MGI Indias Urban Awakening Full Report PDF

McKinsey Global Institute
Indias urban awakening:

Building inclusive cities,
sustaining economic growth
April 2010
The McKinsey Global Institute
The McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), established in 1990, is McKinsey &
Companys business and economics research arm. MGIs mission is to
help leaders in the commercial, public, and social sectors develop a deeper
understanding of the evolution of the global economy and to provide a fact base
that contributes to decision making on critical management and policy issues.
MGI combines three disciplines: economics, technology, and management. By
integrating these perspectives, MGI is able to gain insights into the microeconomic
underpinnings of the long-term macroeconomic and business trends that affect
company strategy and policy making. For nearly two decades, MGI has utilized this
distinctive micro-to-macro approach in research covering more than 20 countries
and 30 industry sectors.
MGIs current research agenda focuses on global markets (capital, labor, and
commodities), the dynamics of consumption and demographics, productivity and
competitiveness, the impact of technology, and other topics at the intersection of
business and economics. Recent research has examined the economic impact
of aging consumers and household debt reduction in developed countries, the
emerging middle class in developing countries, health care costs, energy demand
trends and energy productivity, and long-term shifts in world financial assets.
MGIs work is conducted by a group of full-time fellows based in offices in Beijing,
Brussels, Delhi, London, San Francisco, Singapore, and Washington, DC. MGI
project teams also include consultants from McKinseys offices around the world
and are supported by McKinseys network of industry and management experts
and worldwide partners. In addition, leading economists, including Nobel laureates
and policy experts, act as advisers to our work.
MGI is funded by the partners of McKinsey & Company, and our research is not
commissioned by any business, government, or other institution. Further information
about MGI and copies of MGIs published reports can be found at www.mckinsey
.com/mgi. Comments or inquiries are welcome at mgi@mckinsey.com.
McKinsey & Company in India
McKinsey & Company established its presence in India in 1993 and today has
offices in Mumbai, Delhi, and Chennai that employ more than 1,000 people.
McKinsey 's India team has had the opportunity to serve leading companies in the
private and public sectors as well as many Indian institutions including central and
state governments, regulators, and local authorities.
Copyright McKinsey & Company 2010
Shirish Sankhe
Ireena Vittal
Richard Dobbs
Ajit Mohan
Ankur Gulati
Jonathan Ablett
Shishir Gupta
Alex Kim
Sudipto Paul
Aditya Sanghvi
Gurpreet Sethy
Indias urban awakening:
Building inclusive cities,
sustaining economic growth
April 2010
4
The choices that India makes to manage the process of its urbanization will have
profound consequences for its people and its economic future. But the approaches
Indias policy makers take will have much broader resonance beyond their own
borders. Worldwide, the search for new sources of growth and new market
opportunities is onand how India performs over the next 20 years is of acute
interest globally.
Indias urban awakening: Building inclusive cities, sustaining economic growth
describes the findings of the research that the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI)
launched 21 months ago in collaboration with the India office of McKinsey &
Company. The purpose of this research project was to understand how Indias
urbanization might evolve, explore the many problems facing Indias fast-growing
cities and what policy makers can do to mitigate the strains of urban life in India and
maximize the opportunities offered by cities.
MGI developed an econometric model to study the implications of urbanization at the
local, state, and national levels, and the economic and demographic impact on the 70
largest cities in India. We supplemented all modeling with in-depth analyses of 15 Indian
cities and engaged in discussions with more than 100 Indian and international urban
experts and economists, and with officials in state and local governments. We also
held workshops with the political and administrative leaders of five international cities
Johannesburg, London, New York, Shanghai, and Singapore.
Ajit Mohan, a consultant based in Delhi, led this project, with overall guidance from
Shirish Sankhe, Ireena Vittal, and Richard Dobbs. The core team comprised Ankur
Gulati, Sudipto Paul, Gurpreet Sethy, and Aditya Sanghvi. Venu Aggarwal, Pranab
Banerjee, Prachee Banthia, Somnath Chatterjee, Karam Malhotra, Suharsh Sinha,
Mukund Sridhar, Vibhor Srivastava, Kshitij Vijayvargiya, and Niveditha Viswanathan
contributed to this effort. The team also benefited from the contributions of Alex Kim,
an MGI fellow based in Seoul, and Susan Lund, MGI Director of Research.
The econometric modeling team comprised Jonathan Ablett, Shishir Gupta, Ujjyaini
Mitra, and Prasenjit Ghosh, and was ably guided by our external modeling expert,
Geoffrey Greene.
We would also like to thank Janet Bush, MGI senior editor, who provided editorial
support; Rebeca Robboy and Sunali Rohra, external communications managers for
MGI and McKinsey in India, respectively; as well as Marisa Carder, Nipun Gosain,
Therese Khoury, and J. Sathya Kumar, visual graphics specialists. We are grateful for
the outstanding support of our administrative staff over the last two years, including
Pallavi Agarwal, Surbhi Duggal, Audrey Mendes, Noora Michael, and Teenaa Mistry.
Preface
5 India's urban awakening: Building inclusive cities, sustaining economic growth
We appreciate the vital input and support of numerous McKinsey colleagues around
the world. In particular, we would like to thank Rajat Kumar Gupta, McKinsey consultant
1973 - 2007, for his support through the last two years. We also valued the inputs of
Janamitra Devan, Noshir Kaka, Laxman Narasimhan, Stefano Negri, Nitin Seth, and
Jonathan Woetzel.
Distinguished experts outside of McKinsey provided invaluable insights and
advice. In particular we would like to thank the members of our academic advisory
committee: Dr. Isher Judge Ahluwalia, chair of the Indian Council for Research on
International Economic Relations (ICRIER) and chair of the High Powered Expert
Committee on Urban Infrastructure; Dr. Suman Bery, director general of the National
Council of Applied Economic Research in India (NCAER); Om Prakash Mathur,
professor of urban economics and nance at the National Institute of Public Finance
and Policy in India (NIPFP); and Ramesh Ramanathan, cofounder, Janaagraha, a not-
for-prot institution focused on urban reforms.
We gained from the inputs provided by Alain Bertaud, former principal urban
planner for the World Bank; Vernon Henderson, professor of economics and urban
studies at Brown University; and Rakesh Mohan, senior advisor to MGI.
Our business advisory committee, including Adi Godrej, chairman of the Godrej
group; K. V. Kamath, non-executive chairman of ICICI Bank; Anand Mahindra, vice
chairman and managing director, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.; Nandan Nilekani,
cofounder and former CEO of Infosys Technologies Ltd.; and Deepak Parekh,
chairman of Housing Development Finance Corporation, provided helpful thoughts
during the course of our work.
We would like to offer special thanks to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation and the National Council of Applied Economic Research in India
(NCAER) for their valuable collaboration. Much of our underlying data sets were
derived from government departments and NCAER. Further we are grateful for the
counsel provided by Dr. Pronab Sen, chief statistician, Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation, and Dr. Rajesh Shukla at NCAER.
We sincerely appreciate the valuable discussions conducted with several central and
state government ofcials: Arun Maira, member of the Planning Commission of India;
M. Ramachandran, secretary of the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD); Kiran
Dhingra, secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA);
P. K. Srivastava and A. K. Mehta, joint secretaries of MoUD; S. K. Singh and Dr.
P. K. Mohanty, joint secretaries, MoHUPA; Manu Srivastava, secretary, Urban
Development, Government of Maharashtra; and Urvinder Madan, project manager of
Mumbai Transformation Support Unit.
6
Richard Dobbs
Director, McKinsey Global Institute
Director, McKinsey & Company, Seoul
Susan Lund
Director of Research,
James Manyika
Director, McKinsey & Company,
San Francisco
Charles Roxburgh
Director, McKinsey & Company, London
April 2010
Shirish Sankhe
Director, McKinsey & Company, Mumbai
Ireena Vittal,
Partner, McKinsey & Company, Mumbai
Adil Zainulbhai
Managing Director, McKinsey &
Company, India
We would also like to thank Narinder Nayar, chairman of Bombay First, Shubhagato
Dasgupta, consultant to the High Powered Expert Committee on Urban
Infrastructure, and Swati Ramanathan, chairperson, India Urban Space Foundation,
for providing us with their valuable perspectives.
This report contributes to MGIs mission to help global leaders understand the
forces transforming the global economy, improve company performance, and work
for better national and international policies. As with all MGI research, we would
like to emphasize that this work is independent and has not been commissioned or
sponsored in any way by any business, government, or other institution.
8
5
times the number by
which GDP will have
multiplied by 2030
590
million people will live
in cities, nearly twice
the population of the
United States today
270
million people net
increase in working-age
population
70
percent of net new
employment will be
generated in cities
91
million urban households
will be middle class, up from
22million today
Opportunity of Indias urbanization to 2030
68
cities will have population of
1million plus, up from 42 today;
Europe has 35 today
$1.2
trillion capital investment is
necessary to meet projected
demand in Indias cities
700900
million square
meters of
commercial and
residential space
needs to be built
or a new Chicago
every year
2.5
billion square meters of roads will
have to be paved, 20 times the
capacity added in the past decade
7,400
kilometers of metros and subways
will need to be constructed
20 times the capacity added in
the past decade
India's urban awakening: Building inclusive cities, sustaining economic growth
11
Executive summary 13
1. Urbanization is critical to Indias development 37
2. Indias current approach will lead to urban decay 53
3. The five building blocks of sustainable urban living in India 61
3.1 Unlocking $1.2 trillion in urban investment 62
3.2 Empowering city administrations 84
3.3 Planning matters 105
3.4 Affordable houses for all 119
3.5 Shaping a land of 6,000 cities 139
4. First steps toward Indias urban awakening 153
Appendix A: Comparing urbanization in China and India 167
Appendix B: Methodology 179
Appendix C:
SustainabilityClimate-change mitigation in urban India 207
Bibliography 213
Contents
12
Executive summary
India is on the move. Economic reform has already unleashed investment and growth,
offering its citizens rich opportunities. Although the Indian economy has been
resilient so far, the key issue now is how to sustain this momentum. Turning around its
cities and releasing their dynamism will be critical to Indias future economic growth.
Unlike many countries that are grappling with aging populations and rising
dependency ratios, India has a young and rapidly growing populationa potential
demographic dividend. But India needs thriving cities if that dividend is to pay out.
New research by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), the economics and business
research arm of McKinsey & Company, estimates that cities could generate 70percent
of net new jobs created to 2030, produce more than 70percent of Indian GDP, and
drive a near fourfold increase in per capita incomes across the nation.
Surging growth and employment in cities will prove a powerful magnet. Indias urban
population grew from the 290million reported in the 2001 Census to an estimated
340million in 2008, and MGI projects that it could soar further to 590million by 2030.
This urban expansion will happen at a speed quite unlike anything India has seen
before. It took nearly 40 years (between 1971 and 2008) for India's urban population
to rise by 230million. It could take only half that time to add the next 250million.
The speed of urbanization poses an unprecedented managerial and policy
challengeyet India has barely engaged in a national discussion about how to handle
this seismic shift in the makeup of the nation. Indeed, India is still debating whether
urbanization is positive or negative and whether the future lies in its villages or cities.
This is a false dichotomyvillages and cities are interdependent and symbiotic.
In fact, the urban economy will provide 85percent of total tax revenue, which will
finance development nationwide. And some 200million rural Indians who live in
proximity of Indias largest 70 cities will directly benefit. But cities themselves are not
just home to the prosperous. Far from it. Some 75percent of urban citizens live in the
bottom income segments, earning an average of 80 rupees (around $1.80) a day.
Addressing life in Indias cities is clearly not an elitist endeavor but rather a central
pillar of inclusive growth.
The cost of not paying attention to Indias cities is enormous. Todays policy vacuum
risks worsening urban decay and gridlock, a declining quality of life for citizens, and
reluctance among investors to commit resources to Indias urban centers. We believe
that the lack of serious policies to manage urbanization could jeopardize even the
7.4percent growth rate we assume in our base case, risking high unemployment (see
box 1, Growth assumptions).
MGI conducted a 21-month-long study to understand Indias urbanization, to identify
what was holding back Indias cities and what policy changes could transform
the situation on the ground. To create a fact base around which to analyze Indias
urbanization, MGI developed an econometric model and nine sector models that use
baseline forecasts of economic growth to understand the implications of urbanization
14
at the national, state, and city levels. We supplemented our modeling with in-depth
analyses of 15 Indian cities and 6 global cities, and engaged in discussions with more
than 100 Indian and international experts, urban economists, and state and local
governments.
This process has produced a set of recommendations, the vast majority of which
India could implement within five to ten years as long as it musters the required
political will.
If India were to implement these recommendations, it could not only transform the
prospects of its cities but also boost nationwide economic growth. Estimating the
impact is not straightforward, but we believe that carrying out the reforms described
in this report has the potential to add as much as 1 to 1.5percent to national annual
GDP growth. This additional growth would bring the nation close to meeting the
aspiration voiced recently by the Prime Minister of achieving double-digit growth.
Box 1. Growth assumptions
MGI assumes an 8.0percent annual GDP growth rate between 2009 and 2018,
stabilizing to 7.0percent between 2018 and 2030. From 2008 to 2030, therefore,
annual GDP growth is an average of 7.4percent. We take this projection from
Oxford Economics. Oxford Economics projections are in the middle range of
analysts estimates, and we regard them as conservative.
India, of course, needs to grow at rates faster than these conservative
assumptions. In fact, MGI noted in its 2001 report India: The growth imperative
that India needs to grow its GDP at close to 10percent a year to create enough
employment for the nations young and growing population. The report argued
that double-digit growth would be possible if India were to push aggressively
to remove barriers in product, land, and labor markets. While India has made
considerable progress, it needs to do more; the case for further reforms remains
as compelling today as it was in 2001.
1
CITIES WILL BE CENTRAL TO INDIAS ECONOMIC FUTURE
Cities already matter to India. By 2008, an estimated 340million people already lived
in urban India, representing nearly 30percent of the total population. Over the next
20 years, urban India will create 70percent of all new jobs in India and these urban
jobs will be twice as productive as equivalent jobs in the rural sector.
As a consequence, MGI projects that the population of Indias cities will increase
from 340million in 2008 to 590million by 203040percent of Indias total population
(Exhibit1). In short, we will witness over the next 20 years an urban transformation the
scale and speed of which has not happened anywhere in the world except in China.
Urbanization will spread out across India, impacting almost every state. For the
first time in Indias history, the nation will have five large states (Tamil Nadu, Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Punjab) that will have more of their population living in
cities than in villages (Exhibit2).
1 For a discussion of economic reform in India, see India: The growth imperative, McKinsey Global
Institute, September 2001, and Accelerating Indias growth through nancial sector reform,
McKinsey Global Institute, May 2006. Both reports are available at www.mckinsey.com.
Exhibit 1
In MGIs base-case scenario, cities are likely to house 40 percent of
Indias population by 2030
290
220
340
2030
590
2008 1991 2001
+250
30 40 26 Urbanization rate
1
%
1,155 1,470 856 Total population
Million
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Urban population
Million
1 Defined as the ratio of urban to total population based on the census definition of urban areas; population >5,000; density
>400 persons per square kilometer; 75 percent of male workers in nonagricultural sectors; and other statutory urban areas.
Exhibit 1
1,040
28
Exhibit 2
Five states are likely to be more than 50 percent urbanized
9
12
18
21
24
24
25
25
28
28
29
31
36
37
44
44
53
Bihar
Himachal Pradesh
Orissa
Uttar Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Rajasthan
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Kerala
West Bengal
Haryana
Punjab
Karnataka
Maharashtra
Gujarat
Tamil Nadu
17
20
24
26
40
33
31
32
46
41
40
45
52
57
58
66
67 35.4
25.2
21.6
7.5
9.7
17.2
15.5
5.8
39.2
7.0
0.8
8.9
47.9
10.0
25.8
23.4
7.6
53.4
48.0
39.6
15.2
15.8
29.9
29.5
11.7
68.9
11.0
1.8
21.3
78.1
19.0
41.5
45.5
12.0
Urbanization rate, 2030
%, total population
Urban
population
Million
%, total population
Urban
population
Million
Exhibit 2
In a global context, the scale of Indias urbanization will be immense. India will have
68 cities with populations of more than 1million, 13 cities with more than 4million
people, and 6 megacities with populations of 10million or more, at least two of which
(Mumbai and Delhi) will be among the five largest cities in the world by 2030 (Exhibit3).
16
Exhibit 3
India will have 68 cities with population of more than 1 million by 2030,
up from 42 today
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; Census 2001; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
52
Tiers 3 and 4
<1 million
Tier 2
1 million4 million
Tier 1
>4 million
2008
340
195
93
Population by tier
Million
2030
590
331
104
155
X Number of cities
9
33
~5,000 ~6,000
55
13 9
4
29
26
~4,970
~1,000
Conversion of
rural villages
Exhibit 3
In terms of both population and GDP, many Indian cities will become larger than many
countries today. For instance, Mumbai Metropolitan Regions GDP is projected to
reach $265billion by 2030, larger than the GDP of many countries today, including
Portugal, Colombia, and Malaysia (Exhibit4).
As Indias cities expand, Indias economic makeup will also change. In 1995, Indias
GDP split almost evenly between its urban and rural economies. In 2008, urban GDP
accounted for 58percent of overall GDP. By 2030, under our base-case economic
projections, MGI estimates that urban India will generate nearly 70percent of Indias
GDP (Exhibit5).
Exhibit 4
Thirteen cities will have a population of more than 4 million
Population in 2030
Million
Per capita GDP, 2030
1
$ thousand
1 2008 prices.
2 National Capital Territory; excludes Noida, Gurgaon, Greater Noida, Faridabad, and Ghaziabad.
265 8.0
296 11.4
169 7.4
73 6.6
127 12.6
76 7.6
67 6.8
68 8.1
53 7.2
24 4.5
37 7.1
15 3.6
35 8.5
GDP, 2030
1
$ billion
4.2
4.2
5.2
5.4
7.4
8.4
9.8
10.0
10.1
11.0
22.9
25.9
33.0
Pune
Kolkata
Delhi (NCT)
2
Mumbai (MMR)
Hyderabad
Bangalore
Vadodara
Kanpur
Nagpur
Jaipur
Surat
Ahmedabad
Chennai
Exhibit 4
Indias fast-growing and relatively productive cities will drive a near fourfold increase
in Indias per capita income between 2008 and 2030 (Exhibit6). The number of
households nationwide earning less than 90,000 rupees per year is projected to
fall below 20percent for the first time in Indias history, while the number of middle-
class households (earning between 200,000 rupees and 1million rupees a year) will
increase more than fourfold from 32million to 147million.
Exhibit 5
Cities will account for nearly 70 percent of Indias GDP by 2030
Share of Indias GDP
%; rupees billion, real 2008
46
54
58
69
54
46
42
31
100% =
Urban
Rural
2030
238,041
2008
49,043
1990
15,903
2001
29,100
Compound annual
growth rate, 200830
%
Share of
growth
%
7.4
5.9
8.3
100
28
72
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Urban India will drive a near fourfold increase in average national income
Per capita disposable income
Rupees thousand, real 2008
Compound annual
growth rate, %
History
GDP growth
Population growth
136
239
67
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Rural
Urban
All India
Projection
5.4
4.3
3.2
6.4
6.1
4.2
6.5%
1.8%
7.4%
1.1%
Exhibit 6
These economic trends will unlock many new growth markets, many of them not
traditionally associated with India, including infrastructure, transportation, health care,
education, and recreation. There will be eye-popping numbers in the infrastructure
sector. For instance, we project that the economy will have to build between 700million
18
and 900million square meters of residential and commercial space a yearequivalent
to adding more than two Mumbais or one Chicago every year. In transportation, our
projections suggest that, to meet urban demand, India needs to build 350 to 400
kilometers of metros and subways every year, more than 20 times the capacity built
of this type by India in the past decade. In addition, between 19,000 and 25,000
kilometers of road lanes would need to be built every year (including lanes for bus-
based rapid transit systems), nearly equivalent to the amount of road lanes that have
been constructed over the past decade.
CITIES WILL ALSO BE CRITICAL FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH
Cities are about more than just higher incomesthey also offer the promise of
a higher quality of life for a larger number of Indians. This is because the scale
benefits provided by citiesin India and around the worldoffer the opportunity
to significantly lower the cost of delivering services such as water and sanitation.
Research indicates that the cost of delivering basic services is 30 to 50percent
cheaper in concentrated population centers than in sparsely populated areas. Given
finite public resources, any potential savings could be vital if the government is to
meet its aspiration for inclusive growth at affordable prices.
Cities are also vital for the funding of development because they generate the lions
share of Indias tax revenuebetween 80 and 85percent.
Moreover, cities have benefits beyond their own boundaries. Our research finds that
some 200million people who live close to cities will benefit because they will enjoy
improved access to jobs, markets, and the urban infrastructure. Rural populations
adjoining large urban centers today have an estimated 10 to 20percent higher
monthly incomes than the rural average.
HOWEVER, INDIAS CURRENT APPROACH TO CITIES COULD
LEAD TO URBAN GRIDLOCK AND DECLINE
Good cities offer a certain quality of life for their citizens and an attractive proposition for
companies. Urban India has attracted investment on the back of strong growth, but is
failing many of its citizens. Across all major quality-of-life indicators, Indias cities fall well
short of delivering even a basic standard of living for their residents (Exhibit7).
Combine this fact with Indias large-scale urbanization and the task is going to become
far more onerous. As the urban population and its incomes increase, demand for every
key service will increase five- to sevenfold in cities of every size and type. And if India
continues to invest in urban infrastructure at its current ratevery low by international
comparisonin 20 years time the urban infrastructure will fall woefully short of what is
necessary to sustain prosperous cities.
Life for the average city dweller in India would become a lot tougher. Water supply
for the average citizen could drop from an average of 105 liters to only 65 liters a day
with a large section of the population having no access to potable water at all. Indias
cities could leave between 70 to 80percent of sewage untreated. While private car
ownership would increase, shortcomings in the transportation infrastructure have the
potential to create urban gridlocksimilar to the acute congestion that cripple some
Latin American cities (Exhibit8).
Exhibit 7
The current performance of Indias cities is poor across
key indicators of quality of life
SOURCE: United Nations; press search; City Development Plans; The Energy and Resources Institute; Planning Commission;
Census 2001; Central Pollution Control Board; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
220
150
105
100 100
30
100 100
72
Water supply quantity
Liters per capita per day
Sewage treated
%, sewage generated
Solid waste collected
%, total waste generated
82
50
30
Share of public transportation
%, total trips
0 0
24
Slum population
%, total population in cities
2.7
16
9
Parks and open space
Square meters per capita
Current
Basic service standard
Best in class
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Gap rises 4x to
82 million tons per
annum
Gap triples to
6,400 kilometers
Gap doubles to
109 billion liters
per day
Gap rises 2x to
440,000 lane
kilometers
Gap increases
3.5x to 94 billion
liters per day
Gap rises to
38 million units
On current trends, quality of urban services will deteriorate
quite sharply by 2030
95
56
189
83
Supply
Basic service demand
SOURCE: United Nations; Handbook of benchmarks, Ministry of Urban Development; W. Smith, Transportation Policies and
Strategies in Urban India; National Council for Applied Economic Research; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Water supply
Billion liters per day
Sewage
Solid waste
Million tons per annum
2007 2030
42
13
151
66
295
51
377
71
540
430
980
640
Private transportation
Thousand lane kilometers
Rail-based mass-transit
Directional route kilometers,
kilometers
Affordable housing
Demand for houses, million units
2007 2030
990
3,000
1,990
8,400
12.0
5.0
50.0
30.0
Exhibit 8
INDIAN CITIES NEED $1.2 TRILLION OF ADDITIONAL
CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY 2030
Unless it dramatically steps up its construction of the urban infrastructure needed, India
will not be able to bridge the gap between demand for services and their provision. In
per capita terms, Indias annual capital spending of $17 is only 14percent of Chinas
$116 and 4percent of United Kingdom's $391. We estimate that India needs to invest
$1.2 trillion (53.1 trillion rupees) just in capital expenditure in its cities over the next
20 years, equivalent to $134 per capita per year. Thats almost eight times the level of
spending today in per capita terms and represents an increase in urban infrastructure
20
spending from an average of 0.5percent of GDP today to 2percent annually. We estimate
that more than half of the capital investment is necessary to erase Indias infrastructure
backlog and the rest to fund cities future needs. Transportation and affordable housing
stand out as the two most capital-intensive sectors (Exhibit9). The challenge for India
will be to ramp up investment in line with economic growth. One trajectory would involve
annual spending of around $30billion through 2015, ratcheting up to $60billion a year by
2020, and $90billion annually by 2030.
Capital requirements, of course, vary according to the size of city. Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities
would need capital spending of more than $200 per capita per annum (Exhibit10).
Exhibit 9
Indian cities need capital expenditure of $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years,
equivalent to $134 per capita per annum
SOURCE: India Urbanization Funding Model; Detailed Project Reports from the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal
Mission; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
199
392
395
1,040
2,222
1,182
96
OpEx
2
CapEx
2
Mass
transit
Total
spend-
ing
Afford-
able
housing
1
Urban
roads
Solid
waste
32
Storm-
water
drains
Water
53
Sewage
15
Funding requirement for urban sectors, 201030
$ billion, real 2008
1 Net of beneficiary contribution.
2 CapEx = capital expenditure; OpEx = operational expenditure.
Exhibit 9
134 116 250
X
$ per capita
per annum
Exhibit 10
Large Tier 1 and 2 cities require per capita investment
exceeding $200
35
41
51
58
Ahmedabad
Hyderabad
Chennai
Bangalore
109
Delhi (NCT) 135
Mumbai 220
Kolkata
SOURCE: India Urbanization Funding Model; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
8 Patna
Nagpur
34
16
Vadodara 17
Lucknow 17
Jaipur 20
Surat 22
Pune
X
$ per capita
per annum
Total CapEx requirement, 201030
$ billion, 2008 prices
367
270
292
267
255
235
186
202
263
165
153
262
246
246
Exhibit 10
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE SUGGESTS IT IS POSSIBLE TO
TURN CITIES AROUND IN ONE DECADE
India of course has to chart its own journey. But there are nuts-and-bolts lessons
that it can learn from other countries and cities around the world that have faced
similar challenges. Many countries, including the United Kingdom, South Africa,
and China, have turned around their cities in as little as ten years. Our study of how
different countries and cities have approached their urban development shows that
five dimensions are important. These are funding, governance, planning, sectoral
policies, and shape (Exhibit11).
Exhibit 11
Indias urban operating model should focus on five elements
SOURCE: McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Elements of operating model
2. Governance
Who will lead and
be accountable?
4. Sector policies
Economic growth
Affordable housing
Environmental
sustainability
Transportation
3. Planning
How will cities
make and enforce
land and space
choices?
5. Shape
How will the
countrys
population be
distributed?
1. Funding
Where will resources
come from?
Exhibit 11
Funding. Sufficient resources for investment to build services for citizens,
preferably anticipating demand rather than playing constant catch-up as we
see in India, are the bedrock of successful cities. In countries around the world,
governments have devised mechanisms to ensure cities have reliable access to
funds, internally generated and externally supported. In developed countries,
governments have created transparent, formula-based mechanisms (rather than
ad-hoc mechanisms as in India) to fund their cities. In the United Kingdom, 70 to
80percent of city revenues come from central government grants based on a
formula (equivalent to $15billion per year for London excluding spending on social
services), but these funds are contingent on achieving certain service outcomes
for citizens. In South Africa, central government funds 40 to 50percent of urban
infrastructure investments in large cities and 60 to 70percent in smaller cities
through grants and loans. Developing countries have used land monetization
and debt quite extensively to fund its urban infrastructure. China, for example,
has given its cities the freedom to raise substantial investment resources by
monetizing land assets and also retaining a 25percent share of value-added
taxes (equivalent to $4.5billion per year for Shanghai). China has also converted
many of its big projects into special-purpose vehicles (SPV) to access the debt
market. With some exceptions, India has barely utilized these sources of funding.
Governance. Choices that cities make on leadership and management are
a second vital component. The most successful governance is a devolved
model that empowers local leaders but holds them accountable. Within a
22
parliamentary democracy, the United Kingdom created an empowered, directly
elected mayor of London who sets policies and executes operations through
corporatized agencies such as Transport for London. South Africa consolidated
previously independent municipalities of Johannesburg into a single metropolitan
government under a mayor supported by a professional city manager. Chinas
major cities have powerful political appointees as mayors and use focused
SPVs, as in the case of Shanghais water supply, to build and run the urban
infrastructure.
