Class of Towns in North Eastern India’, Urban India, 32 (1): 155–73. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259442965_Urbanscape_ Access_to_Basic_Amenities_Across_Towns_In_North_Eastern_India (accessed on 10 March 2016). Planning Commission. 2008. Eleventh Five-Year Plan (Vol. II: Social Sector). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/11th/11_v2/11th_vol2.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2016). Gammage, S. 2006. A Menu of Options for Inter-household Poverty Assessment. United States Agency for International Development, United States Government. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/ PNADH568.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2016). Giri, P. 1998. ‘Urbanization in West Bengal, 1951–1991’, Economic and Political Weekly, 33 (47–48): 3033–38. Ghosh, B. and P. De. 1998. ‘Role of Infrastructure in Regional Development: A Study over the Plan Period’, Economic and Political Weekly, 33 (47–48): 3039–48. Guin, D. 2014. ‘Emergence of New Towns and their Nature: A Multidimensional Study of the New Census Towns of West Bengal, 2011’. Unpublished MPhil dissertation submitted to Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Guin, D. and D.N. Das. 2015. ‘New Census Towns in West Bengal–Census Activism or Sectoral Diversification?’ Economic and Political Weekly, 40 (14): 68–72. Khasnabis, R. 2008. ‘The Economy of West Bengal’, Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (52): 103–15. Kundu, A., S. Bagchi and D. Kundu. 1999. ‘Regional Distribution of Infrastructure and Basic Amenities in Urban India: Issues concerning Empowerment of Local Bodies’, Economic and Political Weekly, 34 (28): 1893–906. Kundu, A. 1984. Measurement of Urban Processes: A Study in Regionalization. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan. ———. 2004. ICT and Human Development: Towards Building a Composite Index for Asia: Realising the Millennium Development Goals, Vi–29. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). New Delhi: Elsevier. Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, GOI. 2012. Guidelines Nirmal Bharat Abhyan. Retrieved from www.mdws. gov.in/sites/upload_files/ddws/files/pdf/Final%20Guidelines%20(English).pdf (accessed on 18 April 2016). Nam, Y., J. Huang and M. Sherraden. 2008. Assets, Poverty and Public Policy: Challenges in Defining and Measurement (A report in the series Poor finances: Assets low-income households). Saint Louis, Washington: Centre for Social Development, Washington University. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/poorfinances/definitions/report.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2016). Prodhan, G. 2013a. ‘Status of Infrastructure Development in Cities and Towns of Odisha–Problems and Constraints’. In Contemporary Urbanization in India: Issues and Challenges, edited by A. Banerjee, 147–65. New Delhi: Concept Publication. Prodhan, K. C. 2013b. ‘Unacknowledged Urbanization—New Census towns of India’, Economic and Political Weekly, 48 (36): 43–51. Samanta, G. 2012. In Between Rural and Urban: Challenges for Governance on Non-recognized Urban Territories in West Bengal. In West Bengal: Geo-spatial Issues, edited by Jana et al., 44–57. Burdwan, West Bengal: University of Burdwan. Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016 84 Journal of Infrastructure Development 8(1) Sarkar, A. 2006. ‘Political Economy of West Bengal: A Puzzle and a Hypothesis’, Economic and Political Weekly, 49 (28): 341–48. ———. 2011. ‘Urbanization and City Size Distribution of West Bengal, India 1901–2001’, Indian Journal of Regional Science, 43 (1): 9–16. Serrat, O. 2008. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach, Knowledge Salutation. Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27638/sustainable-livelihoods-approach.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2016). Shaw, A. 2007. Basic Amenities in Urban India: Analysis at State and Town Level. Kolkata: Indian Institute of Management. Snow, J. 1854. Mapping the 1854 London Cholera Outbreak. Retrieved from https://www.udel.edu/johnmack/ frec682/cholera/ (accessed on 25 January 2016). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2005. Sanitation and Cleanliness for a Healthy Environment. Hesperian Foundation, Berkeley, California. Retrieved from http://www.unwater.org/downloads/EHB_ Sanitation_EN_lowres.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2016). Downloaded from joi.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 1, 2016