Planning. Effective and systematic urban planning has been part of the fabric
of successful cities for decades. Planning is important to allow cities to make
informed trade-offs on their use of scarce resources such as land. London
micro-plans every aspect of the citys urban space through a cascaded system.
A metropolitan master plan sets out the overall strategy for the economy, mass
transit, and affordable housing, for instance, which is then applied in detail at
the borough level. For example, London plans 20 years in advance how to deal
with peak morning traffic. China, too, has a mature urban planning regime that
emphasizes the systematic redevelopment of run-down areas in a way that is
consistent with long-range plans for land use and transportation. In all these
cities, the head of urban planning is a coveted, high-level position generally
directly reporting to the mayor.
Sectoral policies in job creation, public transportation, affordable housing,
and climate-change mitigation. Great cities invest effort in designing policies
for the most important sectors that influence the citys economy and quality
of life. For example, affordable housing for low-income groups is an important
consideration in most cities. Planning mandates in the United Kingdom have
generated 20 to 25percent of all affordable units built over the last decade. South
Africa provides free land for houses for its poorest income groups. Singapore
provides public housing for more than 80percent of its population through a
dedicated Housing Development Board, using land monetization and interest-
rate subsidies to make affordability work. Great cities also invest a great deal of
attention in facilitating community networks that foster innovation and drive the
soul and ethos of the city.
Shape. Most countries in the world have had the luxury of urbanizing organically
through history and have ended up with different portfolios and distributions
of cities. In Germany, for instance, a large number of small and medium-sized
cities have grown up in parallel, reflecting Germanys federal structure. We
have seen the same in India. China is exceptional in that it consciously fostered
a concentrated pattern of urban expansion initially with the development of
its dynamic coastal cities. India can proactively shape the overall portfolio of
cities in a way that optimizes their economic contributions, investment and land
requirements, and the objective of regional equity.
INDIA NEEDS TO CREATE ITS OWN CITY TRANSFORMATION
MODEL ACROSS THESE FIVE AREAS
On all five dimensions of urban management, Indias record thus far is weak. At root,
Indias policy makers simply have not acknowledged the importance of an engaged
and activist approach to its citiesand the neglect shows. This report makes concrete
suggestions in all five areas, most of which we would argue that India can implement
within the next five to ten years and thereby transform the prospects of its cities:
1. Funding: Unlock $2.2 trillion in new urban infrastructure investments,
including $1.2 trillion in capital expenditure. India needs to invest around
53trillion rupees ($1.2 trillion) in urban infrastructure capital over the next 20 years,
an increase from 765 rupees per capita ($17) to 6,030 rupees per capita ($134) per
year. Indias annual spending would therefore need to increase nearly eightfold
on a per capita basis. The challenge of bridging this gap is tough but doable
(Exhibit12). Consistent with the international examples we have mentioned, we
see four sources of funding that India should tap into, to a far greater extent than
today: Monetizing land assets; collecting higher property taxes, and user charges
that reflect costs; debt and public-private partnerships (PPPs); and formula-
based government funding. Contrary to popular thinking, the largest Indian cities
can generate 80 to 85percent of the funding they require from internal sources
(Exhibit13). One example of what can be done in a large city is the metropolitan
development authority in Mumbai, which plans to spend 1 trillion rupees
($22billion) over the next five years on infrastructure essentially by leveraging land
sales in the Bandra Kurla area and through PPPs. However, internal funding alone
will not be enough, even in large cities. The rest has to come from the central and
state governments based on a systematic formula rather than ad-hoc grants.
For large cities with deep economies, this might mean allowing them to retain
18 to 20percent of goods and services tax (GST) revenues. This is consistent
with the 13th Central Finance Commissions (CFC) assessment that GST, a
consumption-based tax that creates local incentives for growth, is well suited for
direct allocation to the third tier of government. In fact, the CFC has already given
legitimacy to direct allocation by approving 4,700 crore rupees (around $1billion)
in annual grants to cities. For smaller cities (Tiers 3 and 4), however, a better
options would be to give guaranteed annual grants totaling an estimated $20 per
capita until their economies reach scale.
24
Exhibit 12
India needs to access four key extra funding streams to pay for urbanization
$ per capita per annum, real 2008
Capital expenditure Operating expenditure
134
127
43
26
58
CapEx
required
Total
CapEx
20% GST
transfer
1
Debt
and
PPP
Monetizing
land
116
112
76
36
OpEx
required
Total
OpEx
User
charges
Property
tax
1 Goods and services tax.
Exhibit 12
4 1 2 3
Exhibit 13
Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities can generate 80 to 85 percent of their
funding needs internally
SOURCE: India Urbanization Funding Model; City Development Plans; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Funding requirement and internal potential
$ per capita, real 2008
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tiers 3 and 4
222
288
447
Internal
generation
Required
510
-12%
82
133
171
Internal
generation
Required
215
-20%
58
96
81
Internal
generation
Required
154
-47%
Exhibit 13
CapEx
OpEx
2. Governance: Empower city administrations (municipal and metropolitan) and
modernize service delivery structures. In 2030, Indias largest cities will be bigger
than many major countries today. But Indias governance of cities is muddled and
ineffective and nowhere near ready to face this challenge. As an example, Indias large
cities are still governed by bureaucrats who can be transferred out of office at short
notice. This is clearly untenable. This arrangement is in sharp contrast to large cities
elsewhere that have empowered mayors with long tenures and clear accountability
for the citys performance (Exhibit14). There are good examples within India, too.
Delhi has quasi-statehood status. Kolkata's modified mayor-commissioner model
provides a good starting point for reforming municipal structures in India with its
combination of an empowered political executive and administrative support from
a technocrat. In the medium to long term, metropolitan authorities should be led by
directly elected mayors. In addition to accountable and empowered mayors for its
cities, India needs to clearly define the relative roles of its metropolitan and municipal
structures for an estimated 20 metropolitan areas. Very few cities in the country
have functioning metropolitan authorities. With cities growing beyond municipal
boundaries, we contend that having fully formed metropolitan authorities with clearly
defined roles is absolutely essential for the successful management of large cities
in India (Exhibit15). And Indian cities need to rethink how they deliver services to
their citizens. Currently, cities deliver services through archaic and bureaucratic
departments. India must move to corporatized agencies (BEST, Mumbais bus and
electricity agency is one such example) that have specialized internal skills and the
ability to make quick decisions. The ability of these agencies to tap selectively into
private-sector expertise through public-private partnerships will represent an equally
compelling opportunity to improve services and introduce more transparency
in delivery. Candidates for such partnerships include waste collection, water
distribution, and operations of selected public transportation routes where public-
private partnerships can account for as much as 30 to 40percent of operations
and maintenance budgets in large cities. Last, India needs to build technical and
managerial depth in its city administrations. In the Indian Civil Services, India has a
benchmark for how to build a dedicated cadre for governance. India now needs to
create an equivalent cadre for cities, as well as allow for lateral entry of private-sector
executives.
Exhibit 14
India is among a small group of countries that do not have
elected executives for their large metropolitan areas
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
19
20
20
21
24
24
24
31
Seoul
Jakarta
Los Angeles
Moscow
Cairo
Delhi
Osaka
Kolkata
Sao Paulo
New York
Mumbai
Tokyo
Mexico City
Shanghai
Manila
Presidential
Presidential
Parliamentary
Presidential
Communist
Parliamentary
Presidential
Semi-presidential
Presidential
Presidential
SOURCE: www.citymayors.com; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Elected or
empowered mayor
Rank City 2010 population, million
Nature of national
political system
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Metropolitan
leaders
Parliamentary
Parliamentary
Parliamentary
Presidential
Presidential
Exhibit 14
26
Exhibit 15
India can adopt a mixed model of governance at
the metropolitan and local level
Departments
Corporatized agencies
Municipal level
Metropolitan level
Directly elected metropolitan
mayor in medium term
Metropolitan Planning Committee
Economic
development
Regional
planning
Transport Housing Public
Health
Education Environment
Mayor
Mayor-in-Council
Executive Committee
Mayor elected by
councillors for a
five-year period
Executive responsibility
with Mayor
Housing Transport Water
supply and
sewage
Solid-waste
management
Planning Health care Education
Board
Gen. Mgr.
Agency
Metropolitan Commissioner
Municipal Commissioner
Exhibit 15
3. Planning: Overhaul metropolitan and municipal plans, planning systems
and planning capabilities. Indias planning is in a very poor state. On paper,
India does have urban plansbut they are esoteric rather than practical, rarely
followed, and riddled with exemptions. For example, no city in India has a proper
2030 transportation master plan, nor has any of them allocated enough space
and appropriate zoning for affordable houses. India needs to make urban
planning a core, respected function, investing in skilled people, rigorous fact
base, and innovative urban form. Putting this right should not be difficult. This
can be done through a cascaded planning structure in which large cities have
40-year and 20-year plans at the metropolitan level that are binding on municipal
development plans (Exhibit16). Central to planning in any city is the optimal
allocation of space, especially land use and Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
2
planning. Both
should focus on linking public transportation with zoning for affordable houses
for low-income groups. These plans need to be detailed, comprehensive, and
enforceable, and exemptions should be rare rather than the norm. By revamping
its planning system in this way, India could save more than 6million hectares of
potentially arable land over the next 20 years (Exhibit17).
2 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of building oor space to the land area the building occupies.
Exhibit 16
India should consider a cascaded planning system
40-year socioeconomic and population forecasts
Economic development strategy
High-level land use
Major transit projects
Plan content
20-year socioeconomic forecasts
Broad ward-level land-use plan and FAR
including areas for regeneration and greenfield
expansion
Key projects and policies with a sequencing and
funding plan in
Metropolitan transportation
Affordable housing
Education and health care
Environment and climate-change mitigation
20-year detailed plot-level land-use plan
Key projects and policies including
sequencing and funding plan in
Local transportation
Water, sewage, solid waste, storm-water
drains
Urban form and design norms
Metropolitan
Planning
Committee
Metropolitan
Authority
Technical
Planning
Board
Planning
Department
Municipality
Technical
Planning
Board
Planning
Department
Concept plan
Master plan
Development
plan
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
India could potentially save 6.2 million hectares of potentially arable land
through effective planning for land use
12.4
18.6
7.5
2007 Poor land-
use planning
Effective land-
use planning
-6.2
Effective land-use planning,
especially in central
business districts and
transit corridors, can
potentially mitigate loss of
arable land
Demand for urban land
Million hectares
2030
Exhibit 17
4. Sector policies: Craft policies for key urban sectors, especially affordable
housing for low-income groups and environmental sustainability. All good
cities craft policies in four critical areas: job creation, affordable housing for low-
income groups, public transportation, and, of late, climate-change mitigation.
India has largely failed to embrace the need for this dedicated policy attention
within cities. We highlight two such sectors in this report: Affordable housing and
climate-change mitigation. Affordable housing is a particularly critical concern for
low-income groups; in the absence of a viable model that caters to their needs,
India will see the continued proliferation of slums across the country. India faces
28
the mammoth task of providing affordable homes to an estimated 38million
households by 2030 who will not be able to afford a market-priced house. No
other country has provided affordable housing on this scale. And, given Indias
current stage of household income, affordability itself is a major issue (Exhibit18).
Nevertheless, MGIs analysis suggests that India can meet the challenge through
a set of policies and incentives that can bridge the gap between price and
affordability (Exhibit19). This will enable a sustainable and economically viable
affordable housing model for both government housing agencies and private
developers. MGIs detailed analyses show that a combination of higher FAR of up
to 1 on land, an infrastructure grant to the municipal body, and interest subsidies
can together create a surge in affordable housing stock. India also needs to
encourage rental housing as an option particularly for the poorest of the poor, who
may not be able to afford a home even with these incentives. MGI recommends
that 30percent of all affordable housing should be available to rent. Other
potentially useful measures could include a favorable tax regime and a national
mortgage guarantee fund. If India adopts a broad swath of such measures, it
could significantly step up the building of affordable housing as much as ten
times, to 2million units a year (Exhibit20). Similar policies need to be crafted for
jobs and public transportation.
Exhibit 18
Affordability is an acute problem among the lower and
middle-income groups
Income
Segment,
Rupees
thousand
Residential space
demand per
household
Square feet
Affordability of demand
Rupees thousand
Deprived
<90
Aspirers
90200
Seekers
200500
Strivers
5001,000
Globals
>1,000
TIER 2 EXAMPLE (2010)
2,730
1,110
465
90
3,140
2,660
1,600
960
440
7,430
Market cost
Affordability
1,650
1,400
1,000
600
275
Affordability
gap
%
SOURCE: India Urbanization Affordable Housing Model; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
80
50
30
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
A combination of incentives and subsidies can bridge the
affordability gap
Rupees thousand
330
260
50
40 90
130
110
Construc
-tion cost
Infra-
structure
cost
Maximum
affordable
for deprived
household
Interest
subsidy of 5
and 7% for 20
years
Net cost Capital grant Additional FAR
of up to 1 with
5% commercial
area; 25% area
reserved for
affordable
housing
Market cost
(275-square-
foot house)
440
Impact of incentives and subsidies
TIER 2 EXAMPLE
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
3.1
3.3
3.7
11.4
1.3
Redevelop-
ment of slums
4.3
3.0
7.8
11.1
Owner-
ship
Rental
Affordable housing
demand 201030
37.9
26.5
Redevelop-
ment of slums
12.3
8.6
Creation of new
affordable stock
Creation of new
affordable stock
10.2
7.1
With these measures, private sector and direct government construction
can trigger a surge in affordable housing stock
Million households
Cross-subsidized by market Direct government construction
40 60
% of
demand
Exhibit 20
5. Shape: Shape the distributed urbanization portfolio through focused
approaches to different tiers of cities and fostering inter city connectivity.
Urban India today is distributed in shapewith a diverse range of large and
small cities spread widely around the nation. India should continue to aim for
a distributed model of urbanization because this suits its federal structure and
helps to ensure that migration flows are not unbalanced toward any particular
city or cities. However, India should proactively shape its portfolio by taking
four actions. First, India should invest in its Tier 1 cities (e.g., Mumbai, Delhi, and
30
Chennai) and large Tier 2 cities (e.g., Patna, Coimbatore, and Cuttack) so that they
can outperform the national growth average as Chinas largest cities have done.
Pre-investing in emerging Tier 2 cities also makes sense so that, as these cities
expand, they do not emulate the trajectory of urban decay of todays Tier 1 cities.
Second, India should single out, and build on, its existing specialist cities excelling
in sectors such as tourism and manufacturing (e.g., Agra and Durgapur), as they
contribute disproportionately to job creation and taxes. Third, India should ensure
that services in Tier 3 and 4 cities, that have posted growth of more than 7percent
despite receiving only $12 per capita in investments in recent years, are brought
up to a basic standard (Exhibit21). Fourth, India should think selectively about
new cities. MGI research concludes that India could build at least 25 new satellite
cities near todays largest Tier 1 and 2 cities to accommodate populations in each
of up to 1million people. Although building new cities is generally more expensive
(on a per capita basis) than renewing existing cities, such an effort will act as a
benchmark and a model for well-planned, environmentally sustainable world-
class cities while helping ease some of the strains of rapid urbanization.
Exhibit 21
Smaller cities have historically posted robust growth despite receiving little
funding support while larger cities need to deliver more
12
38
130
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tiers 3
and 4
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; City Development Plans; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
7.5
8.4
8.3
11.3
14.7
16.4
Municipal spending
$ per capita per annum
Tier growth rates
%
India 19992006 China 200006
Exhibit 21
URBAN REFORM NEEDS POLITICAL WILL, VOCAL CITIZENS, AND
THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR
India is in a state of deep inertia about the urgency and scale of urban reform. Despite
the perilous state of many Indian cities, there seems to be comfort with the status
quo, resistance to change, and a lack of recognition of the urgent need for change.
With the 74th Amendment to Indias constitution and the Jawaharlal Nehru
National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), India took the first steps toward urban
reforms. However, this is not enough. Our recommendations (see box 2, Summary
of recommendations) attempt to translate the intent and spirit of the amendment
into the next generation of reforms that can help local governments to improve how
they function.
To make this happen, MGI contends that the central government has to play a
catalytic role. This is despite the fact, according to Indias constitution, urban affairs
are in the realm of the state governmentsand they have historically been reluctant
to give up powers to cities. Without a political push from the central government
accompanied by a supporting package of incentives, change is unlikely to happen.
One way to make a start is to substantially strengthen and modify the JNNURM by
considering three changes. First, the central government should triple its annual
funding for the JNNURM to 30,000 crore rupees ($6.7billion) to give more funding
to its current list of cities and also create a special allocation for Tier 3 and 4 cities.
Second, using this increased funding, the JNNURM should create an incentive fund
of around 8,000 crore rupees ($1.7billion) for states that are willing to undertake the
next generation of urban reforms. Our discussions indicated that several cities and
states are ready for this. Third, while the JNNURM has had some success in building
physical capacity, it needs to invest more in financial and human capacity. Many
states and cities have been unable to leverage available funds or implement reforms
because of a lack of local capacity and technical expertise. The central government
can help by creating specialist teams to assist state and city governments, creating
regional centers of excellence, and championing three to four large-scale urban
management institutes. These initiatives could be funded through an allocation of
2,000 crore rupees ($0.4billion) within JNNURM.
Additionally, the central government should allocate 15,000 crore rupees annually
($3.3billion) to the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY), aimed at making India slum-free and
currently being considered by the central government, for low-income affordable
housing and the eradication of slums.
States and cities should not wait for such change. Progressive chief ministers and
city leaders should recognize that starting early on the urban transformation will
give them competitive advantage, attract investment, and create jobsgetting
them ahead of the curve. For such states, one approach to urban reform would be
to immediately create an enabling framework for funding, planning, and governance
elements of the operating model we have described, and then to apply the reforms in
stages starting with a few cities at a time.
Citizens will also have a critical role to play. Residents of Indias cities need to
understand the complexity of the urban transformation and gain a perspective on the
actions available to them to create real results on the ground. The focus of citizens
needs to shift from small, reactive, noninstitutional demands to a call for fundamental
institutional change. They need to stop asking their political leaders just to fix the
roads and instead also ask them to fix the institutions that fix the roads.
Finally, for any private institution whose interests are linked with Indias economic
future, this is a topic of vital importance. The ability of cities to create thriving living
conditions, facilitate networks that foster innovation, and create the basis for
attracting talent will be crucial to the ability of private companies to house themselves
in productive settings that trigger growth. As investors, companies therefore have
an obligation to demand urban transformation as a prerequisite for investmentand
32
lobby a great deal more vigorously than they have in the past to drive change. At
the same time, they can help transform Indias urban landscape by bringing their
expertise and capacity to execute the opportunities unlocked by reforms.
* * *
It is easy to be skeptical about Indias ability to transform its cities. But we are
optimistic that it can be done. The recent past shows that once India engages in a
national discussion, as it did on economic reforms, action soon follows. The same
now urgently needs to happen in the case of urban reform. Nothing less than the
sustainability and inclusiveness of Indias economic growth are at stake.
33
Box 2. Summary of recommendations
1. Funding
Spend $2.2 trillion in cities over the next 20 years, including $1.2 trillion in
capital investment (eightfold increase in spending from $17 per capita per
year today to $134)
Make Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities near self-sufficient (around 80 to 85percent)
through monetizing land assets, maximizing property tax collections,
recovering O&M costs through user charges, and pushing for greater
leveraging of debt and private participation
Create a sufficiently funded grant system from state and central
governments by tripling annual JNNURM allocation in the short term and
sharing 18 to 20percent of GST with cities in the medium term
Give an additional support to weaker Tier 3 and 4 cities from the central and
state governments of at least $20 per capita per year
Distribute government grant and land revenues equally between municipal
and metropolitan authorities
Create the enabling mechanisms such as a ring-fenced city development
fund, an effective accounting system and a vibrant municipal bond market
2. Governance
Devolve real power to cities by implementing the 74th constitutional
Amendment in full
Institutionalize metropolitan structures for at least 20 urban agglomerations
with multiple municipalities
Implement the modified mayor-commissioner system in at least 35 to
40cities
Allow for directly elected mayor for metropolitan areas in the medium term;
rely on metropolitan authorities in the short term under the Metropolitan
Planning Committee (MPC)
Modernize service delivery structures, including corporatization of select
municipal functions and leveraging targeted private-sector participation
Improve local government capacity through creating a new city cadre and
allowing lateral hires from the private sector
Drive transparency and accountability in city government through city
charters, MOUs between mayors and agencies, and through a state-level
urban regulator
34
3. Planning
Devolve the planning function to local governments by empowering MPCs
to create statutory metropolitan plans and transferring local urban planning
powers to municipalities
Execute an integrated, cascaded planning system consisting of 20-year
master plans at metropolitan and municipal levels containing calculations of
predicted population, GDP, required transportation, affordable housing and
other urban infrastructure as well as land use and FAR norms
Create well-resourced planning organizations at metropolitan and municipal
levels and innovate with latest planning technologies and models
Create tight execution and enforcement mechanisms for city plans with a
transparent system for exemptions and sufficient public participation
Build sufficient urban planning capacity by building six to eight world-class
urban-planning institutes to train 3,000 to 4,000 planners annually
4. Sectoral policies: Affordable housing and climate-change mitigation
Affordable housing
Encourage metropolitan governments and municipalities to plan for
affordable housing and allocate land dedicated for this purpose
Mandate 25percent area for affordable houses in new developments above
an acre, with associated incentives
Offer a basket of incentives (additional FAR of up to 1, capital grant, utilization
of 5percent incentive area for commercial use, interest rate subsidies and
favorable tax regime) to developers and state housing boards to trigger new
affordable units and slum redevelopment
Create flexible affordable housing solutions with 30percent rentals and 5 to
10percent dormitories
Create a national mortgage guarantee fund to spur lending to low-income
groups with an initial corpus of 15billion rupees and capital adequacy ratio
of 12 to 15percent
Consider creating a corporatized agency for affordable housing within
metropolitan authorities and rental management companies to operate and
maintain rental stock
Climate-change mitigation
Reduce vehicle emissions by nearly 100million tonnes of CO
2
equivalent
through greater use of public transportation, improving vehicle efficiency,
and use of electric vehicles
Reduce emissions by nearly 310million tonnes CO
2
e by reducing energy
consumption in buildings, appliances, lamps and street lights
Improve city design to develop energy-efficient clusters to abate nearly
30million tonnes CO
2
e
5. Shape
Facilitate distributed urbanization
Renew Tier 1 cities through a substantial new capital investment program of
$288 per capita annually
Preemptively shape the trajectory of the largest Tier 2 cities, through $133
per capita investments a year
Nurture top 100 specialist cities focused on sectors such as tourism and
manufacturing through a capital investment program of $96 per capita a
year
Raise the quality of life to at least a basic standard in smaller Tier 3 and 4
cities through minimum government support of $20 per capita per year
Facilitate 20 to 25 new cities near the largest 20 metropolitan areas
by providing adequate infrastructure such as water, electricity, and
transportation links
Seed future urbanization by building 19 transportation corridors linking Tier
1 and Tier 2 cities
36
Indian cities matter todaythey are home to an estimated 340million people, or
30percent of the population. And cities will become even more important by 2030,
when an estimated 590million people, or 40percent of the population, are likely to be
living in them. Already today urban India is a microcosm of the nation, home to a rich
variety of communities, professions, and income classes.
Every major industrialized country in the world has experienced a shift over time from
a largely rural, agrarian-dwelling population to one that lives in urban, nonagricultural
centers. India will be no different. However, Indias urbanization will be on a scale that,
outside of China, is unprecedented. By 2030, MGI expects 250million more people
to live in Indias cities, the fastest addition to an urban population of any country in
history outside of China (see box 3, "Indias definition of 'urban').
dependency ratios, India has a young and rapidly growing population. We estimate
that 180million new job seekers will enter Indias workforce over the next two
decadesa potential demographic dividend. But India needs thriving cities if that
dividend is to pay out. In our base case, with an estimate of annual GDP growth
of 7.4percent, between 2008 and 2030, cities will account for 70percent of the
170million net new jobs created to 2030, account for more than 70percent of GDP,
and drive a fourfold increase in per capita incomes across the nation.
Despite the fact that Indias urbanization is already under way and will continue
unabated, and that it offers undoubted economic benefits, India has not really
engaged with the reality of its urban future. Worse, some even debate whether
Indias future prosperity and community rest with its villages or its towns and many
people are suspicious that urbanization is anti-rural. But that is a false dichotomy. In
this chapter, we will show that cities and villages are interdependent and symbiotic.
The urban economy will provide the more productive nonagricultural jobs that are
important for an eventual increase in agricultural productivity and income. The urban
economy will also provide 85percent of total tax revenue, benefit 200million rural
Indians who live in proximity of the 70 largest cities in the country, and be perhaps the
most cost-effective vehicle to expand access to basic services. The fate of Indias
villages and its cities are closely intertwined.
Box 3. Indias definition of urban
There is no international consensus about what constitutes urban, and definitions
vary widely among countries. MGI finds that every jurisdictional authority around
the world uses one of four definitions: (1) a definition that is strictly administrative
and classifies urbanization by geographic zones or administrative centers (e.g.,
Brazil); (2) a definition based on both administrative and density criteria (e.g., China);
(3) a definition based on the size of city population (e.g., the United States); and (4) a
definition combining size and economicsi.e., apercentage of a citys population
needs to be involved in defined economic activities (e.g., Japan).
1. Urbanization is critical to
Indias development
38
India uses a combination of population, density, and employment thresholds.
India classifies as urban an area with a population of more than 5,000, a density
exceeding 400 persons per square kilometer, and 75percent of its male workers
in a nonagricultural profession. Of course, state governments have the flexibility
to declare an area as an urban territory for administrative purposes.
There are many experts in India and internationally who believe that Indias urban
population today is understated, that the actual population in cities is higher than
340million, and that India still categorizes many urban areas as rural. Irrespective
of these views, the estimates in this report are based on Indias definition of urban
areas, and the starting point is the official tally on urban population.
CITIES ALREADY MATTER IN INDIA
Economic growth and urbanization have moved in parallel. India already has one of
the largest urban populations in the world with the residents of Indias cities reflecting
the countrys diversity.
Economic growth and urbanization have gone hand in hand to date
Since 1931, the proportion of India that lives in cities has grown gradually. However,
in the past decade the story has really started to change, with urbanization ticking
upward in line with economic growth (Exhibit1.1). This is consistent with the pattern
seen around the world (see box 4, Urbanization has gone hand in hand with
economic growth around the world). It is no surprise that states that have had the
fastest economic growth have also had the highest rates of urbanization (Exhibit1.2).
Exhibit 1.1
Indias urbanization has trended upward in recent times
1 Calculated as rate of urban population growth divided by rate of overall population growth.
GDP growth
Compound annual
growth rate,%
5.2 6.1
Relative urban population growth
1
%
7.7
Exhibit 1.1
200108
158
19912001
140
198191
146
Exhibit 1.2
Fastest-growing states also had the highest urbanization rates
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
GDP 19902008
Compound annual growth rate, %
Urbanization, 2008
%
Pondicherry
Delhi
Himachal
Pradesh
Jammu
& Kashmir
Uttaranchal
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Orissa
North East
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
Punjab
Haryana
Rajasthan
Kerala
Karnataka
Tamil Nadu
Gujarat
Andhra Pradesh
West
Bengal
Uttar
Pradesh
Maharashtra
GDP 2008,
2008 prices
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model
Exhibit 1.2
Box 4. Urbanization has gone hand in hand with economic growth
around the world
Every major country in the world has, over time, experienced a shift in its
population from largely rural, agrarian dwelling to life in urban, nonagricultural
centers. The pace of this transition has varied from country to countrybut the
process has been inexorable and irreversible (Exhibit1.3).
The key reason for this relationship between GDP growth and urbanization is that
the increased density of urban populations produces scale benefits that boost
productivity, which in turn enhances growtha virtuous cycle.
Exhibit 1.3
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Per capita GDP
$, 2001
Urbanization rate
%
Urbanization is an inevitable part of a countrys economic evolution
Note: Definitions of urbanization states differ across countries.
SOURCE: World Development Indicators; EU KLEMS database; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
United States
(17902006)
United Kingdom
(19602006)
Italy
(19602006)
South Korea
(19602006)
China
(19602010)
Exhibit 1.3
40
Indias cities are home to 340 million people, representing every
section of Indias society
More Indians now live in cities than ever beforean urban population that is the
second largest in the world. Indias urban population grew from the 290million
reported in the 2001 Census to an estimated 340million in 2008, representing
nearly 30percent of Indias total population. The population of todays Indian cities
is a microcosm of the nation as a wholea rich mix of communities, cultures,
professions, and income classes from the most deprived sections of society
to a middle-class majority that is at the heart of Indias social and economic
transformation. In fact, some 75percent of urban citizens are in the bottom income
segments, earning an average of 80 rupees (around $1.80) a day (Exhibit1.4). And
contrary to popular belief, migration accounts for only a smallpercentage of the
increase in urban population (see box 5, Historically, organic growth rather than
migration has driven Indias urban population growth).
Exhibit 1.4
Cities are representative of India, with 75 percent of the urban population
concentrated in the bottom two income brackets
Strivers
5001,000
Seekers
200500
Aspirers
90200
Deprived
<90
Globals
>1,000
2.8
77.7
152.2
101.7
6.5
Population in income buckets in 2008
Million
Household income brackets
Thousand rupees, real 2000
Exhibit 1.4
Box 5. Historically, organic growth rather than migration has
driven Indias urban population growth
Migration data in India has historically been hard to compile, but the data that
are available show a pattern in which most of the growth in urban India has come
from organic growth in city populations, together with the reclassification of
rural areas and the expansion of city boundaries. Only around 20percent of the
increase in urban population is driven by direct migration (Exhibit1.5). Surveys
indicate that this migration is predominantly within districts and within states and
that only 20 to 25percent of migration is across state boundaries.
Exhibit 1.5
Natural growth is the biggest driver of urban population growth
SOURCE: NSSO and census migration data; Mitra and Murayama, Rural to Urban Migration: A District-Level Analysis for India;
McKinsey Global Institute analysis
65
51
61
59
19
20
22
21
14
8 13
14 15
9
6
Organic
Migration
New towns
Expansion of
boundaries
198190
62
197180
49
196170
22
3
19912001
100% =
70
Breakdown of incremental urban population
Million
Exhibit 1.5
CITIES WILL BE CENTRAL TO INDIAS ECONOMIC FUTURE
Growing urban jobs will be core to Indias future, productivity, and economic growth
and will be the driver behind accelerating urbanization.
New job growth will drive Indias urbanization
dependency ratios, India has a young and rapidly growing populationa potential
demographic dividend. India will have the largest growing workforce for the next 20
years, as 270million Indians will join the net working-age population between now
and 2030. Finding jobs for all these new workers is the countrys great challenge
and a major part of the answer probably lies in urban India.
Sectoral policies and new investment will be necessary to create jobs for these
additional workers. Under a base-case estimate of annual GDP growth of 7.4percent
(see box 6, Growth assumptions), cities will continue to attract the majority of new
investment. Between 2008 and 2030, MGIs analysis suggests that rural employment
can grow at less than 0.6percent annually at bestmoving from 330million
to around 380million, a net addition of less than 50million jobs. Job growth in
cities, meanwhile, will be far more robust, growing at around 3.6percent annually,
increasing from around 100million today to 220million in 2030. In other words, cities
will account for 70percent of all new jobs created in India between now and 2030.
Consistent with the underlying fundamentals of Indias economy, and its structural
transformation, around 90million of these 120million new urban jobs will be in the
service sector (Exhibit1.6).
42
Exhibit 1.6
Indias economy is likely to produce about 120 million jobs in cities
69
158
33
62
220
2008
102
3.6% p.a.
2030
Exhibit 1.6
Urban nonagricultural employment (projected)
Million jobs
Services
Industry
Box 6. Growth assumptions
MGI assumes an 8.0percent annual GDP growth rate between 2009 and 2018,
stabilizing to 7.0percent between 2018 and 2030. From 2008 to 2030, therefore,
is average annual GDP growth of 7.4percent. We take this projection from Oxford
Economics. Oxford Economics projections are in the middle range of analysts
estimates and we regard them as conservative.
MGI noted in its 2001 report India: The growth imperative that Indias needs to grow
its GDP at close to 10percent a year to create enough employment for the nations
young and growing population.
3
The report argued that double-digit growth would
be possible if India were to push aggressively to remove barriers in product, land, and
labor markets. While India has made considerable progress, it needs to do more; the
case for further reforms remains as compelling today as it was in 2001.
In both manufacturing and services, jobs in cities are likely to be nearly twice as
productive as those in villages. The GDP per worker in urban service sector is
1.7 to 1.8 times that in rural India; in the manufacturing sector, the productivity
advantage is likely to widen from 1.9 times to 2.2 times through to 2030 (Exhibit1.7).
Although these trendline forecasts indicate that, at a base-case GDP growth rate of
7.4percent, India might not create enough jobs for all these new entrants, it is clear
that the vast majority of them will find their livelihoods in the higher productivity
urban jobs. Indias fastest-growing states, therefore, will continue to urbanize faster
(Exhibit1.8). This is at the heart of the urbanization phenomenon and is central to
Indias economic growth.
3 India: The growth imperative, McKinsey Global Institute, September 2001
(www.mckinsey.com/mgi).
Exhibit 1.7
172
115
31
296
221
1.9x
1.7x
Urban jobs will enjoy a sustained productivity advantage
Urban vs. rural productivity, GDP per worker
Thousand rupees, real 2008
Agriculture Industry Services
Rural
Urban
426
297
59
784
639
2.2x
1.8x
2008
2030
Exhibit 1.7
Exhibit 1.8
The fastest-growing states will continue to exhibit
the highest urbanization rates
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Rajasthan
Karnataka
West Bengal
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Gujarat
Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra
Urbanization, 2030
%
GDP 200830
Compound annual growth rate, %
Chandigarh
Delhi
Andaman and Nicobar
Uttaranchal
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
Jharkhand
Chhattisgarh
Madhya Pradesh
Orissa
North East
Bihar
Punjab
Kerala
Haryana
Pondicherry
GDP 2008,
2008 prices
Exhibit 1.8
As a consequence of continued economic growth and the job creation it will
entail, MGI projects therefore that the population of Indias cities will increase from
340million in 2008 to 590million by 203040percent of Indias total population
(Exhibit1.9). In short, we will witness over the next 20 years an urban transformation
the scale and speed of which has not happened anywhere in the world except in
China.
44
Exhibit 1.9
In MGIs base-case scenario, cities are likely to house 40 percent of
Indias population by 2030
290
220
340
2030
590
2008 1991 2001
+250
30 40 26 Urbanization rate
1
%
1,155 1,470 856 Total population
Million
Urban population
Million
1 Defined as the ratio of urban to total population based on the census definition of urban areas; population >5,000; density
>400 persons per square kilometer; 75 percent of male workers in nonagricultural sectors; and statutory urban areas.
1,040
28
Exhibit 1.9
Cities will account for a major share of GDP and income growth
As Indias cities expand, Indias economic makeup will also change. In 1995, Indias
GDP split almost evenly between its urban and rural economies. In 2008, urban GDP
accounted for 58percent of overall GDP. By 2030, under our base-case economic
projections, MGI anticipates urban India will generate nearly 70percent of Indias
GDP (Exhibit1.10).
Indias fast-growing and relatively productive cities will drive a near fourfold increase
in Indias per capita income between 2008 and 2030 (Exhibit1.11). The number of
households earning less than 90,000 rupees per year will fall below 20percent for
the first time in Indias history, while the number of middle-class households (earning
between 200,000 rupees and 1million rupees a year) will increase more than fourfold
nationwide from 32million to 147million (Exhibit1.12).
Exhibit 1.10
Cities will account for nearly 70 percent of Indias GDP by 2030
Share of Indias GDP
%; rupees billion, real 2008
46
54
58
69
54
46
42
31
100% =
Urban
Rural
2030
238,041
2008
49,043
1990
15,903
2001
29,100
Compound annual
growth rate, 200830
%
Share of
growth
%
7.4
5.9
8.3
100
28
72
Exhibit 1.10
Exhibit 1.11
Urban India will drive a near fourfold increase in average national income
Per capita disposable income
Thousand rupees, 2008 prices
Compound annual
growth rate, %
History
GDP growth
Population growth
136
239
67
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Rural
Urban
All India
Projection
5.4
4.3
3.2
6.4
6.1
4.2
6.5%
1.8%
7.4%
1.1%
Exhibit 1.11
Exhibit 1.12
More than 100 million households will join the Indian middle class
64
26
15
31
34
40
32
0
100% =
Deprived
<90
Aspirers
90200
Seekers
200500
Strivers
5001,000
Globals
>1,000
2030
322
29
17
7
2020
273
25
6
3
2008
222
50
12
2
1
2000
189
4
1
All India households by income bracket, 200030
%, million households, 2000 prices
Middle class
Income segment
Rupees thousand
Exhibit 1.12
CITIES WILL ALSO BE CRITICAL FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH
Cities are about more than just economic growth and higher incomesthey perhaps
offer the best promise of a higher quality of life for the largest number of Indians. By
providing an efficient vehicle for delivery of basic services, generating the majority
of taxes, and by benefiting rural areas in their proximity, cities play a vital role in
expanding the fruits of Indias economic growth to a wider section of its population.
Cities can be a cost-effective vehicle to expand access to basic services
Research over the last few decades has pointed to consistent evidence of the
agglomeration benefits of cities. Such benefits play out in at least two ways. First, cities
46
allow for interactions that promote productivity, one of the underlying drivers of economic
growth. Second, scale benefits offered by citiesin India and around the worldoffer
the opportunity to significantly lower the cost of service delivery. This is particularly
relevant for a country like India, which faces a significant challenge of rapidly ramping
up basic services to a very large section of its population when funds are constrained.
Research indicates that the cost of delivering basic services is 30 to 50percent cheaper
in concentrated population centers than in sparsely populated areas (Exhibit1.13). Given
finite public resources, such potential savings could be vital if the government is to meet
its aspiration for improving quality of life at affordable prices.
We estimate, for instance, that the cost of delivering a liter of piped water is around
50percent cheaper because cities are able to leverage common supply depots and
cut distribution costs.
The same advantage holds true for higher-end infrastructure as well. Some elements
of the infrastructure that are critical to high-end servicesinternational airports, for
exampleare economically feasible only in population centers of a certain minimum
size. Our analysis shows, for instance, that it takes $4.8million in capital expenditure
per daily flight in a city whose population exceeds 4millionbut nearly $13million in a
city of less than 1million.
Exhibit 1.13
There is clear evidence of agglomeration benefits in basic sectors including
water distribution and roads
Capital cost
per capita,
indexed
Roads
Water
distribution
30%
50%
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,00
0
12,000,00
0
Population
Million
SOURCE: Global Water Intelligence database; International Association of Public Transport; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
2 4 6 8 10 12
Exhibit 1.13
0.2
Cities will continue to account for the bulk of tax revenue vital for
development spending
Cities are also vital for the funding of development because they generate the lions
share of Indias tax revenuebetween 80 and 85percent.
In 2008, cities accounted for more than 80percent of Indias tax revenue despite
accounting for only 58percent of economic output. While we can partly attribute this
disproportionate share to the location of headquarters of pan-national companies
in major cities, the fact remains that tax collection is more robust in Indias urban
areas than in its villages. By 2030, MGI projects that 85percent of tax revenue will
come from cities. So the robust health of urban India will be vital to enable sufficient
spending on the development of the whole economyurban and rural (Exhibit1.14).
Exhibit 1.14
Cities will continue to generate disproportionate tax revenue
and fund Indias development
70
19
30
81
165
Population
1,155 100% =
Tax revenue
Government tax revenue
1
, 200830
$ billion, real 2008, %
1 Includes income tax, VAT, service taxes.
2008
60
15
40
85
Tax revenue
885
Population
1,467
2030
Exhibit 1.14
Rural
Urban
Rural areas near Indias large cities will benefit directly
from urban growth
Cities have benefits beyond their own boundaries. Our research finds that some
180million people who live close to cities will benefit because they will enjoy improved
access to jobs, markets, and the connecting infrastructure. Rural populations
adjoining large urban centers today have an estimated 10 to 20percent higher
incomes than the rural average. We estimate that 180million such rural residents live
next to the 70 largest urban centers in India, a number that will increase to around
210million by 2030 (see box 7, Building good cities is critical to boosting rural
incomes, too) (Exhibit1.15).
Exhibit 1.15
Around 180 million to 210 million people in rural areas will benefit from their
proximity to the 70 largest cities
100
84
Average
other rural
Catchment rural
+19%
207
180
2030 2004
+15%
24 23 % of total rural
population
Primarily due to spillover effects of
agglomeration, including access to
jobs, markets, and urban infrastructure
SOURCE: National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO); India Urbanization Econometric Model
Rural population in catchment
area of top 70 urban centers
will increase slightly
Million
This population has had
higher incomes than other
rural populations
1
Estimated annual income (indexed)
Exhibit 1.15
1 Index calculated on per capita district data from NSSOs 61st round data for the catchment and other districts.
48
Box 7. Building good cities is critical to boosting rural incomes, too
There is a clear and absolute overlap between the agenda of improving cities
and boosting rural incomes. Urbanization is not a substitute for programs aimed
at improving agricultural incomes. Indeed, urbanization complements efforts to
improve rural incomes. Improved agricultural productivity and resulting higher
incomes are possible only if India creates substantial nonagricultural jobs to absorb
the surplus labor force in agriculture. Cities will play a vital role in this job creation.
MGIs 2001 report, India: The growth Imperative, examined scenarios for raising
agricultural productivity. The research found that a twofold increase in agricultural
productivity is possible through improved yields and mechanization, but will
release an estimated 50million to 130million agricultural workers. These workers
will need to find alternative jobs, the vast majority of which will be in cities.
THE RESULTING INDIA WILL HAVE CITIES OF AN IMMENSE
SCALE EVEN IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT
Driven by these trends, urban expansion in India will happen at a speed quite unlike
anything the country or the world has seen before. It took nearly 40 years (between
1971 and 2008) for Indias urban population to rise by nearly 230million. It will take
only half the time to add the next 250million.
Urbanization will spread out across India, impacting almost every state. For the
first time in Indias history, the nation will have five large states (Tamil Nadu, Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Punjab) that will have more of their population living in
cities than in villages (Exhibit1.16).
Urbanization will be accompanied by a three- to sevenfold increase in total GDP, and a four
to eightfold increase in urban GDP in every state. Four states alone will together contribute
more than 40percent of Indias total GDP as well as its urban GDP. While states such as
Chandigarh, Delhi, and Gujarat will have the most rapid rise in per capita GDP (four- to
sixfold), even a state like Bihar will see a more than threefold increase in per capita GDP. All
states will have at least half of their GDP coming from urban areas, and at least ten states will
have more than 70percent of their economic output located in cities (Exhibit1.17).
Exhibit 1.16
Five states are likely to be more than 50 percent urbanized
9
12
18
21
24
24
25
25
28
28
29
31
36
37
44
44
53
Bihar
Himachal Pradesh
Orissa
Uttar Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Rajasthan
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Kerala
West Bengal
Haryana
Punjab
Karnataka
Maharashtra
Gujarat
Tamil Nadu
17
20
24
26
40
33
31
32
46
41
40
45
52
57
58
66
67 35.4
25.2
21.6
7.5
9.7
17.2
15.5
5.8
39.2
7.0
0.8
8.9
47.9
10.0
25.8
23.4
7.6
53.4
48.0
39.6
15.2
15.8
29.9
29.5
11.7
68.9
11.0
1.8
21.3
78.1
19.0
41.5
45.5
12.0
%, total population
Urban
population
Million
%, total population
Urban
population
Million
Exhibit 1.16
Exhibit 1.17
All large states will have more than 50 percent of GDP coming from cities
Exhibit 1.17
Jharkhand
Chhattisgarh
Orissa
Madhya Pradesh
Bihar
Punjab
Rajasthan
Kerala
Haryana
Karnataka
Delhi
West Bengal
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Jammu and Kashmir
Uttaranchal
Urban GDP, 2030
Billion rupees, 2008 prices
Per capita urban GDP
Thousand rupees, 2008 prices
Urban GDP/total GDP
%, 2030
341
344
340
251
168
265
514
246
465
412
221
288
172
112
293
222
203
73
77
68
78
59
65
100
73
67
66
62
70
55
62
58
65
61
246
230
61
66
1,198
1,212
2,437
2,605
3,212
3,359
3,660
5,476
6,519
6,528
7,048
9,741
10,984
11,606
13,339
13,392
15,465
16,494
26,660
Turning from states to cities, India will have 68 cities with populations of more than
1million, compared with the current 42; 13 cities with more than 4million people; and
6 megacities with populations of 10million or more, at least two of which (Mumbai
and Delhi) will be among the five largest cities in the world by 2030 (Exhibit1.18).
Exhibit 1.18
India will have 68 cities with population of more than 1 million by 2030,
up from 42 today
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; Census 2001; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
52
Tiers 3 and 4
<1 million
Tier 2
1 million4 million
Tier 1
>4 million
2008
340
195
93
Population by tier
Million
2030
590
331
104
155
X Number of cities
9
33
~5,000 ~6,000
55
13 9
4
29
26
~4,970
~1,000
Conversion of
rural villages
Exhibit 1.18
In terms of both population and GDP, many Indian cities will become larger than many
countries today (Exhibit1.19). For instance, Mumbai Metropolitan Regions GDP is
projected to reach 11.9 trillion rupees ($265billion) by 2030, larger than the GDP of
many countries today, including Portugal, Colombia, and Malaysia (Exhibit1.20).
50
Exhibit 1.19
Thirteen cities will have a population of more than 4 million
Population in 2030
Million
Per capita GDP, 2030
1
$ thousand
1 2008 prices.
2 National Capital Territory; excludes Noida, Gurgaon, Greater Noida, Faridabad, and Ghaziabad.
265 8.0
296 11.4
169 7.4
73 6.6
127 12.6
76 7.6
67 6.8
68 8.1
53 7.2
24 4.5
37 7.1
15 3.6
35 8.5
GDP, 2030
1
$ billion
4.2
4.2
5.2
5.4
7.4
8.4
9.8
10.0
10.1
11.0
22.9
25.9
33.0
Pune
Kolkata
Delhi (NCT)
2
Mumbai (MMR)
Hyderabad
Bangalore
Vadodara
Kanpur
Nagpur
Jaipur
Surat
Ahmedabad
Chennai
Exhibit 1.19

Exhibit 1.20
170
199
221
237
242
244
Chile
Israel
Malaysia
UAE
Colombia
Portugal
Some of Indias largest metro regions would become the size of
many countries today
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; Economist Intelligence Unit
169
265
296
Kolkata
Mumbai
(MMR)
Delhi
(NCT
)
GDP in 2030
$ billion, real 2008
MMRs GDP will be bigger than many
countries today
23
26
33
Kolkata
Delhi
(NCT)
Mumbai
(MMR)
Population
2
in 2030
Million
MMRs population
1
will be greater than that
of many countries today
17
21
25
28
29
33
Chile
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Malaysia
Peru
Canada
Exhibit 1.20
1 Population is total population for countries and urban population for Indian cities.
The next 20 years will therefore see the emergence of majority urban states and at
the same time the rise of a large number of cities in the list of the largest cities in the
world, not just in population but in the size of economic output as well. In many ways,
the scale of Indias urbanization and the portfolio of cities it will generate will be a
significant part of the contours of the worlds global urban population by 2030.
* * *
Cities already play a large and significant role in Indias economy and society, and
they will be an even more dominant force in the near future. Indeed, by the middle
of this century, Indias cities will exert a central influence on the global economy and
community. This transformation has the potential to be a compelling platform for India
to leapfrog into a new era of rising incomes and quality of life. But the sheer scale and
pace of the urbanization will present many challenges, too. In chapter 2, we describe
the nature of these challenges and explain the need for a new approach to managing
the countrys urban transformation.
52
As a result of deep-seated economic reform in recent years, India has made
significant strides, achieving strong rates of economic growth and raising incomes.
But it is questionable whether India can sustain its economic momentum unless it
acts decisively to manage its growing cities.
Even at todays urban scale, India is struggling. The infrastructure of its cities is looking
decidedly tattered and access to basic services in urban areas continues to be poor.
Superimpose a surge in demand for services from an expanding urban population and
rising incomes, and Indias aspiration for social cohesion and sustainable economic
growth could reach a breaking point. The risk is that the quality of life in urban India will
deteriorate, gridlock will hopelessly compromise productivity, and investors will decide
that Indias cities are too chaotic for their businesses to thrive.
We believe that todays laissez-faire attitude to managing Indias cities will no longer
do. Indias current approach to urban development is insufficient for the mammoth
task ahead and needs an immediate revamp. To mitigate the undoubted strains that
will develop as cities expand, and to maximize the potential economic opportunity
that well-managed cities can offer, India urgently needs a fresh, proactive approach
to addressing the challenges of urbanization.
GOOD CITIES OFFER ROBUST ECONOMIC GROWTH AND A
SUSTAINABLE QUALITY OF LIFE
Cities have existed throughout modern history in every part of the world. Some have
been successful, others not. Cities that have prospered have always delivered a
compelling proposition to citizens who choose to bring their talent and energy to the
citys fabric, and to investors who opt to bring their capital and enterprise, thereby
sustaining urban livelihoods and growth (Exhibit2.1).
Those cities that offer an attractive proposition to business and people create a
virtuous cycle that creates jobs, fosters talent, attracts capital, boosts productivity,
and improves the quality of life for residents. Not all cities achieve this virtuous cycle
and lose out to other urban centers that offer a more attractive proposition to skilled
people and business investors. Such cities simply cannot leverage the potential
economic benefits that urbanization can confer and suffer not only a deteriorating
quality of life but also, eventually, subpar economic growth.
2. Indias current approach will lead
to urban decay
54
Exhibit 2.1
Robust
economic
growth
Sustainable
quality of
life
Good cities deliver robust economic growth, as well as
a sustainable quality of life
Cities have established a robust economic growth agenda and
provide a favorable investor climate
Scaled public
infrastructure
Uninterrupted access to clean water supply for every resident
100 percent coverage, proper treatment of sewage and solid waste
45 minutes maximum intra city travel time for all citizens
Reliable social
services
Quality, affordable education and health care facilities for all
Access to affordable housing for all sections of the society;
no urban slums
Sustainable
environment
Preservation of natural resources and ensuring access to clean
air, water, and land
Matching national standards on climate change, emissions, and
sustainability
Good recreational and
community
infrastructure
Parks within 15 minutes of walking for every resident
Open spaces throughout all cities
Entertainment hubs and community spaces that celebrate
diversity and foster innovation for all residents
What good cities deliver
Sustained
productivity
advantage
Robust job creation Ensures creation of sufficient jobs and livelihoods
Exhibit 2.1
INDIAN CITIES ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING TO PROVIDE A BASIC
QUALITY OF LIFE
Urban India has attracted investment on the back of strong growth but is failing
its citizens. Across all major quality-of-life indicators, Indias cities fall well short of
not only the levels of service to which international cities aspire but even a basic
standard of living for their residents (these basic standards have been defined using
a combination of Indian and international benchmarks). While this is true across every
service, we are choosing to highlight the poor quality of physical infrastructure as a
particular example of the crisis affecting Indian cities (Exhibits 2.2 and 2.3).
Exhibit 2.2
The current performance of Indias cities is poor (1/2)
Census 2001; Central Pollution Control Board; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
220
150
105
100 100
74
100 100
63
100 100
30
100 100
72
100 100
20
Piped water coverage
% population
Sewage and septic tank
coverage
% population
Sewage treated
% sewage generated
%f total waste generated
Storm-water drains
Road coverage, %
Exhibit 2.2
Current Basic service standard Best in class
Exhibit 2.3
The current performance of Indias cities is poor (2/2)
Census 2001; McKinsey Global Institute analysis; Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban
areas in India, Wilbur Smith, 2008
82
50
30
85
112
170
0 0
24 16.0
9.0
2.7
% share of mass public transit
Vehicular congestion
Peak vehicles per lane kilometer
Slum population
% total population
7
4
2
Health care
Hospital beds per 1,000
16
30
48
Education
Student-to-teacher ratio in primary
schools
Exhibit 2.3
Current Basic service standard Best in class
Life for the average city dweller in India is tough. Across India, urban citizens have
access to only 105 liters per day of potable, piped water supply, as compared to a
minimum basic requirement of 150. Only 63percent of population has access to
sewerage and septic tank facilities, and only 30percent of sewage generated actually
gets treated. This is true even for large citiesMumbai, for example, treats only
3040percent of its sewage today. Another key urban pressure point is affordable
housing. Nearly 80million people live in slums across the country. Transportation,
too, has deteriorated over the years. Lack of investment in public transportation
has resulted in a significant decline in share of public transportation, from nearly
40percent in 1994 to 30percent today. Private transportation infrastructure is equally
dismal. Peak private vehicular density has already touched 170 vehicles per lane
kilometer50percent higher than the basic requirement.
ON CURRENT POLICIES, INDIAN CITIES WILL FACE WORSENING
DECAY AND GRIDLOCK
As the urban population and its incomes increase in India, demand for every key
service will increase many times (Exhibit2.4). This will be true in cities of every size
and type across the country (Exhibit2.5).
And if India continues to invest in urban infrastructure at its current ratevery low by
international comparisonin 20 years time the urban infrastructure will fall woefully
short of what is necessary to sustain prosperous cities (Exhibit2.6). On current
trends, India is likely to invest $300billion in urban infrastructure over the next 20
years, a twofold increase in per capita spending of $17 today. Even with such a large
investment program, capacity building in urban India will not come anywhere close
to meeting the surging demand for services. For example, peak vehicular densities
will likely reach as high as 610 vehicles per lane kilometer. At such densities, an
average journey may take up to five hours in peak morning trafficsimilar to the acute
congestion that disfigures some Latin American cities. Similarly, the per capita water
supply could drop from 105 liters today to 65 in 2030.
56
Exhibit 2.4
The massive scale of Indias urbanization will create
a huge surge in demand
Strategies in Urban India; National Council for Applied Economic Research; press search; McKinsey Global Institute
analysis
2007 basic service demand
83
189
Description Metric Demand forecast
66
151
71
377
10
58
120
328
25
38
Water
supply
1
Sewage
Solid
waste
Cars
Affordable
housing
Water demand will increase
2.3 times
Sewage generated will
increase 2.3 times
Solid-waste generation will
rise 5 times
Total number of cars will rise
5.8 times
Number of public trips per
year will increase 2.7 times
Demand will reach 38 million
housing units
Million liters per day
Urban stock of cars,
million
Public trips per day,
million
Affordable housing
demand, million units
2
Public
transport
1 Assuming constant rate for unaccounted for water (UFW).
2 Net of existing supply.
Exhibit 2.4
Exhibit 2.5
All cities will see surging demand for services
900
1,700 1,600
4,100
5,800
1,700
3,400
3,000
9,600
11,300
700
1,400 1,300
3,300
4,700
1,500
2,700 2,600
7,700
9,800
0.3 0.7 1.7
3.2
6.7
1.0 1.9
7.0
14.1
22.4
4
7
10
25
30
6
12
14
41
45
Pune Chennai Delhi (NCT) Coimbatore Mumbai (MMR)
Strategies in Urban India; National Council for Applied Economic Research; press search; McKinsey Global Institute
analysis
Water supply
1
Sewage treatment
Solid waste
Trips per day
Million
Exhibit 2.5
1 Assuming constant rate for unaccounted for water (UFW).
Exhibit 2.6
Gap rises 4x to
82 million tons
per annum
Gap triples to
6,400 kilometers
Gap doubles to
109 billion liters
per day
Gap rises 2x to
440,000 lane
kilometers
Gap increases
3.5x to 94 billion
liters per day
Gap rises to
38 million units
On current trends, quality of urban services will deteriorate
quite sharply by 2030
95
56
189
83
Supply
Basic service demand
Strategies in Urban India; National Council for Applied Economic Research; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Water supply
Sewage
Solid waste
2007 2030
42
13
151
66
295
51
377
71
540
430
980
640
Thousand lane kilometers
Rail based mass-transit
Directional route kilometers
Affordable housing
Demand for houses, million units
2007 2030
12.0
5.0
50.0
30.0
Exhibit 2.6
990
3,000
1,990
8,400
We have seen the strains that arise from such unplanned urbanization elsewhere.
For example, in many Latin American countries, rapid urbanization without a
corresponding stepping up of infrastructure construction has led to a steep
deterioration in quality of life. Until recently, the metropolitan city of So Paolo, Brazil,
with a population of 19million, had only 38 miles of public rail transportation, which
resulted in traffic queues at peak hours that could stretch out for more than 120 miles.
More than 60percent of citizens who moved into the city since the 1980s lived in
slums (favelas). Brazil may also have not fully leveraged the economic opportunity of
urbanization, unable to generate sufficient jobs to match the movement of people into
cities. Unlike in many other countries, the transition to a mostly urban population (e.g.,
from 50 to 80percent) was accompanied in Brazil by only a twofold increase in per
capita income, compared to double that in other countries.
This is a stark warning for India. If India continues with its current unplanned
urbanization path, it will result in a sharp deterioration in the quality of life in its cities,
putting even todays rates of economic growth at risk.
INDIA NEEDS A NEW APPROACH ACROSS FIVE ELEMENTS
Many countries have faced the challenges that urban India is grappling with today,
albeit not on the same scale, and emerged as successes. So what can India learn
from the successes and mistakes of others? Our analysis finds that, although
countries naturally make different choices, there is a broad consistency in the basic
approach employed by countries with thriving cities. Our study shows that five
dimensions are important: funding, governance, planning, sectoral policies, and
shape (Exhibit2.7).
58
India scores poorly on all five of these aspects of the urbanization challenge
(Exhibit2.8).
Exhibit 2.7
To manage urbanization, countries around the world have used a common
approach consisting of five elements
With a large portfolio of
cities, mechanisms are
needed to foster local
accountability to deliver
investor and citizen
outcomes
Accountable
Sufficient investments
need to come together to
address the enormity of
the challenges
Well-
resourced
Proactive
Scale and scope require
pre-investment; is costly
and time-consuming to
create reactive solutions
Why it matters Criterion
Criteria for successful urban
transformation
Elements of approach
Where will resources
come from?
How will cities make
and enforce land and
space choices?
Who will lead and
be accountable?
How will the countrys
population be
distributed?
1. Funding 2. Governance
5. Shape
3. Planning
4. Sector policies
Economic growth
Affordable housing
Environmental
sustainability
Transportation
Exhibit 2.7
Exhibit 2.8
India scores poorly on four, and below average on one, of these
five elements to date
Funding Governance Planning Sector
Policies
Shape
Poor
Below average
Above average
World class
Exhibit 2.8
Funding. Sufficient resources for investment to build services for citizens,
preferably anticipating demand rather than playing constant catch-up as we
see in India, are the bedrock of successful cities. In countries around the world
governments have devised mechanisms to ensure cities have reliable access to
four sources of funds: land monetization; property taxes and user charges; debt
and private participation; and a formula based grant system from the government.
With some exceptions, India has barely leveraged these sources of funding,
resulting in significant underinvestment (one-eighth of what is necessary) in its
cities. In addition, central and state governments do not follow a systematic formula
in their approach to provide funds to cities.
Governance. Choices that cities make on leadership and management are a
second vital component. The most successful governance is a devolved model
that empowers local leaders but holds them accountable. India has not devolved
power to the local level, leaving states to run cities from a distance and with weak
accountability. India is the only G20 country that has not adopted a system in which
empowered mayors run cities, and where dedicated expert agencies deliver services.
Moreover, Indian cities have a large shortage of administrative and technical talent.
Planning. Effective and systematic urban planning has been part of the fabric
of successful cities for decades. Planning is important to allow cities to make
informed trade-offs on their use of scarce resources such as land. Cities around
the world use micro-plans to ensure effective use of every aspect of the citys
urban space. Usually a metropolitan master plan sets out the overall strategy for
the economy, mass transit, and affordable housing which is then applied in detail
at the local level. Indian urban plans, on the other hand, exist on paper but have
little impact on the ground. The choices Indias cities make on land use and other
aspects of planning are ad hoc. Exemptions are so systemic that there is a very
weak relationship between what plans prescribe and the decisions that unfold at
the local level. A significant shortage of world-class urban planners exacerbates
the poor quality of India's urban planning.
Sectoral policies in job creation, public transportation, affordable housing,
and climate-change mitigation. Great cities invest effort in designing policies
for the most important sectors that influence the citys economy and quality of life.
Take affordable housing as an example. In general, cities plan for affordability and
work to create policies to match affordability with income levels to ensure wide
access to housing. India does not plan for affordable housing systematically and
has built fewer than 200,000 units a year, in comparison to the minimum that India
needs: 2million annually. While models exist, India has not found a large-scale,
economically viable model that can be executed nationally. As a result, 17million
households live in slums, a number that could double by 2030.
Shape. Most countries in the world have had the luxury of urbanizing organically
through history and have ended up with different portfolios and distributions of
cities. China is exceptional in that it proactively shaped a concentrated pattern of
urban expansion in the beginning, with the development of its dynamic coastal
cities. India can proactively shape the overall portfolio of cities in a way that
optimizes their economic contribution, investment and land requirements, and the
objective of regional equity. India has not made any active attempt to do this. MGI
sees no evidence that central and state governments in India are addressing the
issue of how best to shape its portfolio of cities to maximize their potential to drive
growth.
60
* * *
The need for a new approach to managing Indias urbanization is urgent and critical.
If it adopts a new approach, India could turn its urban expansion into a compelling
opportunity to attract investment and drive social transformation. The next chapter
offers a detailed discussion of what India needs to do on the five elements of effective
urban management and development.
India needs to examine its potential for change in the five dimensions of the
management of urbanization that we have identified in cities around the world. In
each case, we offer recommendations based on our analysis of the most effective
way forward.
Together, these five building blocks constitute a potential operating model that can
act as a framework for Indias urban reform.
3.1 Funding. India needs to ensure that cities have a sufficient scale of public
infrastructure to support their needs as they develop
3.2 Governance. Urban management will be more effective if cities have local
owners, more closely accountable to residents, rather than being run top-down by
the state
3.3 Planning. A shift from ad hoc and sporadic to planned and facilitated urban
growth is critical
3.4 Sectoral policies. From todays piecemeal approach, India needs to put in
place a systematic set of policies for all the key urban sectors
3.5 Shape. India needs to facilitate a distributed shape of urbanization, ensuring that
cities of all sizes can thrive by using a clearly defined long-term strategic approach.
3. The five building blocks of
sustainable urban living in India
62
3.1 Unlocking $1.2 trillion in urban investment
India has chronically underinvested in its cities for many years, and the results
are plain to seegridlock, slums, poor provision of public services, and subpar
urban economic growth. India first needs to face up to this backlog and provide its
urban population with at least basic services. But just as urgent is to find sufficient
resources to get investment flowing into cities as they expand. If India fails to
unlock new sources of funding, it will see growing cities fall into a state of disrepair,
deepening and prolonging Indias urban crisis.
With $1.2 trillion in capital investment needed over the next 20 years, the funding
challenge is arguably one of the most difficult that India faces. However, the good
news is that by unlocking four sources of funding including government funding
support, it is possible for the nation to meet this challenge.
In this section, we explore:
Indias current urban funding patterns and the overall funding requirement
Five elements of an effective urban funding system
Indias performance on these five elements
Key recommendations to bridge the urban funding gap
Potential next steps to unlocking urban investment
INDIA SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERINVESTS IN ITS CITIES
Indias urban spending remains at a dismally low level in comparison with other
countries. In per capita terms, Indias annual per capita spending including capital
and operational expenditure of $50 is only 14percent of Chinas $362 and less than
3percent of the United Kingdoms $1,772 (Exhibit3.1.1).
Exhibit 3.1.1
India chronically underinvests in its cities in comparison with other
urban centers around the world
Comparison of per capita spending on urban capital expenditure on services
1
$/capita, capital (CapEx) and operational expenditure (OpEx), FY 2007, 2008 prices
127
116
33
India
50
South
Africa
508
17
381
China
362
United
Kingdom
1,772
246
391
1,381
SOURCE: Press search; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
1 Urban services include water, sewage, city roads, storm-water drains, mass transit (including rail-based mass-transit), solid
waste, and low-income housing.
Exhibit 3.1.1
OpEx
CapEx
In terms of capital expenditure, the situation is even worse. India spends only $17 per
capita annually on urban capital investment, compared with $116 per capita in China
and $391 in the United Kingdom.
In addition, Indias current urban spending varies dramatically according to the size
of city. Tier 1 cities spend an average of $130 per capita each year, with 45percent
of this total on capital spending. However, owing to high general and administrative
costs, most Tier 3 and 4 cities support per capita capital spending of only $1 currently
(Exhibit3.1.2).
Exhibit 3.1.2
Tier 3 and 4 cities have very low per capita spending due to
high administrative costs
58
72
24
14
Tiers 3 and 4
12
1
11
Tier 2
38
Tier 1
130
SOURCE: Government of India budgets; Finance Commission; India Urbanization Funding Model, McKinsey Global Institute
analysis
General and
administrative
costs
Share of total, %
26% 32% 60%
Exhibit 3.1.2
1 Urban services include water, sewage, city roads, storm-water drains, mass transit (including rail-based mass-transit), solid
waste, and low-income housing.
OpEx
CapEx
Comparison of per capita spending on urban capital expenditure on services
1
$/capita, capital (CapEx) and operational expenditure (OpEx), FY 2007, 2008 prices
TO DELIVER BASIC SERVICES, INDIA NEEDS $1.2 TRILLION
IN CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND $1 TRILLION IN OPERATING
EXPENDITURE OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS
We used bottom-up estimates from MGIs sector models to estimate the expenditure
needs of key urban sectors, linking basic service parameters directly with funding
requirements (see box 8, Summary of approach to estimating urban investment
requirements, and appendix B for more detail on our methodology).
To make up for years of underinvestment and prepare for the demands of a surging
urban population based on delivering basic standards of services in all core urban
sectors, we estimate that India needs to spend $1.2 trillion in capital expenditure
and $1 trillon in operating expenditure (a total of $2.2 trillion) in its cities over the next
20 years (Exhibit3.1.3). In per capita terms, this is the equivalent of average annual
spending of about $250.
Our analysis reveals that more than half of this amount needs to be devoted
to capital expenditure. Within capital expenditure, almost half the amount is
necessary to erase Indias existing infrastructure backlog in its cities and the rest
need to be devoted to their future needs. Transportation and affordable housing
for low-income groups stand out as the most capital-intensive sectors while mass-
64
transit, including fares of metro, subways and bus systems dominate operating
expenditure (Exhibit3.1.4).
Exhibit 3.1.3
Indian cities need capital funding of $1.2 trillion and a total funding of
$2.2 trillion over the next 20 years
199
392
395
1,040
2,222
1,182
96
Total
spend-
ing
OpEx CapEx Afford-
able
housing
1
Mass
transit
Urban
roads
Storm-
water
drains
32
Solid
waste
15
Sewage
53
Water
1 Net of beneficiary contribution, Operating costs of rental stock included separately.
Annual per
capita
spending, $
134 116 250
Exhibit 3.1.3
Exhibit 3.1.4
The majority of capital spending in cities will need to go to transportation
and affordable housing
555
243
98
151
21
22
20
TOTAL
Others
Affordable
housing
Mass transit
Urban roads
Storm-water
drains
Solid waste 0.5
Sewage
Water
Growth capital expenditure Backlog capital expenditure Operational expenditure
627
152
294
48
11
15
31
76
160
459
10
0
82
126
180
1,040
24
1
63 71 116
Exhibit 3.1.4
X
$ per capita
per annum
1 Operating cost of rental stock.
Box 8. Summary of approach to estimating urban
investment requirements
We estimated urban investment requirements using independent satellite
models for each of the core services, linked to the overall econometric model
projections on population and income at a city level (Exhibits 3.1.5 and 3.1.6).
For each of these services requirements, we defined target service levels using
government benchmarks where they existed and setting broad guidelines where
no benchmarks existed. We also used standard cost benchmarks from detailed
project reports (DPRs) sourced from the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban
Renewal Mission to arrive at these funding estimates. We now provide a brief
summary of the key parameters:
Exhibit 3.1.5
Funding calculations are linked to target service levels
(1/2)
SOURCE: United Nations; City Development Plans; The Energy and Resources Institute; Planning Commission; Census 2001;
Central Pollution Control Board; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
150
105
100
74
100
63
100
30
100
72
100
20
Liters per capita day
% population
Sewage coverage
% population
Sewage treated
% sewage generated
% total waste generated
Storm-water drains
Road coverage, %
Water supply
Sewage
Solid waste and
storm-water drains
Exhibit 3.1.5
Current delivery
Exhibit 3.1.6
Funding calculations are linked to target service levels
(2/2)
112
170
50
30
35
4
0
24
% share of mass public transit
Cities with rail-based
mass-transit system
Number
Slum population
% total population
Road
transportation
Mass transit
Affordable housing
Exhibit 3.1.6
Census 2001; McKinsey Global Institute analysis; Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban
areas in India, Wilbur Smith, 2008
Current delivery
66
Water supply: Ensuring 150 liters per capita per day supply with full
coverage. Residential piped water supply in Indian cities is limited today to
105 liters per capita per day with only 74percent coverage. By 2030, India
should aim for at least 150 liters with full coverage to bring its cities into line
with established international benchmarks. In addition, another 40 to 60 liters
per capita per day capacity is required to meet commercial and industrial
requirements, which we calculated separately using standard water intensity
values for these sectors. Assuming that the amount of unaccounted for water
doesnt change, India will need to increase water supply from 56,000 liters per
day to 189,000a 3.3 times increase.
Sewage: Providing full coverage and treatment. Today India treats
only 30percent of the sewage generated, and it has sewer and septic-
tank coverage of only 63percent. To reach full coverage in terms of both
infrastructure and treatment by 2030, we estimate that India needs to boost its
treatment capacity by a factor of 11 and the total length of its sewer piping by
2.4 times.
Solid-waste management: Aiming for full coverage and treatment. Indias
rate for the collection of solid waste hovers around 72percent today. However,
we project a tripling in per capita waste generation because of higher incomes
and consumption resulting in a sixfold increase in waste generation to reach
377million tons per annum, inclusive of construction debris.
Transportation: Moving toward a public-transit-led system. India already
has a peak vehicular density of 170 vehicles per lane kilometers, leading to an
average peak morning commute in excess of one-and-a-half to two hours. This
is a serious pressure point that threatens to compromise urban productivity.
The strain on urban roads is set to intensify. Our projections suggest that the
urban vehicle stock (including cars, two-wheelers, and other automobiles) will
quadruple by 2030 to touch 200million. If India were to reverse todays trend
of a declining share of public transportation and target a 50percent share for
public transport in 2030 from 30percent today, the implications are as follows:
Intrercity mass transit: Accommodating rising public trips. Our review of cities
around the world shows that mass-transit systems are an essential lifeline
of large cities, especially as the population increases above amillion. Indias
challenge will be to ensure the rapid construction of rail-based mass-transit
and bus rapid transit systems (BRTS) in Tier 1 cities, where the need is already
acute, as well as begin the process in Tier 2 cities before their populations
become too large for the capacity of public transportation systems to cope.
In this context, we estimate that, to accommodate rising public trips, India will
need to build at least 35 rail-based mass-transit systems in top Tier 1 and Tier 2
cities sequenced over the next 20 years with a cumulative track length of more
than 8,400 kilometers. In addition, India should aim to provide 8,000 kilometers
of world-class Bus Rapid Transportation System in 68 cities with populations
of more than 1million. We also recommend a fivefold increase in the stock of
urban buses by 2030, in order to provide effective bus-transit systems in all
cities. Overall, this would increase the share of public transportation in Tier 1
cities to 60percent, in Tier 2 cities to 50percent, and in Tier 3 and 4 cities to
35percent. At an urban India level this will result in a 50percent share of public
transportation.
Intracity roads: Achieving a 50percent increase in the urban road network.
To accommodate the additional journeys taken by private transport
(15percent of the overall trips) and to keep vehicle congestion to a
manageable 112 per lane kilometer, India would need to construct more than
900,000 lane kilometers by 2030. Of this total, 15 to 20percent would need
to be arterial and ring expressways, while the rest would need to be local
roads.
Storm-water drains: Providing storm-water drains equivalent to
100percent coverage of urban roads in 2030. Given the water-logging
problems associated with rainy seasons in India, an efficient drainage system in
cities is a must. India should aim to increase coverage of covered storm-water
drains to 100percent of roads by 2030.
Affordable housing for low-income groups: Building 38million
affordable homes to plug the current backlog and meet the projected
gap in urban demand. Creating slum-free cities would require India to
satisfy the demand for affordable housing. Using an MGI affordability
analysis, demand for affordable housing could rise from 25million
households today to more than 38million households in 2030. To calculate
the funding requirements for affordable housing, we netted off the beneficiary
contribution (based on affordability) from the market price of the house.
Taking these core urban services together, we estimate that India needs to boost its
annual per capita urban capital spending eightfold from $17 to $134 (an increase in
urban infrastructure spending from an average of 0.5percent of GDP annually today
to 2percent of GDP a year) and per capita operational spending more than threefold
(Exhibit3.1.7).
Exhibit 3.1.7
If India is to provide services to these basic levels, per capita spending
needs to increase substantially
SOURCE: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission; City Development Plans, 12th and 13th Finance Commission of
India; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Capital expenditure Operational expenditure
$ per capita per annum, 2008 prices
134
17
Required Current spending
7.9X
116
33
Required Current spending
3.5X
Exhibit 3.1.7
The necessary spending varies widely according to the size of urban centre. In
per capita terms, Tier 1 cities need almost three times the amount required by
smaller Tier 3 and 4 cities (Exhibit3.1.8). This is largely because of a much greater
need for creation of affordable housing stock due to the high slum population in
these cities today, as well as the need to construct high-capacity mass-transit
68
systems (Exhibit3.1.9). We note that, due to lower mass transit modal share,
residents of Tier 3 and Tier 4 cities will invest in private vehicles, the cost of which
is not reflected in these calculations.
Exhibit 3.1.8
The capital spending required in Tier 1 cities is higher due to greater need in
affordable housing and mass-transit systems
Tier 1 requirement Tier 2 requirement
Tier 3 and 4 requirement
222
288
121
255
69
Others
Housing
Mass transit
Roads
Water/solid-waste
management/sewage
Total
510
45
19
OpEx CapEx
85
133
72
33
70
Total
218
25
18
OpEx CapEx
58
96
5
47
71
Total
154
14
17
OpEx CapEx
Exhibit 3.1.8
Exhibit 3.1.9
Large Tier 1 and 2 cities require per capita investment
exceeding $200
35
41
51
58
Ahmedabad
Hyderabad
Chennai
Bangalore
109
Delhi (NCT) 135
Mumbai 220
Kolkata
8 Patna
Nagpur
34
16
Vadodara 17
Lucknow 17
Jaipur 20
Surat 22
Pune
X
$ per capita
per annum
Total CapEx requirement, 201030
367
270
292
267
255
235
186
202
263
165
153
262
246
246
Exhibit 3.1.9
Although additional spending requirements vary widely between Indias largest and
smallest cities, the fact is that a sharp rise in spending is still necessary across the
board (Exhibit3.1.10).
Given the sheer scale of the investment that is required and the current low levels,
we suggest that India might consider designing a staggered program that
sequences spending over a 20-year period, ramping up spending over time
(Exhibit3.1.11).
Exhibit 3.1.10
Although the funding requirement varies in cities of different sizes, the need
for steep increases in funding is present in all
Current and required spend across tiers
$ per capita per annum, capital and operational expenditure, 2008 prices
12
218
Tier 1 Tier 2
510
38
154
Tier 3
and 4
130
4X
5.6X
13x
5x
50
250
Overall
Urban
200
Exhibit 3.1.10
SOURCE: India Urbanization Funding Model; City Development Reports (CDPs); McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Exhibit 3.1.11
India could consider a staggered investment plan
95
65
46
31
201015 201520 202530 202025
Capital expenditure, $ billion per annum, 2008 prices
Exhibit 3.1.11
FIVE KEY ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL URBAN FUNDING
SYSTEM ARE OBSERVED CONSISTENTLY AROUND THE WORLD
There is little doubt about the magnitude of Indias funding challenge. However, India
has options available. Many other countries around the world have faced similar tests
as they have urbanized and devised effective approaches to the funding challenge
suited to their stage of economic development and the shape of their respective
public-finance systems.
70
In very broad terms, cities in developed countries tend to rely on user charges and
municipal taxes (such as property tax) in addition to state and central government
tax sharing, grants, and debt to fund urban services. However, cities in developing
countries with lower per capita incomes tend to be unable to finance capital
expenditure through just user charges and property taxes. Instead, such cities have
tapped other sources of revenue, including the monetization of land and access to
bank loans at preferential rates to supplement substantial grants from government.
We illustrate these types of approaches by highlighting four examples:
China. Chinas urban transformation in the last few decades has been breath-
taking. At the core of this transformation is Chinas ability to invest in urban
infrastructure ahead of demand, a significant achievement for a developing
country. Here we showcase how Shanghai, Chinas leading economic and
financial center, has been able to provide a relatively high quality of life for its
19million residents. Our analysis reveals that only half of Shanghais estimated
$29billion spend on urban services is funded through local taxes and user-
charges. The rest is financed through monetization of land assets and bank
loans on preferential terms as well as a 30percent share in local taxes such as
VAT (Exhibit3.1.12). This last source of funding has been particularly important as
an incentive to invest significantly in the citys infrastructure. Because municipal
governments cannot borrow directly in China, most of the citys financing
has been through state-owned investment companies such as the Shanghai
Construction Investment Development Corporation (Chengtou). Today, China
is increasingly diversifying its urban funding sources. For example, in 2009,
the Chinese government issued $29.2billion in bonds for investments in urban
infrastructure. China is also encouraging the private sector to invest in revenue-
generating infrastructure projects through concession contracts, leasing, and
franchise, and other joint venture agreements.
Exhibit 3.1.12
Sources of urban funding depend on stage of development, but the role of
states and central government is always important
Sources of urban funds
$ billion, %
17
19
12
13
31
70
31
23
100%
Property taxes
and user charges
Land, debt, and
public-private
partnerships
Grants from central and
state government
Others
Shanghai
0
Johannesburg
3.5
29
50
48
London
38
16
1
New York
82
62
6
1
Cities in developed
countries
Cities in developing
countries
Exhibit 3.1.12
United States. Cities in the United States fund urban services largely through
local taxes (such as property tax, local income tax) and user charges, where these
sources are not only used for operating and maintenance expenditure but are also
securitized through debt and private participation to pay for capital expenditure.
Take New York for example: In fiscal 2006, New York spent more than $82billion
on urban services, including education, health care, and affordable housing.
Almost 62percent of this spending was financed through New Yorks own
taxes and user charges, including property tax, a tag-along income tax, and a
local sales tax. Consistent with other cities in the United States, property tax
collections are buoyant in New York and reflect 2 to 3percent of property values.
The tag-along income tax and local sales tax, meanwhile, provide an incentive
to grow. An additional 31percent came from inter-government transfers, largely
from the state government for specific sectors such as education and health care.
For the remaining 7percent of funds ($5.7billion), which the city largely channels
into capital expenditure, New York relies on bond issues by local governments as
well as utility companies such as the New York Water Authority. In fact, New York
has put in place a ten-year capital expenditure program totaling $88billion, three-
quarters of which is funded through such bond issues while the rest is financed
via grants from central and state governments.
United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has a unique public finance system in
which the central government continues to fund most urban services. In London,
for example, 70percent of the aggregate $38billion spent in fiscal 2007 by local
governments came from direct grants from the central government. Local council
and business taxes financed around 16percent of the rest of Londons spending,
while debt, the sale of assets, and internal accruals financed the remaining
14percent of expenditure that the city channeled largely into capital formation.
Three types of central government grants exist in London: (1) formula grants that
are unconditional and include revenue-support grants as well as redistributed
business rates; (2) area-based grants; and (3) ring-fenced grants for specific
sectors. Most of these grants are based on a formula that takes into account
current and target service levels, as well as local variations in costs. Recently,
a 2007 local government inquiry has recommended, among other things, a
migration toward a local income tax.
4
To ensure that the city appropriately uses
the funding it receives, the United Kingdom also has in place standardized data
collection protocols and a strong auditing system.
South Africa. South African cities depend equally on their own revenue sources
and on grants and loans from the central government to fund their urban services.
In Johannesburg, for example, 48percent of the total $3.5billion urban spending
in fiscal 2007 came from user charges and property tax collections, 17percent
from central government grants and the rest from a combination of debt, private
participation and other revenue sources. South Africa, too, has employed three
different types of grants from the central government: (1) a Local Government
Equitable Share Grant, which is an unconditional, formula-driven grant with the dual
objective of compensating local governments for providing free basic services (e.g.,
6,000 liters of water per capita per month) to the poor and for covering the revenue
deficit of weaker municipalities; (2) infrastructure grants, which provide direct
funding for building key infrastructure projects; and (3) capacity grants to assist local
governments (e.g., to introduce reforms and boost public-sector productivity). As a
result, larger cities rely on grants only for capital expenditure, while smaller cities may
4 Sir Michael Lyons, Place-shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government, March
27, 2007 (http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/).
72
depend on them for revenue expenditure. South Africa estimates these grants for
each municipality for a period of three years to enable sound expenditure planning.
Synthesizing the experience we have observed in the cities of both developed and
developing economies, we identify five key elements of funding that are applicable to
India in its current stage of development:
1. Monetize land assets to fund urban infrastructure
2. Maximize the potential of property taxes and user charges
3. Create a formula-based grant system from state and central governments
4. Use debt and private-sector participation appropriately
5. Create enabling mechanisms such as SPVs and city development funds
to facilitate use of these revenue sources
In the next section, we explore how Indias urban funding system performs on these
five dimensions.
INDIA PERFORMS POORLY ON ALL FIVE ASPECTS OF URBAN
FUNDING PRACTICES
The 74th constitutional amendment called for the transfer of financing powers and
assets to local governments in line with their functions. However, the fact remains that
today Indias performance on four out of five components of the typical urban funding
system is poor, and below average on the fifth (Exhibit3.1.13). We now look at Indias
record on the five dimensions in turn:
Exhibit 3.1.13
Indias scorecard on five aspects of urban funding is poor and below
average on one
Monetize
land assets
Maximize
potential of
property
taxes/user
charges
Formula-based
transfer from
state/central
government
Appropriate
use of debt
and PPP
Enabling
mechanisms
to facilitate
funding and
minimize
investment risks
Poor
Below average
Above average
World class
Exhibit 3.1.13
1. Monetization of land assets. India has not yet used monetization of land assets
to finance urban infrastructure to any great degree. The few examples of using
land as a source of revenue have been at metropolitan development authorities,
the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) being the
most notable example. MMRDA has auctioned its land assets in Bandra-Kurla
in Mumbai and funded more than $4.5billion of spending on projects including
road, mass transit, and affordable housing for low -ncome groups over the past
five years. Over the next five years, MMRDA is expected to spend more than
$22billion, largely funded by land assets, debt, private-sector participation, and
some viability gap funding from the central government.
2. Maximizing the potential of property taxes and user-charges. Tapping
revenue from property taxes and user chargestwo sources of funding that
states have consistently transferred to the local levelhave been held back
by low tariffs (adopted for populist reasons), poor assessment methods, and
noncompliance. For example, India is managing to collect only an estimated 0.04
to 0.08percent of property values as property taxesone of the lowest rates in
the world. Some cities, including Bangalore and Delhi, have moved toward better
assessment of property taxes, but there is a long way to go before India can
maximize its use of this type of revenue. In the case of user charges, India needs
to recover a lot more. One recent report suggested that only around 60percent
of operational expenditure and zeropercent of the capital expenditure in water
supply is being recovered through user charges.
5

3. Formula-based grant system from central and state government. In India,
local governments bear the majority of the burden of urban expenditure with very
little support coming from state and central governments. State governments
have not augmented local government revenue in any meaningful manner. The
state finance commissions, recommended by the 74th constitutional amendment
to drive revenue-sharing mechanisms with local bodies, have not performed.
Across states, their appointment is delayed and most of their recommendations
remain on paper. In recent years, the central government has taken a more
proactive role in urban investments by launching JNNURM with an annual
allocation of $2.2billion. While this is a good start, much more needs to be done.
4. Appropriate use of debt and private-sector participation. Poor internal
financial management and control in local government has discouraged the
use of debt to finance investment. For example, over the past 15 years, local
governments in India have raised only $800million in debt through the bond
market. In addition, private-sector participation in urban infrastructure remains
nascent due to lack of proper revenue streams and enabling structures.
5. Enabling infrastructure to facilitate funding sources and minimize risk of
urban investment. India does not currently have the right enabling infrastructure
to facilitate these revenue sources. For example, municipalities are not allowed to
raise debt, and there are no clear guidelines for formation of SPVs. Municipalities
also lack basic accounting infrastructure. For example, even Mumbai did not have
a double-entrybased accounting system until recently. As a result, it became
difficult to forecast revenue and expenditure, and most spending programs
remained focused on solving immediate problems.
5 Benchmarking and data book of water utilities in India, Asian Development Bank and Ministry
of Urban Development, India, 2007.
74
REFORM ALONG THESE FIVE THEMES WOULD GO A LONG WAY
TOWARD FIXING INDIAS URBAN FUNDING TASK
MGI analysis finds that fixing todays deficiencies in Indias urban funding system
is largely possible as long as India unlocks new revenue streams and ensures a
balanced support from state and central government. But even before that, India
needs to understand the magnitude of investment required in its cities and commit to
a capital investment program of $134 per capita annually. In this section, we elaborate
on a range of ideas that, if implemented effectively, have the potential to bridge the
funding gap and transform Indian cities within five to ten years.
1. Aggressively monetize land assets
On a conservative estimate, India can generate up to $27billion a year (or $58 per
capita per annum) through land monetization (Exhibit3.1.14). The revenue streams
are likely to be much larger in Tier 1 cities (Exhibit3.1.15). This revenue target can be
achieved through three initiatives:
Exhibit 3.1.14
India can generate $27 billion per annum from land monetization
Total revenue from land monetization, current and potential
$ billion per annum, 2008 prices
27
3
Potential Current
9.0X
Exhibit 3.1.14
Exhibit 3.1.15
Revenue from land monetization is likely to be greatest
in Tier 1 cities
X
Cumulative $
per capita per
annum
Total per capita per annum
$, 2008 prices
6.2
6.6
14.4
Tiers 3
and 4
Tier 2
Tier 1
132
68
24
Total potential for funding
$ billion per annum, average 201030, 2008 prices
Exhibit 3.1.15
Charge a development fee on FAR increases. At current land-use and FAR
values, India has an opportunity to extract revenue from increases in FAR.
Local governments could systematically increase FAR around central business
districts and major transport corridors based on a master plan and charge a
development fee linked directly to property rates. In fact, we would argue that
India should not allow any increase in FAR in the absence of such a development
fee. We recommend that 40 to 50percent of the property price be charged as
development fees. For example, in Mumbai, an FAR increase from 1.3 to 4 in
key commercial centers could fetch the government 4,000 to 5,000 rupees per
square foot.
Auction of developed greenfield sites. Cities could also generate significant
funds through the auction of greenfield development sites. Based on long-term,
transparent master-plans, a city could identify such parcels of land, acquire them
and develop supportive infrastructure, and then auction them off. Such parcels
of land should ideally be adjacent to existing or planned transportation projects.
For example, city governments could acquire additional strips of land next to new
road construction projects or new metro rail stations at the time of construction,
provide basic infrastructure such as water supply, sewerage, and electricity, and
then auction them off after the construction is completed.
Charge impact fees on all construction to fund urban infrastructure. Cities
could charge fixed impact fees for all new developments on a per-square-foot
basis to provide for incremental trunk infrastructure such as roads, water supply,
sewage collection, solid-waste management, and storm-water drains. The level of
fees should be directly linked to property rates. On average, we recommend a rate
of 2 to 3percent of property values in Tier 1 cities as a one-off impact fee.
2. Maximize the potential of property taxes and user charges
India can generate $50billion per annum (or $112 per capita per annum) by
maximizing the potential of property tax and user charges. Doing this would require
two initiatives:
Increase property-tax collections to $15billion ($36 per capita) through
better assessment and greater compliance. Property tax is widely recognized
as an important source of municipal revenue, and we would argue that Indian
cities need to collect at least 0.3percent of their total property value every year
as property tax in order to fund the cost of provision of public-services (e.g., solid
waste, street lighting, parks, and open spaces). This can be done by implementing
three initiatives: (1) improving collection and coverage rates from the current 70
and 63percent, respectively, to 85percent through better enforcement and GIS
mapping of properties; (2) removing major exemptions (e.g., on properties owned
by government subsidiaries such as airports and port trusts); and (3) moving
toward a capital-value or unit area method based system with the appropriate
property tax rate. We recommend that the rate be such that the municipality
can generate up to 0.3percent of the property value annually in property tax
collections. Our research finds that if urban India implements these measures,
it can increase property tax collections fivefold to $15billion per annual ($36 per
capita) (Exhibit3.1.16).
76
Exhibit 3.1.16
India can increase its property tax collections by five times
Current and potential property tax collections
$ billion per annum, average 201030, 2008 prices
15 5
1
6
3
Removal of
exemptions
Improved
coverage
and collection
Current Better
assessment/
higher tax rate
Current
potential
5.0X
SOURCE: O. P. Mathur, et. al, Urban property tax potential in India; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Exhibit 3.1.16
Improve user-charge collections to recover at least operational and
maintenance expenditure on water, sewage, mass transit, and affordable
housing. Collection of user charges, which primarily relate to water supply,
sewage, mass transit, and affordable housing in India, is low as a result of a lack of
enforcement and low tariffs. We recommend that India aim to recover 100percent
of its operation and maintenance costs (Exhibit3.1.17). In the case of water supply
and sewage, local governments should aim to meter all water connections and
introduce progressive charges (e.g., providing free water supply for the first 40 liters
per capita per day but then setting progressive rate-slabs for higher consumption)
to achieve operational break-even. In case of mass-transit, full recovery may
not be possible and we recommend at least 70 to 80percent of operating and
maintenance expenditure to be recovered through fare-box and non-fare-box
revenues (e.g., advertising space, right-of-way for telecom and electrical cables
etc.). Indian cities should link these rates directly to inflation to account for rising
input costs. We estimate that user charges can generate revenue of $35billion
annually (or $76 per capita per annum).
In both of these areas, too, Indias Tier 1 cities would generate the most revenue
(Exhibit3.1.18).
Exhibit 3.1.17
India should aim to recover the majority of at least operational and
maintenance costs in water, sewage, and mass transit
Total user charges, current and potential
$ billion per annum, real 2008
4
9
6
Water
35
Mass transit
Sewage
Current
8
Potential
20
2
2
4.7X
Exhibit 3.1.17
Exhibit 3.1.18
The recovery of costs through tariffs would have the greatest impact in
Indias largest cities
Total per capita per annum
$, 2008 prices
19
9
5
3
11
4
User
charges
Property tax
collections
256
81
57
User change potential
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tiers 3 and 4
Exhibit 3.1.18
3. Use debt and private participation appropriately
We believe that India can raise up to $12billion per annum (or $26 per capita per
annum) by leveraging debt and attracting private-sector participation in urban sectors
(Exhibit3.1.19). Indias city governments have had a poor record on raising debt
either from public or private sources because of the weak state of local government
finances, the absence of a deep bond market in India, and the lack of a developed and
effective public-private partnership architecture. Traditionally, debt and private-sector
participation have contributed less than 5percent of urban investment. But based on
recent trends, we believe that there is significant potential in this area. Consider a recent
metro project in a leading city in India. 30percent of the project cost is paid for by the
78
central governments viability gap funding model; 20percent is being infused as equity
from the private concessionaire, while the remaining 50percent is financed through
debt. To replicate such a model across the country, we recommend two initiatives:
Exhibit 3.1.19
India can also raise up to $12 billion annually by leveraging the private
sector and tapping the debt markets
Total debt and PPP potential
12
2
Debt and
PPP
Potential Current
6.0X
Exhibit 3.1.19
Create project-specific SPVs. Cities should execute most of the major urban
projects costing more than $50million using SPVs, and follow target debt-to-
equity ratios.
Encourage private-sector participation through monetizable models. Cities
should aim to fund 25 to 30percent of projects, particularly in water-supply, sewage
treatment, solid-waste management and mass-transit sectors, through some form
of private-sector participation. While in terms of private equity infusion this would
amount to only $2billion per annum, by leveraging this amount with sufficient debt,
India could raise up to $12billion per annum. To do this, India would need to put
in place an effective and enabling PPP framework in which risks and rewards are
shared in an optimal way.
4. Create a sufficiently funded grant system from state and
central government
India must provide a sufficiently funded grant system to local governments by tripling
JNNURM allocation in the short term and by sharing 18 to 20percent of GST with
cities in the medium term.
As we have seen across the world, central and state governments have a key role to
play in ensuring that sufficient funding flows into urban infrastructure. The time is right
for India to create a similar system of transparent, formula-based grants.
In the medium term, India should allow its cities a stake in their own growth by sharing
a portion of the taxes that they generate directly. We recommend that, like China
which shares 25percent of its value-added-tax (VAT) collections directly with local
governments, India share at least 18 to 20percent of the GST directly with its cities
(Exhibit3.1.20). We believe that such a share would allow local governments to take
advantage of their own growth, become financially stronger, and create a virtuous
cycle of internal revenue generation, public investment in infrastructure, and economic
growth. This is consistent with the 13th Central Finance Commissions assessment
that GST, a consumption-based tax that creates local incentives for growth, is well
suited for direct allocation to the third tier of government. In fact, a beginning was
already made with the commission allocating $1billion (or 4,700 crore rupees) of
central taxes per annum directly to cities. Given that cities generate almost 70percent
of the total $82billion that India receives from consumption taxes overall, an 18 to
20percent share would imply an additional $10.4billion, or an average of $43 per
capita through 2030. Such a transfer would most directly benefit Tier 1 and 2 cities
and specialist Tier 3 and 4 cities the most.
Exhibit 3.1.20
India should share 18-20 percent of GST revenue directly with cities
India should allow cities to have a stake in
their growth by sharing 20 percent GST
directly with them
this incentive would benefit Tier 1
and 2 cities and specialist Tier 3 and 4
cities the most
27
56
60
160
320
560
890
Chennai
Hyderabad
Jamshedpur
Bokaro
Panepat
Ambala
Greater
Mumbai
Share of cities in $ million, 2006
10.4
Recommended
share of
1820%
2
Urban
GST
58
11
Total
GST
82
$ billion, 2006
Tiers 1
and 2
Selected
Tiers 3
and 4
SOURCE: India Urbanization Funding Model; Government of India Finance Statistics; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Exhibit 3.1.20
In the short term, however, India should consider providing a similar amount by
leveraging a proven existing vehicle in the JNNURM as well as the recently launched
Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) scheme. India should triple the JNNURMs allocation from
10,000 crore rupees per annum ($2.2billion) today to 30,000 crore rupees per annum
($6.7billion) with an equivalent contribution from states and municipalities and
simultaneously allocate 15,000 crore rupees per annum ($3.3billion) to RAY to kick-
start this urban investment program.
5. Create the appropriate enabling mechanisms to facilitate funding
sources
India needs to create strong enabling mechanisms to facilitate these new funding
sources. We suggest the following initiatives in this regard:
Distribute land revenues and government funding support equally between
municipal and metropolitan authorities. Traditionally, a combination of local
and development authorities and state parastatals have delivered all core urban
services. In the future, as we discuss in section 3.2, we believe that larger urban
agglomerations will need metropolitan authorities to drive metropolitan-wide
issues, including the planning and execution of projects for the region (such as
metropolitan-wide transportation projects and affordable housing for low-income
groups). It therefore becomes important to provide funding sources to local and
metropolitan authorities that match their responsibilities. We propose sharing land
revenue and government funding support (share of GST) between the two on a
80
50:50 basis, a figure we arrived at to balance responsibilities between the two, as
explained in section 3.2.
Deepen bond markets and encourage municipalities to tap them for urban
infrastructure. India should consider how it should progressively deepen its
bond markets. This would involve action to ensure efficient price discovery,
creating a level playing field for bonds and bank loans, removing hurdles to long-
term debt, and building an effective dispute-resolution mechanism. In addition,
municipalities should be encouraged to tap these bond markets by creating
project-specific SPVs.
Create ring-fenced city development funds for all Tier 1 and selected Tier
2 cities. Tier 1 and selected Tier 2 cities should create their own city development
fund to hold the receipts of all key revenue streams (with land and GST revenue
streams available equally to local and metropolitan authorities) and ring fence it for
the sole purpose of financing urban infrastructure. This would ensure that funding
raised from within cities is effectively used for the citys own development in line
with its economic and population growth.
Create an effective accounting system at the local level. City governments
should follow standardized accounting norms as specified in the National
Municipal Accounting Manual based on the principles of accrual accounting. This
will help codify data on urban finances to enable effective oversight by state and
central finance commissions. In addition, all cities must implement a double-entry
based accounting system as well as create asset inventories to effectively plan and
use their revenue. All local governments should also be subject to regular audits.
WITH SUCH MEASURES, MOST TIER 1 AND 2 CITIES COULD
SATISFY THEIR FUNDING REQUIREMENTS; TIER 3 AND 4 CITIES
MAY NEED ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE
India needs to unlock the four revenue streams that we have described if it is to pay for
the nations continuing urbanization and put urban funding onto a more sustainable
long-term footing (Exhibit3.1.21). Such changes can have a dramatic impact on the
ground as we explain (Exhibit3.1.22).
Most Tier 1 and 2 cities can fund themselves with 80 to 85percent of funds
generated internally. With the implementation of the measures that we have
described, we estimate that Indias large Tier 1 and 2 cities can mostly fund
themselves. We also estimate that 80 to 85percent of the total funds required
by these cities can be generated within them. This would relieve the strain on the
central governments budget and at the same time would be a powerful incentive
for city governments to perform and give them a major confidence boost.
However, this is not true for Tier 3 and 4 cities.
Tier 3 and 4 cities will need additional support (at least $20 per capita per
year) from the central and state governments. Despite a near sevenfold
increase in urban spending from $12 per capita today to $81 per capita, Tier 3 and
4 cities will still fall short of their urban funding requirements. Central and state
governments need to hand-hold these cities until they become large enough to
be able to fund themselves. In the short-term, we recommend that the state and
central governments provide a minimum basic grant of $20 per capita to these
cities. While we recognize that such a grant would not be enough, it would at least
enable these cities to provide some necessary urban services to their residents
at minimum service levels (e.g., 90 liters per capita per day of water, 50percent
sewage treatment, 100percent sewerage or septic tank coverage, and the
concreting of major roads).

Exhibit 3.1.21
India needs to access four key extra funding streams to pay for urbanization
Capital expenditure Operating expenditure
134
127
43
26
58
CapEx
required
Total
CapEx
Govern-
ment
support
Debt
and
PPP
Monetizing
land
116
112
76
36
OpEx
required
Total
OpEx
User
charges
Property
tax
Exhibit 12
4 1 2 3
Exhibit 3.1.22
Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities can fund themselves, with 80 to 85 percent of funding
through internal sources
SOURCE: India Urbanization Funding Model; City Development Plans; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Funding requirement, and potential
$ per capita in CapEx and OpEx, 2008 prices
Additional
from
center/
state
130
Additional
internal
317
114
Required Internal
generation
561
510
Current
12%
38
Required
215
201
Internal
generation
133
30
20%
69
111
30
Required
154
Internal
generation
12
47%
Exhibit 3.1.22
Includes
additional
$20 per
capita
BY IMPLEMENTING THIS URBAN FUNDING PROGRAM AND
PURSING URBAN REFORMS, INDIA COULD BOOST ITS NATIONAL
GDP BY 1 TO 1.5 PERCENT ANNUALLY
If India were to implement all the measures that we have outlined, India would
increase its urban spending nearly eightfold on a per capita basis and deliver an
improved level of urban services to its urban citizens. However, India could achieve
much more than thisachieving a national boost to the nations economic prospects.
82
Our research finds that the increase in spending that we have outlined, coupled with
reforms in urban sectors (e.g., urban land) would produce significant productivity
gains that would have the potential to boost Indias long-term GDP growth rate by 1 to
1.5percentage points.
INDIA CAN ACHIEVE MANY FUNDING REFORMS WITHIN FIVE TO
TEN YEARS
The implementation of all the measures that we have described would put Indias
urban funding on a wholly new and improved footingand provide the basis to
transform Indias cities. And we would argue that the implementation of a majority of
the steps is achievable within five to ten years. For these measures, India could begin
to consider a systematic process to put them into action. For the remaining measures
(e.g., sharing 18 to 20percent GST directly with cities, raising user charges to recover
100percent operating and maintenance expenditure), India may first have to build a
political consensus. However, there is no reason that India shouldnt make a start in
putting its urban finances on a healthy and sustainable footing.
So what could be the next steps for India on urban funding? In the course of
our research, we believe that the following action at the central, state, and local
government levels can constitute a plan of near-term action:
Central government still has an important short- and medium-term
role to play in funding
We have identified a number of initiatives that the central government might consider
that would enhance its ability to act as a facilitator to urban reform.
Short term. In the near term, we would recommend that the central government
focus on building upon the success of the JNNURM by tripling the Mission's
annual allocation to 30,000 crore rupees ($6.7billion), with an equivalent
contribution from the state and municipalities, and approving the Rajit Awas
Yojana (RAY) scheme with an annual allocation of 15,000 crore rupees
($3.3billion). This next-generation JNNURM could prove to be a good interim
solution until India implements the GST sharing mechanism. Within this overall
initiative, we see three additional changes:
Keep the base fund of 10,000 crore rupees ($2.2billion) per annum for mission
cities based on current reform conditionalities.
Create an incentive fund of 8,000 crore rupees ($1.7billion) for states that
have the capacity and will to push ahead with the next set of reforms (e.g.,
land monetization policy along with a ring-fenced fund for every large city,
mandating formation of SPVs for all projects above $50million with target debt
to equity ratios, incorporating state government regulation on impact fees).
Bolster the program of urban capacity program by allocating 2,000
($0.4billion) that provide technical know-how in the short term (e.g., hand-
holding for PPP projects) and bolster capacity in the long term (e.g., creation of
urban planning institutes).
Establish a separate grant of 10,000 crore rupees ($2.2billion) for Tier 3 and 4
cities and distribute the money based on an appropriate set of conditionalities.
Medium term. In the medium term, we argue that two central government
initiatives would prove useful:
Enact legislation that would lead to sharing 18 to 20percent of GST taxes
directly with local governments.
Implement key recommendations for financial sector reform as mentioned
in the Patil, Mistry and Rajan committee reports to strengthen Indian bond
markets, and encourage municipalities to tap them.
6

State governments should work in tandem with the central government
on this program
The role of state governments is likely to be crucial in the short term to push through
urban investment and reforms. Over the short term, state government should aim to
implement reforms relating to land monetization, user charges, property taxes and
debt, and private-sector participation. In addition, they should clearly demarcate
the funding sources for metropolitan authorities and municipalities by sharing half
of land revenue and government funding support between them. They should also
contribute their share in line with the centers contribution in JNNURM and RAY to the
cities.
Metropolitan authorities and municipalities, too, should aim to leverage the new
sources of funding to push urban investment. They should start the ball rolling by
creating a five-year capital investment plan that they deem sufficient to meet their
requirements.
* * *
Indian cities today are paying the price of years of chronic underinvestment. To clear
this backlog and meet the rising demands of expanding urban India, the nation needs
to find $1.2 trillion to spend on capital investment over the next 20 years. Although
this is arguably one of the toughest challenge India faces, there are tried and tested
revenue streams into which to tap. The prize of doing so is considerable. Indias cities
could nearly fund their requirements.
6 Report of High Level Expert Committee on Corporate Bonds and Securitization, Government
of India by Dr. R. H. Patil, December 2005; Committee on Mumbai as an international nancial
centre (IFC), Percy Mistry, 2007; A hundred small steps, Report of the Committee on Financial
Sector Reform, Government of India by Shri Raghuram Rajan, August 2007.
84
3.2 Empowering city administrations
The second critical pillar of managing Indias cities is their governance. Building
effective governance is about ensuring a suitable mandate, designing effective
structures, delegating power, embedding accountability, and making sure cities have
appropriate and sufficient capabilities at their disposal.
The poor state of governance in Indian cities is evident to any citizen living in one of
them. Simple questionsWho is the single point authority in an Indian city? What
is the relationship between a metropolitan authority and local municipality?have
no answers. Given that, by 2030, many of Indias cities and metropolitan areas will
become larger than most countries in terms of both GDP and population, it is vital
that India address such questions. For without comprehensive city governance
reform, India will deteriorate even furtherand rapidly.
Despite the fact that the 74th Amendment to Indias constitution devolved power
and responsibility from the state government to cities on 18 key functions, state
policy makers have been mostly silent on the implementation of these reforms.
This is even more surprising considering that the amendment and the subsequent
JNNURM set forth a specific set of governance and accountability mechanisms for
state and city governments.
In this section, we will discuss the following:
Six areas where Indian city governance mechanism is lacking
Lessons learned from well-run cities around the world
Recommendations for governance reforms
A potential way forward to make reforms happen
INDIAN CITY GOVERNANCE IS LACKING IN SIX AREAS
Cities develop over the course of generations and clearly need long-term vision,
planning, and execution across a wide array of sectors. It is particularly important to
integrate the planning of land use, transportation, and housing; ensure coordination
across administrative departments; maintain alignment among all stakeholders; and
deliver services to a large and growing population.
India has not sufficiently recognized the complexity of city
management
Managing the scale, the level of integration, and the degree of operational excellence
makes the running of cities among the most difficult administrative challenges
in the modern era. Yet India has scarcely faced up to the job at hand. Without
acknowledging the complexity of governing large cities and therefore the need for
administrative structures and processes sophisticated enough to manage it, India
continues to rely on outdated leadership and delivery choices.
Surprisingly, there is little bottom-up pressure from citizens to
improve governance
Throughout the world, major reform in city administration and performance has come
on the back of citizens demanding change and setting out markers for what they
expect from their cities in return for their talent and their tax contributions. Except for
isolated efforts in some cities, India has not experienced a consistent citizen movement
demanding better structures and more accountability from city administrators. For
example, one political party in recent state government elections promised a directly
elected mayor for a major city; after the election, the promise was quickly forgotten.
Urban citizens have not forcefully adopted the agenda of city governance reforms, an
area that could have the greatest impact on the quality of their daily lives.
As a result, Indias city governance is lacking in six specific areas:
1. Devolution of powers to cities. India has not sufficiently recognized and defined
the third tier of government at the city level, nor has it made clear what a city is
expected to deliver to its residents. India has defined governance quite well for the
first two tiers of administrationthe central and state levelsand to some extent,
the third tier of administration for villages through the Panchayati Raj. But no clear
definition of governance and accountability yet exists for the third tier comprising
Indias 5,400 cities and metropolitan areas. The low level of political importance
accorded to cities has been an extraordinary oversight that the 74th Amendment
to the Constitution aimed to address. The 1992 amendment voiced Indias
preference for a devolved model of local governance, but there has been a gap
between intention and implementation. The amendment provided for the transfer
of 18 functions from states to urban local bodies (ULB) and to District Planning
Committees (DPC) and Meropolitan Planning Committees (MPCs). Among these
functions are land use, urban planning, economic development, water, and roads.
But thus far, no state has fully devolved the entire slate of assets and functions
to cities. Even when the transfer has happened on paper, most decision-making
power remains with the states. The reluctance of state governments and chief
ministers to devolve power to the cities remains at the heart of this situation.
2. Appropriate balance between local and metropolitan structures. With 35
urban agglomerations, each with more than amillion in population today and 20
that stretch across multiple municipal boundaries (e.g., Kolkata), local governance
structure cannot be designed around local bodies alone (Exhibit3.2.1). First,
the dynamics of the city are rarely contained within municipal boundaries. While
some solutions are local, many challenges such as mass-transit systems and
affordable housing for low-income groups (both currently seen to be in the remit
of state governments more than local bodies) need metropolitan-wide answers
that India lacks today. Second, with many urban agglomerations having a large
number of ULBs (for example, Kolkata has 40), the need for a single entity that is
able to identify and mediate cross-municipal issues is key. This balance between
metropolitan and urban local body administration has received scant attention in
India to date. While the 74th Amendment called for the establishment of MPCs to
coordinate metropolitan-wide urban planning, only three state governments have
so far constituted them.
86
Exhibit 3.2.1
35
2
8
10
9
3
8
24
6
2
2
2
12
40
5
4
2
3
Delhi
Agra
Nashik
Ahmedabad
Greater Mumbai
Pune
Bangalore Chennai
Coimbatore
Kochi
Madurai
Vijayawada
Hyderabad
Visakhapatnam
Kolkata
Asansol
Dhanbad
Jamshedpur
Patna
Varanasi
SOURCE: Census 2001; Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission reforms status; Association of Municipalities and
Development Authorities
Metropolitan structures are required to manage the
needs of at least the 20 urban agglomerations with
multiple municipalities
Note: Development authorities exist in all urban agglomerations except Nagpur, Jamshedpur, Coimbatore, and Faridabad.
<2 million
2 million5 million
5 million10 million
>10 million
n Number of municipal
bodies in the urban
agglomeration
9
4
Exhibit 3.2.1
ILLUSTRATIVE LIST
FROM CENSUS 2001
3. Single point empowered leadership at the metropolitan and municipal levels.
Indias cities do not have empowered leaders with the clout and tenure to deliver
against explicit mandates (Exhibit3.2.2). While many cities have mayors, their tenures
are short and they rarely have the power to drive new investments, hire key personnel,
fund projects, or reorganize departmentsall critical to revamp a citys performance.
In large cities, power is distributed between the municipal commissioner and the
Municipal Corporation in a way that makes neither of the two fully accountable
for the citys decisions. Many municipal commissioners, who currently form the
bulwark of day-to-day city administration rarely, stay for more than three years. These
commissioners therefore have no long-term stake in the city and invariably shy away
from making the big decisions important for the citys long-term health.
Exhibit 3.2.2
India is among a small group of countries that do not have
elected executives for their large metropolitan areas
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
19
20
20
21
24
24
24
31
Seoul
Jakarta
Los Angeles
Moscow
Cairo
Delhi
Osaka
Kolkata
Sao Paulo
New York
Mumbai
Tokyo
Mexico City
Shanghai
Manila
Presidential
Presidential
Parliamentary
Presidential
Communist
Parliamentary
Presidential
Semi-presidential
Presidential
Presidential
SOURCE: www.citymayors.com; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Elected or
empowered mayor
Rank City 2010 population, million
Nature of national
political system
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Metropolitan
leaders
Parliamentary
Parliamentary
Parliamentary
Exhibit 3.2.2
Presidential
Presidential
4. Appropriate organization structure for service delivery and fast decision
making. The problem of unclear mandates and diffused power at the leadership
level extends to the internal organization structure, too. India still runs its
cities through departments that are encumbered by time-consuming legacy
processes and that lack clearly defined targets with supporting budgets.
While the complexity of city administration requires the application of the best
organizational principles, the third tier of government is locked in a time warp with
structures that lag best practices.
5. Access to managerial talents and key skills. Exacerbating the absence of
empowered leaders and structures that are designed to deliver large-scale
services efficiently is a deep and persistent gap in the critical skills needed to
run cities. Across India, there is a severe shortage of such talent. The Ministry of
Urban Development estimates that India needs around 40,000 planners across
its cities, while the number of registered planners is closer to 3,000. Of equal
importance, cities have not created meaningful jobs and cadres to attract the kind
of talent of the caliber that the Indian Administrative Service pulls in. At the same
time, city administrations, by and large, remain highly resistant to leveraging talent
from the private sector.
6. Clear accountability and transparency mechanisms. Too many city
administrations in the country are overly focused on defining tight processes
while being very loose in tracking outcomes. This is exactly opposite to what
is necessarytight outcomes with flexibility in the processes used to deliver
outcomes. No department or unit within the government is held accountable for
annual outcomes. In fact, it is often difficult to understand what the goals were in a
particular year and what outcomes were delivered.
In summary, Indias record on the governance of its cities is poor on five and below
average on one of the six dimensions discussed (Exhibit3.2.3).
Exhibit 3.2.3
India scores poorly on five dimensions of good city governance, and
below average on one
Poor
Below
average
Above
average
World
class
Devolution
of powers
Metropolitan
structures
Empowered
leadership
Service
delivery
structures
Access to
managerial
talent
Accountability
mechanisms
Exhibit 3.2.3
88
India clearly needs a better way to run its cities. And, because of the scale and speed
of ongoing urban expansion, it is equally evident that incremental change would be
insufficient. Now is the time for India to seek lessons from well-managed cities from
around the world and learn from the best practices.
WELL-RUN CITIES OFFER EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL
PRACTICES IN GOVERNANCE
Although cities are built over many generations, the experience of other cities around
the world suggests that good governance can be achieved in as little as a single
decade. Many cities across the globe have faced challenges similar to those with
which India grapples today, and in response have devised solutions that have led to
effective management.
Cities around the world have taken different journeys toward sustainable living and
prosperitybut these journeys share several common themes. McKinseys analysis
of city governance in many countries finds that successful cities have implemented
outstanding and proven practices across the six areas we have articulated. As
illustration of key examples of these practices, we share three examplesthe United
Kingdom (London), South Africa (Johannesburg), and China (Shanghai):
United Kingdom. Take London as an example. In metropolitan London, there is
clear articulation of what the city has to deliver. While the boroughs (equivalent to
Indias municipalities) are responsible for local services including schools, social
services, waste collection, and local roads, the mayor drives key citywide strategic
functions, including economic development, transportation, metropolitan planning,
and police and emergency services. In its push for strong executive accountability,
the city has adopted, in the heart of a parliamentary democracy, a directly elected
mayoral system (Exhibit3.2.4).
Exhibit 3.2.4
London has pioneered a combination of a directly elected mayor with
corporatized agencies that selectively involve the private sector
33 London Boroughs
Central level
Metropolitan level
Municipal level
UK Government
Department of Communities
and Local Government
Greater London Authority
Housing Economic
development
Transport Environment
GLA
(permanent staff)
Mayor of London
London
Assembly
Transport for London
(TfL)
London Development
Agency (LDA)
Metropolitan Police
Authority (MPA)
London Fire and
Emergency Planning
Authority (LFEPA)
Exhibit 3.2.4
In fact, this is not limited to London; other cities have the choice of adopting a directly
elected mayoral system, too. The mayor of London has wide financial powers and
will oversee spending of around 14billion in 201011. The Greater London Authority,
headed by the mayor, sits as a strong metropolitan authority on top of the 33
boroughs in the city. With a two-thirds majority needed to veto the mayors budget,
the role of the Greater London Assembly (with members elected from the boroughs)
is more to ensure checks and balances than to make decisions. London has also
been at the forefront of innovation in the delivery of services. Independent agencies
with leaders appointed by the mayor are responsible for key functions and have the
freedom to hire talent and expertise from outside. For example, Transport for London
(TfL) is run as a corporatized agency with an independent board appointed by the
mayor and a CEO responsible for running the operations (Exhibit3.2.5).
Exhibit 3.2.5
SOURCE: www.tfl.gov.uk
Transport for London (TfL) was designed on the principle of effective
coordination between the political leadership and executive bodies
Independent
entity
Created under Greater London Authority Act 1999
Independent
board
TfL is controlled by a board of 17 members; members are appointed/removed by the
Mayor of London who also chairs the Board
Empowered
executive
The commissioner of TfL reports to the board and leads a management team with
three major operating units (underground, surface transport, and London Rail),
supported by five corporate directorates
Each directorate is headed by a managing director (chief officer), reporting to the
commissioner
Clear delineation
of roles
Board responsible for approving budget, business plan, and major infrastructure
schemes; oversees performance of the executive team
The commissioner and chief officers are responsible and accountable for the delivery
of the day-to-day operations
Advisory panels like Rail Transport Advisory Panel and Surface Advisory Panel act
as the mechanisms through which board Members provide strategic advice to the
commissioner and the mayor on development and implementation of TfL policy
Funding
Overall budget of 7.9 billion in 200809, primarily funded by fare/other revenues
(3.6 billion) and transport grant from government (2.7 billion)
Exhibit 3.2.5
At the same time, these agencies use contracts with the private sector drawn
with clear service agreements and predefined tenures to stimulate competition
and to improve the efficiency and quality of services (e.g., fixed-fee contracts for
operating specific bus routes). These agencies can leverage talent through these
private-sector contracts and by hiring the best managerial talent directly into them.
Accountability flows both ways. Through the chief executives of the agencies, the
mayor ensures delivery on annual targets. At the same time, the central government
holds Local Strategic Partnerships (comprising local governments, development
agencies, and other organizations) accountable through Local Area Agreements
(which cover 1,200 measures of performance and 198 indicators). Each local area
selects a maximum of 35 indicators, the performance against which is used to review
budgetary allocations from the national government. Boroughs also need to get their
local development plans ratified by the mayor before sending them to the secretary
of state for approval. Overall, London provides an excellent guide for large cities
in India, having created a strong unified executive capable of attracting top talent
with agencies responsible for service delivery in a country whose overall political
system resembles that of India. These changes have helped to create a city whose
GDP grew at an annual rate of 5.3percent between 2003 and 2008, higher than the
national average.
90
South Africa. While Londons governance structure was the result of
experimentation and incremental changes over decades, the South African
government was forced to make rapid innovations in the governance of
Johannesburg in the wake of the citys near bankruptcy in the late 1990s. First,
five previously independent local municipalities were merged into a single
metropolitan government for the entire city of Johannesburg with a clear mandate
to deliver all key municipal services. Second, a clear separation was made
between the city governments role as a policy maker and its role as a service
provider, through the creation of three kinds of agencies whose leaders report to
the city government but with clear mandates and supporting budgets. The nature
of the agencies depends on the nature of service provided and the extent to
which they rely on tax collection and government funding support (Exhibit3.2.6).
Finally, the reforms created a clearly empowered political executive supported
by an appointed city manager who aids professional administration of the city.
These changes were reinforced by a new accountability system that included
memorandums of understanding (MOU) signed between the mayor and the chief
executives of the agencies. The continuation of the chief executives contract
as well as compensation depend on the performance measured against these
MOUs (Exhibit3.2.7). A new performance management unit called the Contract
Management Unit was given the task of coordinating the creation and monitoring
of these agreements. Since these reforms, the city of Johannesburg moved from
near insolvency to a surplus of 1billion rand in 2006, and it has seen average
annual GDP growth of 5.3percent between 2003 and 2008 compared with
4.7percent nationally.
Exhibit 3.2.6
Johannesburg has built accountability through autonomous agencies
balanced by strong oversight
Executive Mayor
City Manager
Contract Management
Unit
Shareholder Unit
Utilities
Water
Electricity
Refuse collections
Agencies
Economic development
Parks
Roads
Companies
Bus
Theater
Zoo
Real estate
Established for services which can be
funded through user charges; receive no
annual grants
Established for services
traditionally funded from taxes
Established for services that could attract
user fees but still require subsidies,
which compete in the open market, and
are encouraged to reduce subsidy
reliance
Monitors corporate
governance and
financial viability
Nonpolitical administrator to aid
the executive mayor
Monitors service
delivery against
annual targets
SOURCE: Laila Smith, Neither Public Nor Private: Unpacking the Johannesburg Water Corporatization Model; McKinsey Global
Institute analysis
Exhibit 3.2.6
Exhibit 3.2.7
Johannesburg holds chief executives of municipal enterprises accountable
through memorandums of understanding with the mayor
Mayor
General
manager
(GM),
roads agency
GM,
bus company
GM,
waste-
management
utility
GM,
water utility
Performance
management
unit
MOU on service delivery
Delivery performance
Number of units delivered
Service response time
Financial health
Net margin/surplus
Collection efficiency
Organizational health
Number of positions vacant
Number of persons trained/
certified
Exhibit 3.2.7
China. London and Johannesburg are both examples of city governance
in the context of democracies. China has a different polity but has driven
transformation of its cities through two key choices similar to changes in London
and Johannesburg. First, Shanghai (like Beijing) has special status in Chinas
administrative system as a directly administered municipality, the equivalent of a
province or a state. Second, Chinas major cities have mayors who are powerful
political appointees and whom the central government holds accountable
for delivering economic growth and improvements in the quality of life of their
cities. The fact that the role of mayors of large cities is seen as a stepping-
stone to leadership positions at the central government is a powerful incentive.
Jiang Zhemin and Zhu Rongji were first party secretary or mayor in Shanghai
before being elevated to the standing committee of the Communist Partys
Politburo and top government positions in Beijing. Finally, Chinas cities, too,
have recognized the necessity of separating policy making from infrastructure
construction and service delivery, especially given the scale of the countrys
urban transformation. Large cities have created stand-alone SPVs to build basic
infrastructure, supplementing the work of policy bureaus that exist inside the
city government; the Shanghai-Chengtou Water business unit, for example,
has mobilized $17billion in loans and bonds to build the metropolitan areas
water supply and distribution network working in collaboration with the Water
Bureau. While many of these SPVs were carved out from within government
departments, some were created from scratch (Exhibit3.2.8).
92
Exhibit 3.2.8
Water
bureau
Shanghai
Chengtou
Water BU
Shanghai uses special-purpose vehicles to design and deliver complex
urban projects
SPVs were established as vehicles to channel revenue
from land sales and debt to focused project delivery
SPVs work in coordination with the bureaus of the
municipal government
Example of project-specific
SPVs created to build and
operate the city railway and
viaduct
Shanghai Municipal
Government
Planning
bureau
Environ-
ment
bureau
Health
care
bureau
Education
bureau
Transpor-
tation
bureau
Shanghai
Chengtou
Road BU
Shanghai
Shentong
Metro
City
government
SPVs
Ten SPVs
Exhibit 3.2.8
India has experimented with some of these practices as well, registering successes,
modest though they may be.
Kolkata. Kolkata has had some success in two out of the six areas of an ideal
city governance model: The modified mayor-commissioner architecture at
the municipality level, and the metropolitan governance structure. The mayor-
commissioner system adopted at the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC)
represents an improvement in the leadership structure from the traditional system
in other cities. First, the citys mayor serves a five-year term and is the executive
in charge of the KMC, which comprises a mayor-in-council that meets weekly.
Second, the commissioner is directly accountable to the mayor, who has influence
over his selection, removal, and annual confidential report. Third, the mayor-in-
council acts as the de facto cabinet, with members drawn from the assembly by the
mayor to full-time salaried positions as heads of portfolio departments. And, finally,
critical to the success of the system is the granular definition of roles and the balance
of power between the mayor and commissioner, in which the commissioners
role provides effective checks and balances on the mayor. In fact, our analysis
suggests that not having this appropriate balance of power was responsible for
Mumbais failed mayor-in-council experience. At the metropolitan level, Kolkata has
constituted one of the few functioning MPCs in the country, as proposed by the 74th
Amendment. With the chief minister leading the committee, there is strong political
legitimacy for its work. This is further bolstered by four key committees that report to
the MPC (planning, traffic and transportation, sewerage, and program monitoring),
in which state bureaucrats from the relevant state government ministries coordinate
between the state government and the metropolitan government. The presence
of the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Agency (KMDA) as the secretariat to
the MPC gives heft to implementation. The metropolitan government also wields
the power of coordination across municipalities by stipulating that all municipal
plans need to conform with metropolitan development plans (Exhibit3.2.9).
Kolkatas model is far from perfect, but its structure still represents progress in local
administration in India.
Exhibit 3.2.9
Kolkata is a rarity in India with an elected body and executive agency
working at the metropolitan level
Chairman, KMPC
CEO,
Kolkata Metropolitan
Development Authority
(KMDA)
Sewerage,
drainage,
sanitation
Sectoral committees
Education, health,
employment,
slums
Transportation
Environment
Water supply
Kolkata Metropolitan
Planning Committee
(KMPC)
Chaired by minister-in-charge,
urban development
Eight members from political
and technical backgrounds
Sectoral committees prepare sectoral plans within overall perspective plan for
Kolkata Metropolitan Authority; presence of central/state department bureaucrats
ensures alignment between state and metropolitan policies
Represents 41 ULBs and
24 panchayat samitis
1
(village level)
Comprises 40 elected
and 20 nominated
members
KMPC derives legitimacy
through leadership of chief
minister
Chairman,
Executive Committee
Exhibit 3.2.9
Mumbai. While Indias largest city exhibits some of the failures of the nations current
urbanization path, nuggets of good governance practices are evident. A key success
is the existence of BEST, an autonomous agency within the Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) responsible for public bus transportation and electricity
supply (Exhibit3.2.10). First, a general manager heads the agency, acting as the CEO.
The general manager has operational autonomy over new routes, vendor selection,
recruitment, and other day-to-day decisions. Second, the presence of the BEST
committee allows the board to make decisions more quickly than it traditionally would
have. Finally, there is clear accounting of revenue and expenses.
Exhibit 3.2.10
BEST, Mumbais transportation agency provides an example of
successful corporatization for a municipal service
Autonomy
Clear accounting for revenue and
expenses through streamlining of budget.
Revenue from operations utilized only for
BEST activities
Faster decision making/greater
sensitization toward transport issues
through a dedicated BEST committee
General manager works under BEST
committee and Corporation; has
operational autonomy over new routes,
vendor selection, recruitment and other
day to day decisions
Checks and balances
BEST committee presents budget to the
corporation and takes decisions on wage
revisions, fare changes (within limits
prescribed by state government
notification)
Expenditure above 10 lakhs has to be
approved by BEST committee
The 17-member BEST committee comprises chairman
of standing committee and other members appointed by
the corporation; at least one member must be a
councillor, who will also be the chairman of the board
General manager appointed by the state government
General manager
Assistant general
manager (traffic)
Deputy general
manager (electric)
BEST Committee
Municipal
Corporation
Exhibit 3.2.10
94
Our findings from the many cities we have analyzed and visited offer clear
implications for how Indian cities can proceed.
TO IMPROVE CITY GOVERNANCE, INDIA NEEDS TO MAKE TWO
CHOICES AND TAKE SIX ACTIONS
India needs to discuss and make significant political choices in six areas to design a
solution that is feasible and desirable in the Indian context.
1. Devolve power to city governments
The first major area that India needs to debate is to what extent it should empower urban
leaders and administrators, the nature of that devolution, and the standards of service
delivery and urban management that it should expect. This is a fundamental starting
point for any effort to improve the governance of Indias cities, and all else flows from it.
Choice 1: How far should India devolve responsibility and power to its cities?
The first key choice is on the level of devolution, and India has a whole spectrum
of options (Exhibit3.2.11). At one end of this spectrum, cities have some powers in
the delivery of a selected list of functions but decision rights on all key issues rest
largely with the state government. On the other end is true devolution in which local
governments have complete control over all key functions (including police) and
the state government retains veto power over city decisions only in clearly defined
exceptional circumstances.
Exhibit 3.2.11
Urban planning
Regulation of land use
Roads and bridges
Water supply
Health, sanitation, waste
management
Fire
Slum improvement
Urban poverty alleviation
10 other discretionary functions
+
Police
Sector based economic
strategies
Indias first serious choice is on the extent of devolution of power to cities
74th constitutional
amendment Current (partial devolution) Full devolution
Functions Transfer of few functions in
10 states
Urban planning
Regulation of land use
Roads and bridges
Water supply
Health, sanitation,
waste management
Fire
Slum improvement
Urban poverty
alleviation
10 other discretionary
functions (e.g.,
maintenance of birth
and death certificates)
Devolution
of decision-
making
State government retains the
power to suspend resolutions,
orders and contracts of the
municipality
Intention was decision
making on the 18
functions devolved
mostly to local
governments
State government veto only in
the most exceptional of
circumstances, and subject to
review
Path toward greater devolution
Exhibit 3.2.11
In an important sense, India has already decided to embark on this journey of devolution,
with the 74th Amendment as the model of partial devolution, involving complete
transfer of 18 key functions. We recommend that India start with implementing the 74th
Amendment in full now, at least for Tier 1 and 2 cities, and then gradually move toward
more cities and more complete devolution. The starting point of local administrative
reform in India will have to be adherence to a choice the country has already made
through the constitutional amendment.
Implement the 74th Amendment in full. It is our view that full devolution, backed
by the transfer of functions and associated funding to the cities, is a key first step
to establish effective local government (Exhibit3.2.12). Without this devolution on
paper and in spirit, cities will continue to occupy a hazy third tier of government
that is neither fully formed nor fully empowered. The most important area is to
ensure that appropriate decision rights are given to local governments.
Exhibit 3.2.12
India needs to fully implement the transfer of functions and assets
contained in the 74th constitutional amendment
74th constitutional
amendment contains
two key reforms that have not been faithfully implemented to date
Transfer of 18 functions
from states to ULBs
Around 12 functions transferred in 10 states
Water transferred to ULBs in only 12 states
Even when transferred on paper, conflicting role of parastatal
agencies not clarified
No state has devolved the full state of assets, budgets,
liabilities, and allocations to ULBs
Constitution of State
Finance Commissions to
make recommendations
on sharing of revenue
25 states have State Finance Commissions set up, only 9
states have submitted action taken reports
Mismatch in timing between Central Finance Commission
and State Finance Commission
No real conversation on creating funding independence at
ULBs
Exhibit 3.2.12
In the long term, however, India should aspire to a solution that resembles the
systems forged in other countries based on complete devolution (including police
and economic development, coupled with complete decision rights) that recognizes
a city government as a full and legitimate third tier of government.
2. Create functioning metropolitan structures
Even as India debates the appropriate degree of devolution for cities, it is absolutely
imperative to consciously design the administrative structure for large cities that
have multiple municipalities. We believe that the need for clearly defined, functional
metropolitan governments is critical to improve the construction and maintenance
of large-scale urban infrastructure as well as to create a level of government that is
actively driving the long-term economic planning of the entire city.
Institutionalize metropolitan structures, starting with 20 urban
agglomerations with multiple municipalities. Given the size of Indias cities and
the scale of delivery challenges, we believe that at least 20 urban agglomerations
(exceeding 1million in population and consisting of multiple municipalities) must
have a metropolitan government that can plan and deliver on metropolitan-wide
issues. The lesson from global practices is that while some services are better
planned and delivered locally, when proximity to citizens is a key advantage,
others benefit from the scale advantages of being planned and delivered at
the metropolitan level. Sharing of services between the local municipality
and the metropolitan government should fit into one of four modes of delivery
(Exhibit3.2.13):
96
Exhibit 3.2.13
India should consider separating responsibilities between municipal and
metropolitan levels, as part of local governance
Metro
Municip-
ality
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

a
r
e
a
Area of planning and optimization
Municipality Metro
Planned and
delivered at
municipality
Services that benefit
from proximity to end
users
Planned at
municipality,
delivered at metro
Services that benefit
from scale
Fully metro driven
Services for which
metropolitan wide
planning needs to
happen
Planned at metro,
delivered at
municipality
Metropolitan plans
translated to local
plans at the
municipality
Example
Special projects in
bulk water, waste
management, land
fills
Examples
Economic
development
Metropolitan
planning
Metropolitan
transportation
(cross municipality)
Examples
Town planning
Local roads
Water supply
Waste collection
Examples
Affordable
housing
Education
Health care
Exhibit 3.2.13
Planned and delivered at the local municipality. Services that have
traditionally been executed by local municipalities that will also benefit from
proximity to citizens and do not have significant scale benefits should be planned
and delivered locally. These services include town planning, local roads, water
supply, and waste collection.
Planned and delivered at the metropolitan level. Services that benefit from
scale and optimization across municipal boundaries are good candidates to
be driven by the metropolitan authority. These services could include strategic
transportation (e.g., metro rail or inter-municipal connectivity), economic
development, and metropolitan planning.
Planned at the metropolitan level, delivered by the municipality. Services
that benefit from planning optimization (either across municipal boundaries,
needing arbitration, or involving population movements across municipal
boundaries) but are better delivered by municipalities fall into this category. Such
services could include affordable housing, education, and health care.
Planned at the municipality, delivered by the metropolitan authority. These
are services whose requirements are determined by individual municipalities but
whose implementation requires scale and capabilities. While likely to vary across
cities, these could include special projects in environmental management, bulk
water supply and landfills.
3. Empowered leadership for municipalities and metropolitan
authorities
The second choice that India needs to debate is what kind of leadership would best
suit the Indian context and polity and how officials should be elected or appointed.
The question of who should run cities is a key one. The choice in different countries
tends to reflect their particular governance models and style of political leadership.
But a common theme arising from our work is that a single leader should be in charge.
Choice 2: Who will lead Indias cities?
India must make a choice on the leadership of its cities, both at the municipal level
and at the metropolitan level (Exhibit3.2.14). At the municipal level, the choice is
whether to continue the current structure; adopt a modified structure that allows
for a strong political executive supported by a technocrat; or directly elect the
mayor. At the metropolitan level, the choice ranges from an amalgam of MPCs and
development authorities to the adoption, again, of a directly elected mayor.
Exhibit 3.2.14
India faces key choices in how to ensure empowered leadership at the
metropolitan and municipal levels
Nothing at the
metropolitan level
Status quo: Lots
of parastatal
agencies
Modified
metropolitan
authority under MPC
Directly elected
metropolitan mayor City-states
Strong political
executive for the
entire metropolitan
area
Independent states
out of the largest
cities (like in China
or in Delhi)
No clear leader for the
municipality
Commissioners get
transferred at short notice
Status quo:
commissioner, weak
mayor system
Modified mayor-
commissioner system
Directly elected local
mayor
Strong political executive for
the municipality
Mayor-in-council for
decision making
Supported by
commissioner
Metropolitan
level
Municipal
level
Toward more accountable leadership
Metropolitan
development
authority under
Metropolitan
Planning Committee
Exhibit 3.2.14
Implement at least a modified mayor-commissioner system in the municipal
corporations of the top 35 to 40 cities. The modified mayor-commissioner
system built on the Kolkata model is a good first step for India in all its municipal
corporations. The system allows for a political executive with a five-year term
to serve as the leader of the city, with the commissioner acting as the chief
administrator. A member of the mayors council will lead each department with
assistance from an additional commissioner or general manager. In many ways,
it replicates the administrative structure in state government departments and
central government ministries. What will be the key in such a leadership structure
is the division of powers between the mayor and the commissioner. While this
structure falls short of a directly elected mayoral system in terms of accountability,
it would create clear political leadership for a municipality while retaining the
checks and balances inherent to the civil service (Exhibit3.2.15). This system
allows for India to move firmly toward empowered leadership structures while
minimizing risk in the move through gradual, incremental change.
98
Exhibit 3.2.15
India should consider a political executive in the form of a
mayor-in-council at the municipal level
Executive
Mayor elected by councillors forms
mayor-in-council from elected
councillors
Standing committee system replaced
by cabinet system in the form of
mayor-in-council
Executive power with mayor-in-
council; each member responsible for
own department/portfolio
Mayor responsible for appointment
and performance appraisal of
municipal commissioner
Mayor
Mayor in
Council
Municipal
Commissioner
Planning Transport Other
departments
Waste
management
Education
Health care
Housing
GM, Agency
Board
GM, Agency
Board
Exhibit 3.2.15
Allow for directly elected mayor for metropolitan areas in the medium
term (five to ten years); rely on MPC-metropolitan authorities in the short
term. India has the advantage of experimenting with city leadership models at
the metropolitan area, while municipal structures may well be more entrenched
and take longer to reform. In this context, we believe that, over the medium term,
India should have directly elected mayors to run the metropolitan governments
in its largest urban agglomerations. The lesson from international cities is also
that this model is more relevant and effective at the metropolitan level. As a first
step, the country could adopt a directly elected mayoral system in all nine of its
Tier 1 cities (whose populations exceed 4million) (Exhibit3.2.16). This clearly
would require a national debate as well as political consensus. In the short term,
the solution is to build on existing structures but with revamped leadership and
decision structures. Most of the large urban agglomerations have metropolitan
development authorities leading key development projects. At the same time,
the 74th Amendment calls for MPCs to be set up in these areas. We propose
an interim structure for the metropolitan government with the MPC (chaired
by the chief minister or the urban development minister) acting as the primary
policy making body and the Metropolitan Development Authority (MDA) as the
secretariat and the implementation arm (Exhibit3.2.17). The presence of political
leaders in the MPC and the executive committee, and representation in the MPC
from the municipalities, would allow for a clear forum to debate policy issues in the
metropolitan area that cut across local city boundaries.
The journey toward an effective leadership model in India may take some timeas it
did in Londonand involve many experiments and innovations to reach a workable
solution. However, even in the short term, these definitive steps can have a dramatic
impact on the ability of cities to deliver critical services to their citizens.
Exhibit 3.2.16
In the medium term, India should adopt a directly elected mayoral system
for the metropolitan government
Commissioner,
Economic
Development/Jobs
Commissioner,
Transport
Other
Commissioners
MDA staff MDA staff
Planning Transport Other committees
Additional
commissioners
Concept and urban planning
Housing
Public health and education
Environment
Executive
Devolution of functions,
decision-making powers,
funds, and assets from state
to metropolitan body by
legislation
Executive wing headed by
metropolitan mayor directly
elected for five years
Metropolitan development
authority commissioner and
department heads appointed
by mayor
Deliberative
MPC as legislative authority
for creating bylaws and
approving budgets for
metropolitan region
Portfolio committees formed
out of members of MPC to
monitor the delivery of
departments
Portfolio committees
Urban local bodies MP/MLAs Nominated members
MDA Commissioner
Chaired by
mayor
Metropolitan Planning
Committee
Metro Mayor
(political executive)
Exhibit 3.2.16
Exhibit 3.2.17
In the short term, India could create functional metropolitan authorities in
urban agglomerations with multiple municipalities
Proposed interim structure
Exhibit 3.2.17
Executive Committee
Economic
developmt.
Regional
planning
Transport Housing Public
Health
Education Environ-
ment
Metropolitan Commissioner
Directly elected metropolitan
mayor in medium term
4. Make the transition to modern service delivery structures, with
appropriate private-sector participation
Once India addresses the question of city leadership, the focus necessarily shifts
to the question of how cities can deliver services at scale. Given the scale and
complexity of Indias urbanization, the need is urgent for modern structures at the city
level that can build infrastructure and deliver services at scale. Internal government
departments with cumbersome decision-making processes will be a serious drag on
Indias ability to improve its citizens quality of life. India needs to follow the one reform
that has been adopted by every successful city in the world: the creation of focused
agencies with clear mandates, reliable budgets, and empowered CEOs.
100
Consider corporatization of select municipal functions as well as targeted
partnerships with the private sector. A key lesson from cities around the world,
as well as the example of BEST in Mumbai, is that cities can achieve dramatic
improvement in the delivery of key services when they are run by empowered
agencies carved out of government departments and guided by their own boards
for quick decision making. This is not privatizationjust an effective mechanism
to build focus and ensure service excellence. The agencies continue to be a part
of the government but are able to act with the speed and focus that government
departments traditionally lack. This could be one of the biggest levers for Indias
cities to dramatically improve the quality of municipal services.
The appropriate functions for corporatization will vary by tier of city and by
local conditions. The government alone is capable of delivering some services,
such as security and planning, as well as some public utility services, such
as education and health care. These services should remain as government
departments run inside of municipal governments. In the case of services that
are fully chargeable, cities have the choice to opt for either corporatization or full
privatization, depending on the degree of control intended. While it is possible
to choose privatization with regulation, we recommend a corporatized model
in which empowered agencies deliver services but with full accountability to
the city government. Services such as transportation, water supply, and waste
management are ideal candidates for corporatization. Within these agencies,
though, selected functions can be open to private-sector involvement. In fact,
private participation is possible across the board, including in education, primary
health care, waste collection, water distribution, and the operation of selected
public transportation routes. Overall, PPPs could account for as much as 30 to
40percent of operations and maintenance budgets in large cities (Exhibit3.2.18):
Exhibit 3.2.18
Water and
sewage
Every core urban service can benefit from increased private participation
Collecting tariffs and managing water distribution infrastructure
Fixed-fee contracts to lay out water and sewage pipe networks
Degree of private sector participation (illustrative)
Waste
management
Fixed-fee contracts for waste collection and processing
Transportation
Construction and operation of toll roads
Construction and operation of mass transit systems with viability gap
funding and regulated user tariffs
Planning
External fixed-fee consulting contracts for draft master plans, with
access to world-class planning ideas and technology tools
Education
Fixed per student funding for running municipal schools with agreed
benchmarks and target outcomes
Health care
Concession agreements for running municipal hospitals
Housing
Subsidies and incentives to private-sector developers in return for a
handover of a fixed number of affordable housing units
Fixed-fee construction contracts for units built directly by the
government
Candidates for
corporatization
Exhibit 3.2.18
A metropolitan authority can also create special purpose vehicles (SPVs) in
cases where it undertakes projects in economic-development and transport.
Such SPVs could act as focused agencies with clear mandates to construct
specific infrastructure projects, and with an added ability to structure financing
and access commercial debt in ways that municipalities may not be able to.
5. Improve local government capacity
Important questions need to be addressed about what support capabilities should be
available to urban political leaders and how India can best develop the talent needed to
administer its growing cities. Whichever model India decides to adopt, it is clear that it
needs to build capacity to improve its delivery of services in the urban setting.
Most cities use multiple routes to build up their talent pool. One of these is developing
a municipal cadre by developing a group of experienced people who are capable of
providing leadership as well as through training skilled new officials to expand managerial
capacity. Second, many cities have programs designed to attract the best private-sector
talent. Third, some cities, particularly in emerging markets, often leverage international
talent, including consultants. In India today, there are critical gaps between the demand
and supply of talent.
Create a new city cadre. The top 60 cities alone are likely to need 650 department
and city heads, 4,500 managers, and 15,000 technical staff. In the area of waste
management alone, India needs around 1,000 trained engineers and 11,000
diploma holders. Government servicesand particularly local government
servicesstruggle to attract talent because they offer lower salaries, and have no
clear growth path. To hire these engineers, municipal departments compete with
the private sector, which offers much more attractive careers to good performers.
Indian cities need to offer attractive and sustainable career paths to attract talent
through the creation of a new city-specific cadre. Statewide tests could be the
basis of screening the potential pool from which cities can build the cadre. The
cadre should be supported through clear technical and managerial paths, including
allowing city leaders to hire the top ten positions in the city (including that of the
commissioner) from within this cadre as well as from outside. If building the civil
service was the burning need for the country after independence, building an
equivalent service for cities is the pressing need for the 21st century.
India would need to match the creation of a cadre inside city governments with a
proliferation of urban planning and management institutes. India will need six to
eight urban planning and management institutes to train 600 to 700 city leaders,
4,000 to 5,000 managers, and 15,000 technical staff. In addition, two to five urban
management programs, with an annual intake of 100 students, would need to
conduct leadership development programs for department and agency heads.
Allow lateral hires from the private sector. While the creation of a municipal
cadre can be the basis of a long-term strategy to infuse talent into local city
administrations, the gap in capacity will persist in the short term. One way to
bridge the gap would be to allow local city governments, through the corporatized
agencies, to hire from outside the government service on clear, specific contracts.
This tactic has been used by cities around the world to attract the best of technical
and managerial expertise available to them. It is time for Indian cities to start
tapping into the talent available in the countrys thriving private sector.
6. Drive transparency and accountability in city government
The final area for India to consider is what mechanisms it should adopt to ensure the
accountability of its urban administrators to the citizens they represent. While elections
represent the most powerful form of accountability, many cities supplement this with
three mechanisms that ensure the accountability of local governments to state and
national governments; the accountability of service agencies to the city government; and
the accountability of the city government to the citizens. The underlying principle of these
102
mechanisms is the need to move from a loose-tight system, which emphasizes process
and inputs, to a tight-loose system, which gives cities the freedom to make their own
processes and decisions but holds them accountable for the outcomes (Exhibit3.2.19).
Exhibit 3.2.19
Accountability systems in India need to focus more on outcomes and less
on process
Outcomes
(What to do)
Loose Tight
Tight-loose
Tight definition of what
is to be delivered
Greater autonomy on
how to achieve
Loose-tight
Control-based system
Little debate on what
outcomes to be achieved
Tight control on input and
process
(e.g., procurement,
recruiting)
Loose
Tight
Process
controls (How
to do)
Exhibit 3.2.19
Push for city charters. Every city should be pushed to create a charter for itself
that will list specific outcomes the city government pledges to deliver for its citizens
over a five-year period, with clear markers for annual implementation. Such charters
force a process to list priorities with both public and institutional support. In the
context of the renewed planning system we have recommended, these charters
can be used to set the vision for the city, on economic growth and quality of life. It is
a way of holding local governments accountable and setting aspirations for a city.
The charter could, for example, comprise 10 to 15 indicators of performance across
areas such as transportation, health care, and education and act as a measure
of performance and governance and as a coordinating device between all city
agencies and the local governments.
Draft MOUs between mayors and agencies. City charters can provide a clear
guide for what agencies are expected to deliver. However, this is not enough. In
a governance structure in which agencies have a high degree of autonomy over
budgetary allocations and operational decisions, it is imperative that the work be
guided by MOUs set between the city government (through the mayor) and the
agencies. These MOUs have to clearly outline what the agencies must deliver
in any given year, and the citys financial and nonfinancial support to ensure
achievement of these objectives.
To create more transparency on city performance as well as to provide the basis
for central and state governments to judge performance to determine rewards and
consequences, we recommend the creation of an urban regulator at the state level.
Create a state-level urban regulator. Such a regulator can play a critical role in
monitoring and settling tariffs, setting benchmarks, and providing transparency
on delivery standards. Political leaders clearly need to frame policy, but it is helpful
to have independent regulatory bodies handle the benchmarking and monitoring
of service delivery (Exhibit3.2.20). This would also allow the urban administration
to focus on delivery.
Exhibit 3.2.20
India should consider creating a state level urban regulator to set norms
and facilitate performance transparency
Set service standards
Publish city performance on
service standards
Suggest five-year targets for
each ULB and metro
Tie state funding to
performance against
standards
Facilitate process through
objective setting and
charters
Decide on key tariff disputes
that occur (e.g., water,
sewage)
Create framework for
public-private partnerships
and act as arbitrator in
disputes
Role of a state urban
regulator
Create performance
transparency Help set five-year targets Settle tariff disputes
Five-year term
Budgets from state Urban
Development Department or
Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission
Exhibit 3.2.20
The establishment of an urban regulator would be an effective way to track the
delivery of services against the citys own charter.
The regulator could also act as an arbitrator on tariffs and play an oversight role in
tracking the financial health of municipal agencies, including the recovery of costs
and reinvestment goals. The regulator could collect consumer feedback from
city wards on delivery and customer service and could elicit responses from the
relevant municipal departments and agencies. The 74th Amendment recommended
that ward committees play a major role in holding city governmental authorities
accountable. The active participation of citizens needs to be stimulated through
proactive disclosure and greater accessibility to information and feedback channels.
An urban regulator could give the information to citizens to hold their elected officers
accountable. In a bid to raise awareness among citizens about whether they are
receiving the minimum standards of services promised to them by government, the
regulator could submit findings on compliance to local government and to the states
urban development department. The regulator could also publish a service-delivery
scorecard for citizens.
One mechanism that can institutionalize a forum for citizens to demand accountability
from their local municipal representatives is the area sabha, composed of every
registered voter in a polling part of a ward. The area sabhas can allow citizens to have
a direct role in holding their elected representatives accountable.
BUILDING POLITICAL MOMENTUM FOR CHANGE
Reform of local governance and city administration is probably the toughest area of
change in India. There is a high degree of comfort with the status quo, and there are
strong institutional actors resistant to change. However, as highlighted in chapter 2, and
in this section, the need for change is urgent and there is an imperative to start on the
journey of local reforms that are so absolutely critical to Indias goal of inclusive growth.
104
Central to this debate are the two choices we have outlined: how far should India
devolve power to the states, and who will lead the cities? The making of these
choices requires a national debate initiated and facilitated by no less than Indias
prime minister.
Chapter 4 details what we see as the series of steps available to the central
government to push for reforms, including in governance. Briefly, if India can achieve
political consensus around the reform of urban governance, the central government
has a ready-made vehicle in the JNNURM to push for the next generation of reforms.
Conditionality related to embracing reform may well have to be part of a new incentive
fund within JNNURM available to the more progressive states willing to be aggressive
in pushing through change.
However, financial incentives are not the only lever to make change happen. Many
states, for lack of local capabilities and technical expertise, are unable to push for the
reforms. The central government should be willing to provide specialized assistance
and hand-holding to states that are willing to make reforms but do not have the know-
how. At the same time, central government has the opportunity to assist the states
through the creation of model municipal laws specifying the nature of devolution and
changes to service delivery structures.
Progressive state governments and chief ministers have the opportunity to use
governance reforms to improve service delivery dramatically. These states should
seek to experiment with the creation of a metropolitan mayor, the adoption of the
modified mayor-commissioner system, the corporatization of key agencies, and
the establishment of urban regulators. Our discussions with state governments
found that many states are willing to take the next leap on reforms. For these state
governments, the step forward may be to try some of these big changes in a few of
their cities.
* * *
Whatever final choices India makes about the governance structure, it is imperative
that the nation engage urgently in a political debate on this issue. As long as the
solution is internally consistent, any decision implemented well would be better than
the suboptimal governance structures of today.
3.3 Planning matters
As cities grow, they need to make informed trade-offs about their use of scarce
resources such as land and its supporting infrastructure. This is a challenge that India
needs to approach in a deliberate manner by putting in place a modern urban planning
system that makes vital choices about where people of all incomes live, work, and spend
their leisure time. Planning is necessary to help link land usage with urban flows (mobility
of people and goods) in such a way as to ensure that a citys infrastructure is capable
of delivering basic urban services (such as water supply, sewage treatment, waste
management, and storm-water drains)and that a city functions effectively for all of its
citizens.
The sheer scale and pace of Indias impending urbanization makes urban planning
critical. As Indias urban population swells to 590million by 2030 and projected per capita
income nearly quadruples, anticipating and planning for the future needs of citizens will
be the key to building integrated infrastructure capacity in line with demand. Take the
Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) as an illustration. By 2030, we project that MMRs
population will rise from 23million today to 33million, with per capita GDP quadrupling
from $1,800 to $8,000. As a result, demand for built-up land could rise from 800 square
kilometers to 1,850 square kilometers. Failure to anticipate the citys infrastructure
requirements at such scale will result in deteriorating quality of life, especially for
the poorer sections of society. For example, average trip lengths could rise from
9.8kilometers today to 14 kilometers. Given a projected near six-fold increase in stock of
urban cars in India between 2010 and 2030, if there is insufficient public transportation,
rising trip lengths could lead to urban gridlock. Moreover, a majority of the population will
continue to not have access to affordable housing units, resulting in further proliferation
of slums. Even the availability of schools and hospitals could decline, unless states and
cities plan for future demand and incorporate that demand into clearly articulated zoning
norms.
Indeed, in the absence of rigorous planning, demand for urban land could rise by
11million hectares, posing a serious risk that India could lose significant tracts of
nonurban, potentially agricultural land near cities to unplanned urban sprawl (see
section 3.5 for a more detailed discussion).
While India can point to good urban planning examples in Le Corbusiers
Chandigarh and Lutyens Delhi, overall, the planning process has not delivered in
recent years. Statutory planning documents have failed to enforce change beyond
the incremental and the reactive variety. As a result, signs of unplanned, urban
sprawl are increasingly visible.
So what would it take to fix Indias urban planning system? In this section, we explore:
Four characteristics of good urban planning and what India can learn from
international best practices
The state of Indias current urban planning system
Recommendations to transform the urban planning system in India and restore
planning as a tool for effective urban development and management
The way forward
106
GLOBAL BEST PRACTICE OFFERS FOUR LESSONS FOR GOOD
URBAN PLANNING
Several global cities have made giant strides in the field of urban planning in the past
few decades. To understand these developments better and identify key implications
for India, we studied urban planning practices in Singapore, London, and New York.
Singapore. Singapores rise from a congested city to a thriving financial center
has been breathtaking. At the heart of this transformation has been a robust urban
planning system, the responsibility for which lies with the Urban Redevelopment
Authority (URA). The URA operates under the auspices of the influential Ministry of
National Development and is responsible for creating and executing Singapores
land-use plans. Singapore created its first concept plan in 1971 and has since
created two more, in 1991 and 2001. These concept plans have acted as anchors
to Singapores 40- to 50-year development strategy and have been refreshed
every decade using state-of-the-art geographic information system (GIS)
mapping. The 2001 concept plan, for example, starts with a target population
of 5.5million and cascades down to employment estimates by sector and high-
level land use, including a sequencing of areas for greenfield development as
well as block-by-block redevelopment (e.g., the development of the Tampines,
Woodlands, and Jurong East regional centers, and even the development of
Marina city on 690 hectares of reclaimed land south of Singapore in the previous
concept plan) (Exhibit3.3.1).
Exhibit 3.3.1
SOURCE: Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority; interviews; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Singapore has balanced short- and long-term priorities using two types of
urban plans
A 40- to 50-year high-level
concept plan
is broken down into an
actionable 20-year master plan
Components of concept plan
Vision for the city
Target population, GDP, and employment by
region
High-level land-use plan including areas for
greenfield development and regeneration
Strategic transportation projects
Components of master plan
Detailed land-use plan including zoning, FAR,
setback etc., by region
Greenfield development and regeneration projects
Identified infrastructure projects and policies with
sequencing and financing plans
Sectoral norms such as urban design,
sustainability, etc.
Exhibit 3.3.1
The concept plan also provides broad guidelines for a set of key projects and
policies essential to serve expected demand for physical and social infrastructure
(such as Mass Rapid Transport Systems and affordable housing units) as well
as urban design and form. This 40- to 50-year concept plan is then cascaded
down to 20-year master plans that translate broad land use into actionable
parcel-by-parcel planning norms and distinct infrastructure projects. To ensure
the development of world-class urban plans, Singapore has invested upfront in
capacity and technology and has ensured a participatory process. The URA team
consists of more than 300 professionals (including urban planners, economists,
architects, designers, and sectoral engineers) and spends around $160million
per annum. In addition, Singapore displays its draft concept plans to the public
using physical models, fly-throughs, and animation. Planners then consider the
views of the public before moving to finalize content. The process of granting
exemptions is clearly articulated, and when granted, exemptions are transparent.
London. In London, the Greater London Authority (GLA), headed by the mayor,
and individual borough councils share responsibility for urban planning. The city
follows a unique cascaded model of urban planning that works largely because of
a clear set of mandates and roles assigned to the different organizations involved
in Londons urban planning effort. The GLA is responsible for creating the 20-year
statutory metropolitan master plan. Local borough development plans must
be in line with these guidelines. In fact, the mayor has to approve local borough
plans before they are made statutory. Londons plans are also good examples of
integrated planning. Like Singapore, Londons metropolitan master plan starts
off with the citys vision and key socioeconomic forecasts, including population
and employment. These forecasts are then translated into a broad land-use plan
and key initiatives in transportation, affordable housing, basic services (including
water supply, sewage treatment, and solid-waste management), and, in recent
times, environmental sustainability. These initiatives are usually backed by a broad
plan that sets forth priorities in a sequenced manner with financing mechanisms
identified (Exhibit3.3.2).
Exhibit 3.3.2
London master plan includes detailed peak transport planning
Source: The London Plan; Transport for London (TfL)
Population and
employment forecasts
by region
Peak AM traffic
demand by region
Sequencing of key
transportation
projects
Financing strategies
Exhibit 3.3.2
Individual borough development plans flow from this metropolitan master plan
and often include plot-by-plot land use and initiatives in local transportation,
water supply, sewage treatment, and solid-waste management. In major sectors
such as affordable housing and transportation, the metropolitan master plan
even articulates a key set of initiatives that individual boroughs must follow.
For example, an annual target for creating affordable housing stock is stated
108
for individual boroughs (Exhibit3.3.3). Besides the key physical and social
infrastructure sectors, Londons metropolitan master plan emphasizes urban
design. In fact, the new plan even includes templates for signage in key areas,
ensuring that development is interwoven with the unique historical and cultural
heritage of the city (Exhibit3.3.4). An interesting addition to the master plan has
been a section on climate change, which enlists current and target greenhouse
emissions and a list of supporting initiatives. To ensure the quality of these plans,
GLA and the boroughs boast a team of 500 to 600 personnel.
Exhibit 3.3.3
Source: The London Plan, Greater London Authority
The Greater London Authority emphasizes affordable housing, including
targets for individual boroughs
Annual affordable
housing targets for
each borough
Exhibit 3.3.3
Exhibit 3.3.4
Urban form and design guidelines to create a distinct city character
Source: The London Plan, Greater London Authority
Advertising and signs Chimney stacks Walls, fences, and gates
Shop fronts Satellite antennae Material and color
Exhibit 3.3.4
New York. New Yorks department of city planning, in collaboration with the
metropolitan city planning commission, reports to the deputy mayor and is
responsible for crafting development plans for the citys five boroughs. Even in New
York, the core planning principles remain the same. PlaNYC, the citys master
plan, estimates a holding population of 9million and employment of 4.3million
by 2030. Based on these estimates, the plan provides guidelines for policies and
projects for more than 95 initiatives across six priority areas: land use (including
housing and open spaces), water supply, transportation, energy (including gas
infrastructure), air pollution, and climate change. New Yorks plans have a reputation
for being rich in detail. For example, key planning norms such as FAR and setback
are laid out for every district within a borough (Exhibit3.3.5).
Exhibit 3.3.5
Source: MMR Regional Plan 19962011; The London Plan
New York uses granular planning norms instead of one-value-for-all
Ward-wise specification
of maximum FAR and
minimum open space
ratios
Exhibit 3.3.5
Another important aspect of the planning process is the transparency with which
the city creates and executes its plans. The planning team conducted several
town-hall events and met with numerous advocacy and business organizations
across the five boroughs before finalizing the contents of the plan. Once the plan
is finalized, granting exemptions is also subject to a transparent process, even
involving public hearings for major exemption proposals (Exhibit3.3.6). New
Yorks planning department consists of more than 200 planners.
110
Exhibit 3.3.6
Major exemptions are referred to a transparent
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
with a maximum decision timeline of 13 months
(--) Maximum time
allowed Submit proposal to
Department of City
Planning (DCP)
DCP reviews
application and
certifies as complete
(6 months)
Community Boards
hold public hearing
(60 days)
Borough president
and board submit
recommendations to
CPC (30 days )
City Council may
override mayors veto
by two-thirds vote
(10 days)
Mayor reviews
and may veto council
action (5 days)
City Council reviews
applications by a
majority vote (50 days)
CPC holds public
hearing. Forwards
plan with or without
modifications to City
Council (60 days)
Approach DOB with the
development proposal
Seeks zoning amendments, or City
Planning Commission (CPC) special
permits or authorizations
Authorizations can be
granted by CPC for
minor adjustments, as
described in zoning
resolution
Special permits
and zoning
amendments are
subject to ULURP
DOB
grants
permission
Meets
zoning
resolution?
No
Yes
Building proposals are submitted to
Department of Buildings (DOB), which
evaluates their validity against zoning norms
Exhibit 3.3.6
In New York, urban plans are sacrosanct and exemptions transparent
SOURCE: Department of City Planning, New York City; New York City Charter; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
While each of the cities that we have described has had distinct urban challenges,
four broad consistent tenets of urban planning practices emerge:
1. Clear planning mandates and roles
Responsibility for creating and executing urban plans rests with the political
owners of the city
In large cities, a two-tier planning structure exists at the metropolitan and local
municipal levels with clear mandates for each
Metropolitan plans are binding on municipal development plans by
cascading down key parameters such as broad land use and FAR to the
municipal levels.
2. Cascading plans with integrated content
A long-term, 40- or 50-year metropolitan-level concept plan is developed,
starting with the citys vision, anticipated population, GDP, and employment by
sector and high-level land use
This metropolitan concept plan then flows down into an actionable 20-year
detailed metropolitan master plan and ultimately into a 20-year plot-by-plot
city development plan; integration is ensured by making four key metropolitan
parameters binding on development plans
Land-use plans are integrated with detailed transportation planning, including
estimates of peak morning public and private traffic
Sequencing of projects are identified and broad financing strategies are
developed
Affordable housing, education, and health care are emphasized in plans,
including provision of specific zoning norms
3. Planning organizational structure with effective reporting relationships,
talent, budgets, and technology resources
The head of planning is deemed a prestigious position, staffed with a senior
person who reports directly to the mayor or commissioner
Staffing consists of 200 to 300 planners (roughly 1 planner for every 10,000
population) across metropolitan and city levels for major cities, and they are
equipped with the latest planning technology (such as GIS maps, econometric
and transportation models)
4. Effective execution and enforcement mechanisms
Urban plans are considered sacrosanct, and a transparent exemption process
is created that includes a public hearing for major exemptions
Citizens are key stakeholders in the planning process with multiple
opportunities provided to shape the final plan
So where does India stand with respect to these practices?
INDIAS CURRENT PLANNING SYSTEM IS NOT EFFECTIVE
India already has an institutional framework for urban planning. After independence,
the State Town Planning Acts suggested the setting up of town and country
planning departments (TCPD) to create master plans for cities. Then, in 1991,
the 74th Amendment to the constitution suggested three main urban planning
reforms: the full transfer of city planning to local governments; the formation of a
Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) for each of the 20 metropolitan areas to
ensure integrated outcomes at the metropolitan level; and the formation of a District
Planning Committee (DPC) for each of Indias 626 districts. Indeed, the creation of
city development plans is a key prerequisite for accessing funds from the JNNURM.
And yet, examples abound of limited urban planningor, worse, bad planning. We
now turn to our assessment of Indias current urban planning systems against the
four dimensions of international best practices (Exhibit3.3.7).
Exhibit 3.3.7
India scores poorly on three out of four dimensions of effective urban
planning and below average on one
Poor
Below
average
Above
average
World
class
Clear roles
and mandates
Cascading
planning structure
with appropriate
content
Well-resourced
planning
organization
Effective
enforcement and
execution
mechanisms
Exhibit 3.3.7
112
Clear planning roles and mandates. Theres no single owner of urban planning
in India. At the metropolitan (or regional) level, only 4 of the requisite 10 states and
20 of the 29 states have constituted MPCs and DPCs, respectively. In addition,
the metropolitan master plans created by these MPCs are not binding on city
development plans, negating the benefits of metropolitan planning. At the local
level, the planning function has not been fully transferred to municipalities in
12 states. Even where this function has been transferred, state government
interventions are still strong and often completely bypass the city administration.
For example, state governments still grant FAR exemptions on a case-by-case
basis, and the plan norms are taken only as indicative figures.
Cascading plans with the appropriate content. Indias metropolitan (or
regional) master plans and city development plans lack integration across sectors
and are not granular enough. In one metropolitan plan that we studied in detail, we
found at least five major deficiencies:
No mention of anticipated GDP and employment by sector and specific job-
creation projects, including creation of new growth centers and rejuvenation
of old ones
No clear articulation of target quality of life for citizens across sectors, such as
whatpercent should have access to sewage treatment
Lack of peak transportation demand estimates, such as total trips, average
trip length, and target modal share; as a result, identified public projects were
mostly incremental and lacked even broad sequencing and financing plans
Little attention paid to social services such as education, health care, and
affordable housing; no estimates of demand for hospitals, schools, and
affordable housing units or any indication of policies and zoning norms for
these sectors
No articulation of specific planning parameters, such as anticipated
employment or FAR, that need to inform individual city development plans
A similar story evolves at the city level. In one of the city development plans we
studied, we found at least six major deficiencies:
Only one planning norm for the whole city (e.g., FAR, setback) instead of
separate norms for separate growth centers
No mention of regeneration projects for old areas
Affordable housing demand forecasts are absent; no clear articulation of
appropriate zoning norms for affordable housing for low-income groups
Only incremental transportation projects without estimates of peak
transportation demand in 2030
Infrastructure projects identified without a broad plan for sequencing or
financing them
No mention of urban form or design to create a unique visual feel and to build
the citys character
Planning organization staffed with sufficient talent, budgets, and
technology resources. Few metropolitan cities in India have a functioning
planning department supported by a metropolitan authority. Even where they
exist, they are staffed with only eight to ten planners and are usually led by
engineers. At the local level, cities have a local planning department housed in
the municipal government. Overall, the current staff is only four to six strong,
compared with the need that we estimate of between 80 and 100 planners for
a large city. In general, there are very few urban economists, sectoral experts,
architects, or designers in these departments. In addition, these departments
usually have small budgets and lack modern planning technologies, such as
GIS, and econometric and traffic modeling. In addition, the majority of the staff is
involved in building permissions rather than creating urban plans.
Effective execution and enforcement mechanisms. Given the lack of
specificity, exemptions are frequent and usually ad hoc, without consideration
of the impact on surrounding infrastructure. A common example, as explained
earlier, is the state governments case-by-case FAR exemptions without
corresponding infrastructure investments in local transportation, water-supply,
sewage treatment, solid-waste management, and storm-water drains.
So how can India tailor the best practices we have observed around the world to
solve its urban planning problems?
INDIA CAN FIX URBAN PLANNING BY FOCUSING ON 12 KEY
RECOMMENDATIONS ACROSS THE FOUR DIMENSIONS
We believe that fixing the deficiencies in Indias planning system is possible and will
perhaps be easier than the funding and governance challenges. In this section, we
discuss 12 recommendations across four themes that, if well implemented, have the
potential to transform Indian city planning in five to ten years.
1. Clarify mandates and roles by transferring the planning function to
local governments in the appropriate way
India first needs to define the roles and mandate of the five government institutions
involved in the planning processthe state government, metropolitan and district
planning committees, regional authorities, local governments, and other parastatal
agencies. Three key initiatives can make this work:
Constitute and empower MPCs to create statutory metropolitan plans in at least
the top 20 metropolitan regions that have multiple municipalities. A metropolitan
authority should act as its secretariat. For the remaining towns, create and
empower equivalent DPCs to create regional plans at a district level.
Make the metropolitan (or regional) plan binding on municipal plans through four
parameters (Exhibit3.3.8):
Target population for key wards
Broad land use and FAR, especially for commercial and residential parcels,
including areas for intensification, regeneration, and greenfield development
Major metropolitan transportation projects and their effects on land use and
densities at a ward level
Goals for specific sectors, such as affordable housing, education, and health
care units, including zoning norms
Outside of the subjects for metropolitan (or regional) planning, all local
governments should fully transfer the appropriate set of local urban planning
powers, among them parcel-by-parcel planning norms such as those governing
FAR and land use.
114
Exhibit 3.3.8
Four parameters from metropolitan plans should be binding on
city development plans
Target population and employment
by sector for wards
Ward-level broad land use and
FAR, especially for commercial and
residential parcels, including areas
for intensification, regeneration,
and greenfield development
Major transportation projects and
their effects on ward-level land use
and densities
Goals for specific sectors such as
affordable housing, education, and
health care units, including zoning
norms
Concept plan
Master plan
Development
plan
Metropolitan
Municipality
Exhibit 3.3.8
2. Execute an integrated, cascaded planning system with the
appropriate content
For large metropolitan areas, MPCs would need to prepare two types of metropolitan
plansa 40-year concept plan and a 20-year master plan. For other cities, DPCs,
in partnership with state TCPDs, could create just the 20-year district master plan.
These plans could then flow down into a detailed 20-year municipal development
plan. All plans must be integrated across sectors (Exhibit3.3.9). We now summarize
this cascading structure and the plan contents:
Exhibit 3.3.9
India should consider a cascaded planning system
40-year socioeconomic and population
forecasts
High-level land use
Major transit projects
Plan content
20-year socioeconomic forecasts
Broad ward-level land-use plan and FAR
including areas for regeneration and greenfield
expansion
Key projects and policies with a sequencing and
funding plan in:
Metropolitan transportation
Affordable housing
Education and health care
Environment and climate-change mitigation
20-year detailed plot-level land-use plan
Key projects and policies including
sequencing and funding plan in:
Local transportation
Water, sewage, solid waste, storm-water
drains
Urban design and form norms
Metropolitan
Planning
Committee
Metropolitan
Authority
Technical
Planning
Board
Planning
Department
Municipality
Technical
Planning
Board
Planning
Department
Concept plan
Master plan
Development
plan
Exhibit 3.3.9
Create 40-year concept plans for the top 20 metropolitan regions. This
long-range plan should articulate the broad vision of the city (including the
economic proposition to investors and the quality-of-life targets for citizens), key
projections on population, employment by sector, and land demand, as well as
a broad distribution of a population in new and old growth centers with sufficient
high-capacity transit systems. Broad land use should be specified, ideally to a
1:100,000 scale. This concept plan could also provide high-level guidelines for
projects and policies in key priority sectors, such as transportation and affordable
housing. These plans should be updated every ten years.
Cascade the 40-year metropolitan concept plans into 20-year metropolitan
master plans. These 20-year metropolitan master plans need to translate
concept plans into a detailed 1:25,000 scale land-use plan that includes
distribution of population across new and old growth centers along with key
planning norms such as FAR, setback, density, and land use. These plans should
also contain detailed reports that enumerate key infrastructure projects and
policies in strategic transportation, environment, affordable housing, education,
and health care, as well as urban design. Cities need to sequence these projects
and back them up with a broad financing plan. For smaller cities, the DPCs should
directly create these 20-year regional master plans with a similar content.
Cascade 20-year metropolitan master plans into 20-year municipal
development plans. Municipal (city) development plans must conform to the
four cascading parameters mentioned in the metropolitan (or regional) master
plans. Based on the specified target holding population and employment by ward,
broad land-use and FAR and goals for specific sectors, these development plans
should then create parcel-by-parcel land-use norms (including such matters as
zoning, FAR, and setback) as well as key projects in basic services (e.g., water
supply, sewage treatment, solid waste, storm-water drains), local transportation
(local roads and highways, local mass transit), environment, cultural heritage,
and social services (education, affordable housing, and health care) in line with
the metropolitan master plan (Exhibit3.3.10). These plans should also emphasize
urban design norms to give a unique character to the city. As with regional-level
planning, a plan should set forth priorities for projects, what sequence they should
follow, and how to pay for them.
116
Exhibit 3.3.10
1 2
3
4
5
Clear
vision
Socio-
economic
forecasts
Infrastructure
planning
Integrated
land-use
planning
Social
planning
Plans should start with a vision linked to econometric forecasts and then
integrate land use across sectors
Community
networks and
environment
Cultural heritage
Diversity
Sustainability
Quality of life
proposition to citizens
Value proposition to
investors
Population
GDP
Sectoral mix,
employment
Age distribution
Income pyramid
Space demand
(residential, commer-
cial, community, etc.)
Zoning, development
norms, FAR,
set-backs, etc.
Urban design
Urban infrastructure
projects/ policies incl.
sequencing and
financing
Transportation
(public, private)
Basic services
(water, sewage,
solid waste,
storm water)
Schools, hospitals
Affordable housing
Parks and open spaces
Exhibit 3.3.10
3. Create well-resourced planning organizations
The quality of urban plans is only as good as that of the planning organization.
More often than not, large-scale urban planning has been the forte of government
organizations around the world. However, India faces capacity shortages in both
personnel and technology, and this makes the creation of high-quality plans more
challenging. We recommend four broad areas of action to address these deficiencies:
Build an effective planning organization at the metropolitan and city levels
and clearly separate technical and political aspects. At the metropolitan
level, India needs to create separate planning departments housed within the
metropolitan authority. In addition, theres a need for metropolitan planning boards
that could consist of four or five eminent urban planning experts (such as planners,
economists, and architects), heads of other parastatal agencies active in the region,
and two or three citizen representatives. The planning board could be chaired by
the head of the metropolitan authority and would be responsible for all the technical
decisions in the planning process, including coordination with different agencies.
The decisions of the planning board would ultimately need to be ratified by the
appropriate MPC and DPCs, which would define the overall vision for the region and
key projects and policies. A similar structure is needed at the city level; the planning
department should be housed within the municipality and be overseen by a similar
planning board. The decisions of the planning board would need to be ratified by
the MPC (ultimately headed by the metropolitan mayor), who would be responsible
for the overall vision of the region and key projects and policies. For smaller cities,
state TCPDs could help create city development plans and should be strengthened
appropriately.
Build sufficient urban planning capacity. India needs 200 to 300 planning
professionals (such as planners, geographers, demographers, economists,
architects, and digital experts) per city in the larger Tier 1 and 2 cities and 15 to 20
in smaller Tier 3 and 4 cities, against the current aggregate annual supply that is
below 200. Clearly, theres an urgent need to augment this capacity by building
new institutes. Until India builds the necessary capacity, it could access talent
by leveraging global expertise; simplifying the writing of new plans by creating
common templates that can be used and reused across cities; and creating
standards and specifications that enable existing talent to work more effectively.
Innovate with planning technology and models to ensure quality plans.
A high-quality plan requires reliable base data. Indias cities need to improve
the countrys data in such fundamental subjects as land availability and usage,
population growth and movement, job mix and its prospective evolution, and
income mix and forecast changes in that mix. For each of these, smart technology
solutions are likely to be available. As we have already noted from our summary
of best practice in other world cities, every urban center in India should create
rigorous econometric models to project likely economic and demographic
evolution, devise a detailed GIS mapping of existing land use, and conduct
detailed studies of future needs in various sectors, especially in transportation.
We recommend an investment of $10million per city for Tier 1 and 2 cities and
$2million per city for smaller Tier 3 and 4 cities to build these capabilities over the
next five to ten years.
4. Create tight execution and enforcement mechanisms with sufficient
public participation
Three initiatives could help improve execution of Indias urban plans:
Ensure community participation in the planning process by collecting public
feedback through public exhibitions of draft regional concept and master plans.
Make urban plans an anchor to the development priorities of a city, with all
subsequent policy and investment trade-offs based on those plans.
Minimize exemptions and ensure that they are fair by creating a simple, streamlined
process that provides a mechanism for public hearings on major exemption
proposals and allows for appeals to the local council, the MPC, or the DPC.
ACTION IN THESE FOUR AREAS CAN TRANSFORM PLANNING
EVEN IN THE SHORT TERM
Implementing the steps that we have discussed could transform Indias urban
planning in five to ten years. The question is where, and how, India should start.
We have identified the following next steps for central, state, metropolitan, and
municipal governments.
Central government. The central government should focus the first wave of
urban planning reform on the 65 largest cities (including the 20 metropolitan
regions) through four key initiatives:
Using the flagship National Urban Renewal Mission (NURM) to provide 500
crore rupees for creation of metropolitan concept and master plans subject to
four conditions:
Creating and empowering the MPC and DPC
Transferring the appropriate set of planning functions to all municipalities
Making metropolitan concept and master plans statutory and binding on
local development plans
Issuing effective guidelines for the planning process, plan contents, and
exemption mechanisms
118
Creating detailed manuals and templates of best-practice concept and master
plans in simple, easy-to-understand language
Providing an additional direct grant of 10billion rupees ($222million) to
upgrade planning technology with such things as GIS maps and economic,
transportation, and affordable housing models
Launching between six and eight planning institutes with an annual capacity
of at least 5,000 urban planners to cope with the expected demand; these
institutes could be greenfield or housed in existing institutes such as the Indian
Institutes of Technology
State government. The state government would need to initiate four key reforms:
Prepare a 20-year urbanization master plan for the entire state that determines
the target portfolio of cities with anticipated population and employment, key
policies to attract investment and create jobs, and specific major intercity
transit projects such as high-speed expressways
Form an MPC in at least 20 metropolitan regions and a DPC in each of the
remaining districts and transfer regional planning powers to them
Make the cascaded planning system official by ensuring regional concept
and master plans statutory and that four key parameters from regional master
plans are binding on district plans
Create guidelines for content, capacity, and technology investment as well as
for community participation in planning
Metropolitan authorities. Once formed, the MPCs, with the help of metropolitan
authorities, must immediately begin the process of creating 40-year metropolitan
concept plans and 20-year master plans with integrated content by leveraging
private-sector expertise in the short term. All subsequent major regional
infrastructure projects, such as mass transit and affordable housing, must be
decided on the basis of these plans.
Municipal government. Local governments should create their own 20-year
city development plans based on the new metropolitan or district master plans
with integrated content and, like metropolitan plans, ensure that all subsequent
infrastructure projects, such as water supply and sewage, are decided on the basis
of these plans.
* * *
A shift to a systematic planning structure and process is critical to help India
anticipate, and facilitate, effective and sustained urbanization. India needs to put
in place urban plans thatlike any corporate plancreate a vision that articulates
a citys value proposition for both citizens and investors, make the best use of finite
resources, and create a tight process to ensure effective implementation, with
minimal exemptions, and robust enforcement. Our analysis suggests that India can
achieve these aims even in the relatively short term.
3.4 Affordable houses for all
Housing is a basic necessity that plays a broad and vital role in cities. It is an urban
service around which all others revolve, including water, sewage and sanitation,
roads, education, and health care. Houses play another important role, too, by
making citizens formal residents of a city and ensuring a stake in its economic and
social development. Research around the world indicates that having a house opens
access to formal channels of finance and leads to increased consumption.
Today, about 25million households in India35percent of all urban households
cannot afford housing at market prices and around 17million of these households
live in slums. With a further 250million people expected to join the ranks of
Indias urbanites over the next 20 years, this number could increase to 38million
households. Provision of affordable housing at such a large scale is unprecedented
no other country, other than China, which had a policy of state provision of housing
until the late 1990s, has had a scale and spread comparable to what is necessary in
India today.
Unless new affordable housing (see box 9, Defining affordable housing) is
developed, new low-income migrants, like their predecessors, are likely to settle in
slums, a socially and economically undesirable development that inserts a dagger
into the heart of Indias agenda of broad inclusion. Conversely, expanding the stock of
affordable housing would bring, in addition to social benefits, substantial economic
advantages: More demand for construction, building materials, and housing finance,
which in turn spur job creation and further economic growth.
So what would it take to trigger the creation of such a huge wave of affordable
housing stock? In this section, we explore:
Five characteristics of an affordable housing model, and what India can learn from
international best practices
Weaknesses in Indias approach today
Recommendations to bridge the affordability gap, including the role of low-
income residents, government, and the private sector
The way forward
Box 9. Defining affordable housing
Globally, housing is considered affordable if a basic housing unit that provides a
minimum amount of personal space and basic amenities is accessible at 20 to
40percent of gross monthly household income for either rent or mortgage.
However, the requirement of minimum personal space differs across countries,
and even among developing countries. Historically, the Indian government has
defined basic housing units as being between 250 and 275 square feeti.e., an
average of 50 to 60 square feet per capita. In 2008, the government set up a task
forceAffordable Housing for All. This task force suggested that affordable
housing for low-income groupsthe deprived segment with an annual income
of less than 90,000 rupeesshould be 300 to 600 square feet in area and be
accessible at 30percent of gross monthly household income.
We argue that affordable housing should provide for a range of size options
catering to the needs of households of different sizes and incomes, rather than
120
being limited to a single size. However, for the purposes of analysis, we consider
a basic housing unit to comprise 275 square feet in carpet area with attached
sanitation and piped water. We assume a maximum affordable outlay toward
housing of between 25 and 35percent of a households income, depending on the
level of income in that particular household, a standard global benchmark.
To determine the maximum house price that is affordable, we base our analysis
on the maximum combination of serviceable loan and savings that a household
can deploy. We consider the mean income of the segment to which the household
belongs to analyze the largest outlay that is affordable (e.g., 25percent for
the lowest-income segment) in the form of a serviceable loan installment. We
determine the loan value by linking the interest rate payable by the household
assuming a 20-year loan period. We use a typical loan-to-value ratio of 65 to
75percent to arrive at the house value, except in the case of the deprived segment,
where we combine available savings with the loan value serviceable.
ENSURING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE URBAN HOUSING IS A
MAJOR CHALLENGE THAT INDIA MUST FACE
Today, access to affordable housing is an acute problem among Indias lower-
income groups. Households in the deprived category (annual income of less than
90,000 rupees) are unable to access basic housing across urban India. Using the
methodology described in box 9, we have estimated the affordability gap in each
income segment across all tiers of cities. In Tier 1 cities such as Mumbai, the housing
shortage encompasses even households earning up to 500,000 rupees a year,
assuming an income outlay of 35percent going to housing. The shortage in the
bottom two income segments is acute (Exhibit3.4.1).
Exhibit 3.4.1
The bottom two income segments cannot afford houses at
market prices in urban India
Greater Mumbai
Deprived
<90
Aspirers
90200
Seekers
200500
Strivers
5001,000
Globals
>1,000
1,110
90
465
7,430
2,730
Cannot afford market housing
Rupees thousand
1,350
Market
price
(275 sq. ft.)
650 440 370
465
90
1,110
7,430
2,730 2,730
465
90
7,430
1,110
90
1,110
465
7,430
2,730
2010 ESTIMATES
Maximum house price affordable
Income group
Rupees thousand
Exhibit 3.4.1
We estimate that 25million households35percent of all urban households
and 94percent of the households in the bottom two income segmentscannot
afford a house at market prices. Current estimates are that about 17million of
these households live in slums or squatter settlements with poor access to the
basic services of water, sewage, and sanitation. The remaining households live in
formal houses but in highly congested or dilapidated conditions. The majority of
the housing shortage is in Tier 1 and 4 citiesand is most acute in Indias nine Tier
1 cities, where up to 54percent of households cannot afford housing at market
prices (Exhibit3.4.2).
Exhibit 3.4.2
Of 25 million households that cant afford basic housing in
urban India, two-thirds live in slums
5.6
8.1
16.6
1.8
Slum
1
2.7
Tier 4 city 2010E
Urban India
25.0
0.4
1.5
1.1
3.0
11.1
Tier 1 city
9.8
Tier 3 city
Nonslum
2
Tier 2 city
4.2
8.4
0.9
Million households
2010 ESTIMATES
Exhibit 3.4.2
1 Census 2001 slum population reported for 640 cities, scaled up to overall urban India.
2 Nonslum households estimated for each tier as difference between households that cannot afford market-price housing and
households residing in slums.
The paucity of affordable housing in urban India is already serious, and without a
change of policy, it could deteriorate significantly. As India urbanizes, migration
into urban India will continue and more than 70percent of migrants are expected
to belong to the two lowest income groups that are least likely to be able to afford
a house at market prices. Our projections for rising incomes and demand for both
residential and commercial space suggest that there is likely to be continued
pressure on the space available for low-income groups.
Our forecasts suggest that the number of households that cannot afford a house
could rise by an additional 13million to reach a total of 38million by 2030. One-third
of this increase will be in Tier 1 and Tier 2 citiesbut the affordable housing shortage
will be particularly acute in Tier 4 cities, which will account for 60percent of the
increased gap between affordability and the market price. It is clear that the need to
build affordable housing is a pan-Indian problem.
Policy makers in India therefore face a dual challenge. First, they need to upgrade
housing for existing slum dwellers and households living in congested and
dilapidated conditions. Second, they need to devise mechanisms to ensure that the
rising population in cities will have access to affordable houses.
GLOBAL PRACTICES POINT TO FIVE ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MODEL
Every rapidly urbanizing country in the world has dealt with the challenge of
ensuring access to housing for all its citizens at some stage of its economic
development. Even cities in the developed world such as London and New York
continue to explore ways to ensure that their low-income residents are not locked
out of the housing market.
122
Our examination of practices around the world finds many examples of successful
approaches to the provision of housing. In this section, we briefly describe the
experiences of Singapore, which has run one of the most effective public housing
programs globally; the United Kingdom, which has used a combination of mandates
and not-for-profit housing associations to deliver affordable housing at scale; China,
which has made the shift from a state-provided housing model to a private-sector
led model for affordable housing; South Africa, which has made access to housing
a right; and the United States, which has used rentals and innovative incentives to
support affordable housing.
Singapore. The Housing Development Board (HDB) has operated one of the
most effective affordable housing programs globallymore than 90percent
of Singapores population resides in public housing. The HDB has an explicit
mandate to create and operate affordable housing and draws up annual budgets
for the number of units to be built every year (Exhibit3.4.3). While Singapore
used eminent domain to obtain land for public housing in the early years of the
program, more recently success has been built on a combination of making the
economics work for all participants and maintaining flexibility in house sizes and
tenures. Singapore has used a mix of demand and supply-side subsidies to make
the economics work. The city prices affordable housing at or below the cost of
constructionthe typical contribution by the householder is about 50percent of
the total production cost, and the government covers the rest (Exhibit3.4.4).
Exhibit 3.4.3
Singapores Housing Development Board (HDB) is the key intermediary
between the government and the beneficiary of affordable housing
Government HDB Beneficiary
Central
Provident
Fund
Capital grant for housing unit
Funding at 6 percent to facilitate
mortgage loan to beneficiary
Mortgage loan to beneficiary at
subsidized interest rate of 6.25
percent
Payment for land allocated at market
price
Repayment of funding for mortgage
loan to beneficiary
Mandatory monthly contribution of
20 percent of income
Contributions redirected as mortgage
loan repayment
Exhibit 3.4.3
Exhibit 3.4.4
Singapore heavily subsidizes affordable housing
produced by the HDB
$ thousand, 1985
Down payment of 20 percent
20-year loan at average
interest rate of 9 percent
18
20
3
18
37
19
Capital
subsidy from
government
Total Construction
cost
Net cost
to HDB
Land cost Interest
subsidy from
government
through loan
at 6 percent
Maximum
affordable to
lowest-income
household with
annual income
of $6,200
11
4
15
Impact of subsidies
Exhibit 3.4.4
The government has provided active support to the HDB, which has accounted
for up to 40percent of the governments capital expenditure at times. The HDB
tackles the affordability issue by providing 25- to 30-year loan terms at fixed
interest rates 1 to 5percent below market rates. Singapores overall policy is to
enable every household to own a home but the city has, in fact, adopted a flexible
approach over time, including the provision of rented accommodation to those
in the lowest-income brackets (Exhibit3.4.5). The HDB has always offered a
range of house sizes, focusing on smaller units in the early years of its programs
but in more recent years moving toward larger units as incomes started rising. In
the 1960s, rental housing was dominant, accounting for 90percent of all units;
however, the share of rented affordable housing has now dropped to 10percent.
One of Singapores successes has also been in the use of forced savings through
the mechanism of the Central Provident Fund, which has enabled residents
to build up the capital required to buy houses. The fund demands mandatory
monthly contributions from all salaried employees (matched by contributions from
employers), which they can use as down payments for home purchases.
124
Exhibit 3.4.5
Singapore adapted affordable housing size and tenure mix to address
changing needs with rising incomes
25
30
68
30
0
40
4
2004
3
1960
23
8
1960 2004
10
90
2004 1960
House-size mix
%
Space per capita
Square meter
Rental as a share
of stock
%
SOURCE: www.singstat.gov.sg; Housing Development Board Annual Report 200506; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
1 room 2 room
4 room
3 room
Exhibit 3.4.5
United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is an example of a country that has
used mandates (in tandem with incentives) to piggyback affordable housing
construction onto investments in market housing. The country has used planning
mandates, termed Section 106, since 1981 (Exhibit3.4.6). They require all new
housing developments of more than 25 units to build a pre-agreed number of
affordable units. While the proportion of affordable units built is project-specific,
15 to 25percent on average fall into the affordable category. This program
accounts for 50 to 80percent of affordable housing units built thus far in the
country. To make the economics work, the government provides capital subsidies
on affordable housing construction typically accounting for 30 to 40percent of
the overall cost of the unit. The United Kingdom has also actively supported rental
housing using subsidies through the Housing Benefit program. In the 1970s, the
United Kingdom started transferring the rental stock that had been under the
direct management of local councils to not-for-profit housing associations. These
associations have brought management expertise, capital (through philanthropic
contributions), and effective delivery into large-scale affordable rental housing.
To monitor and regulate these associations, allocate government funding, and
ensure the accountable use of government subsidies, the United Kingdom set
up the Housing Corporationa corporatized agency under the auspices of the
national government.
Exhibit 3.4.6
Mandates through Section 106 have contributed significantly to the creation
of affordable housing stock in the United Kingdom in the recent past
SOURCE: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Thousand houses
21 21
35
44
50
55
79 79
65
56
50
45
1999 2000 2001
Stock created by
Local Housing
Authority and
housing associations
Stock created by
mandates through
Section 106
44 45 30 100% =
2004 2003 2002
29 33 33
Exhibit 3.4.6
China. China moved from a state-provided housing model to a private-developer-
led model in the mid-1990s, but with significant incentives from the government.
The government initiated an affordable housing program (jingji shiyong fang) to
develop houses through private developers for lower- and middle-income groups
at 50 to 75percent of the market price. To make this market attractive for the private
sector, the government extended multiple incentives, including free land allocation,
provision of basic infrastructure, and tax exemptions, which significantly reduced
the effective cost of producing affordable housing with the aim of facilitating sales
below market prices (Exhibit3.4.7). Employers usually provide housing for low-
income migrants in the form of shared accommodation, often as dormitories. China
also recognizes rental housing as an option for lower-income groups and provides
these groups with rent subsidies. As illustration, a household in central Shanghai
earning below $3,500 per year, representing the bottom income quartile in the city,
is eligible for a rent subsidy of $80 a month; this, together with the households own
contribution, makes a 250-square-foot apartment affordable.
126
Exhibit 3.4.7
Shanghai provides multiple incentives to make affordable
housing attractive to the private sector
$ per square meter
610
940
Free land
allocated and
development
charges
exempted
110
90
25
105
Basic
infrastructure
(e.g., water,
green space)
provided by
government
Major
infrastructure
(e.g., roads)
built by
government
Effective cost
of producing
affordable
housing
Tax
exemptions
Production
cost of market
housing
Incentives provided to affordable housing
Exhibit 3.4.7
South Africa. Access to housing is a constitutional right in South Africa, and
the country aspires to eliminate all slums by 2015. This policy has prompted
a significant government-led construction supported by free land allocation
and capital subsidies as high as $5,000 per household for households in the
bottom third of the population in terms of income. Cities plan affordable housing
requirements through detailed five-year plans. For example, Johannesburg
has a detailed Integrated Development Plan for Housing that decides on the
number of new affordable housing units to be built, the number of settlements
to be redeveloped, the share of rental stock in new developments, and the
mechanisms to engage the private sector in affordable housing developments.
The government encourages mixed-income developments through the allocation
of free land and capital subsidies provided if private developers allocate part
of the units they construct for affordable housing at below market rates. South
Africas experience also points to the importance of the proximity of affordable
housing to other urban developments and access to economic opportunities and
transit facilities. While South Africa has aggressively pushed stock creation, it
has struggled to ensure that the units are constructed near to where low-income
residents make their livelihoods, which has left a large part of the stock being
developed on the outskirts of cities where employment opportunities are minimal
and transport links inadequate.
United States. The United States is an example of a country where the government
has played an active role in bridging the affordability gap for low-income households
in urban areas. City housing authorities are responsible for the planning, production,
and operation of affordable housing stock. City governments have either allocated
land or brought it in from the private sector through inclusionary zoning (using
mandates similar to those in the United Kingdom). Although the United States
emphasizes home ownership, it also recognizes rental housing as the practical
solution for the lowest-income groups. The US rental housing program provides
housing at rents about 40percent below market rents. With its Section 8 voucher
subsidy, the United States encourages private households to rent out units to
lower-income groups (who pay 30percent of their monthly income) while providing
the building owner a representative market rent. To encourage private-sector
developers to undertake affordable housing projects, the United States provides
additional FAR and tax credits to subsidize part of the project cost. The United
States pioneered mortgage insurance to boost housing finance lending. While
adequate credit-risk assessment and sharing of mortgage risk are vital to prevent
moral hazard, mortgage insurance has given a boost to lending to the lower-income
segments, as it has in other countries.
While each of the countries that we have described has had distinct housing
challenges, five broad tenets of a successful affordable housing model emerge from
their experiences:
1. Planning for an adequate number of affordable housing units including
earmarking land as part of the city master plan. With competing demands
for land and space, the market allocation will invariably move toward the use of
land that delivers the highest returns. Cities around the world have learned that
creating a stock of affordable housing sufficient to address the needs of low-
income groups requires them to allocate land for this purpose. Cities can achieve
this by making available a portion of government land or by attaching mandates to
planning permits when new developments are proposed.
2. Making the economics work through a combination of mandates,
incentives, and beneficiary contributions. A combination of adequate
incentives, subsidies, and contributions by beneficiaries (people receiving
affordable housing) is necessary to make the economics work. Irrespective of
income growth, the lesson from around the world is that a segment of the citys
residents will not be able to afford a house at market prices. If cities want to
ensure that all residents who contribute economically to the city have some form
of formal shelter, they have to design policies to match the cost of a housing unit
with what beneficiaries are able to pay. The implication is not that governments
should provide free housing. In fact, any free housing scheme is not likely to be
feasible or sustainable. Beneficiaries should be required to contribute in line with
their financial capacity; we expect typical contributions to be in the range of 20 to
40percent of monthly household income. However, to make affordability work for
low-income residents and development attractive for private-sector investments,
the government will have to create mandates, incentives, and subsidies.
3. Government acting as facilitator and a direct contributor. In every country,
the government has played an important role not just as a policy maker but also
as a direct contributor to the creation of affordable housing stock. Government
participation is necessary to ensure private-sector involvement in the creation of
affordable housing. The scale of the governments contribution can be significant,
as it is in Singapore and South Africa, whose governments created the bulk of
the affordable housing stock, or moderate, as in the United Kingdom, where the
government has accounted for less than half of the affordable housing stock in
recent years.
4. Ensuring flexibility in housing size, format, and ownership. While the long-
term objective of government can be to provide adequate space and ownership
of affordable houses, in the short term, policy makers should nevertheless be
flexible about size, format, and the structure of ownership to ensure that the
largest number of low-income groups can have access to formal shelter. Rental
needs to be an option for low-income groups in the near term, and dormitories
128
and hostels providing shared accommodation should complement self-contained
houses to allow for a range of solutions catering to all requirements in cities.
Demand for space is a function of income, and once cities have met basic space
requirements for every city resident, they need to factor in rising incomes in their
affordable housing solutions.
5. Ensuring an enabling institutional framework is in place to make affordable
housing sustainable. While the biggest challenge is making the economics
of affordability work, governments at the same time need to ensure that they
put in place institutions and organizations that focus on affordable housing and
have a mandate to pursue it. Empowered, dedicated agencies responsible for
the delivery of affordable housing, together with a set of transparent processes,
are vital to ensure the effective execution of policy. In addition, cities need a
tax structure that does not place a burden on affordable housing and provides
incentives for the creation of affordable housing stock. Vehicles such as mortgage
guarantee funds create an environment that will boost access to affordable
housing and drive financial inclusion in the long term.
INDIA HAS NOT DEVELOPED A VIABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MODEL; ITS SCORECARD ON THE FIVE DIMENSIONS IS POOR
Despite the evidentand growingneed for affordable housing in India, policy
makers have thus far failed to develop a workable model for its provision. On all five
dimensions of the affordable housing challenge that we have discussed, India scores
poorly (Exhibit3.4.8):
Exhibit 3.4.8
India scores poorly on the five dimensions of good local governance
Poor
Below
average
Above
average
World
class
Planning
for
housing
Incentive
framework
Government
involvement
Flexibility Institutional
framework
Exhibit 3.4.8
Indias cities have not planned for affordable housing or incorporated
necessary space demand in urban plans
No Indian city actively forecasts demand for affordable housing, let alone creates
mechanisms to allocate the necessary space. Affordable housing has not been a key
focus in the development plans of municipalities or the regional plans of metropolitan
areas. Cities have not allocated land through their planning processes or zoning
norms. Even when cities have allocated land for affordable housing, poor governance
has too often meant that land or housing units have been diverted to high-income
beneficiaries or for commercial use.
India has not addressed the economics of affordable housing
adequately
In India, the government has not systematically thought through the combination
of incentives, subsidies, and beneficiary contributions to bridge the gap between
affordability and market cost. For example, to encourage creation of affordable housing
stock, the government extended a 100percent income tax exemption to affordable
housing projects. However, this incentive on its own addresses only 5 to 10percent of the
gap and is therefore not sufficient to stimulate creation of the necessary affordable stock.
Also, the reality is that taxes account for more than 25percent of the final cost to
households of affordable housing (Exhibit3.4.9). Yet the government has not put in
place a tax regime that effectively incentivizes the creation of affordable housing stock.
Exhibit 3.4.9
As high as 27 percent of the end-user cost of housing may comprise of
taxes and levies
SOURCE: Maharashtra stamp duty reckoner; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
5.4
3.0
End-user
price
100.0
Stamp
duty and
registration
2.9
2.4
Develop-
ment and
approval
charges
12.0
73.4
Net of
taxes cost
Income
tax
Service tax
0.9
Excise duty
on
materials
Value-
added
tax
-27%
State taxes Central taxes
%
TIER 2 CITY
Exhibit 3.4.9
Moreover, the governments current 5percent interest subsidy scheme is ineffective
in the case of lower-income groups because these groups do not have access to the
credit they need to afford the houses in the first place. The scheme simply assumes that
housing finance is available to these groups through conventional banks and housing
finance companies at rates comparable to the prime lending rate of banks. The reality,
however, is that because of customized credit assessment and collection requirements,
the available rate is considerably higher than the prime lending rate. This makes lending
to low-income groupsthe principal target segmentnot eligible for the interest-
subsidy scheme.
Even in cases where sufficient incentives are available, a rigid incentive structure
has hampered the development of affordable housing. For example, Mumbais
Slum Redevelopment Scheme offers incentives for land to be sold at market rates
to cross-subsidize the cost of the city providing free housing to slum dwellers. But
the incentive structure does not reflect variations in property prices across the city.
This has meant that redevelopment is highly attractive in parts of the city where
130
property prices are higher, but unattractive in lower-priced areas. Moreover, because
the scheme has a fixed-incentive structure that does not take into account cyclical
movements in property prices, redevelopment is aggressive in boom times and
subdued in depressed market conditions. The scheme has also suffered from a lack of
transparency in the allocation and monitoring of projects.
Government participation has been limited
Indias overall record on government participation in the affordable housing sector
is weak. Until recently, funding allocations by the government had not taken into
account the necessary scale of the exercise. Even in comparison with other emerging
economies, this spending on affordable housing has been very low (Exhibit3.4.10).
As recently as 2005, government spending on urban affordable housing was about
30billion rupees per year. At that rate, it would take a century to address even todays
need for affordable housing. Further, schemes have not provided for adequate
funding. For example, Indias VAMBAY scheme provided for only 20percent of the
true redevelopment cost of slums. Nor have state housing boards delivered on
the scale required. In Mumbai, where 2.4million households cannot afford formal
housing, the housing board has constructed only 0.2million affordable units over the
last 30 years, an annual construction rate of just 6,700 units per year.
Exhibit 3.4.10
Indian government spending on housing has been
much lower than international benchmarks
SOURCE: WMM (Global Insight); Euromonitor; Rossstat; IBGE-PAIC; Indian Public Finance Statistics, Ministry of Finance
$ per capita
4.6 4.3
1.5 1.7 1.3
2004 2007 2006 2008 2005
49
United
Kingdom
1
215
United States
1
170
South Africa
1
India Other countries
Exhibit 3.4.10
1 Average over 200508.
Housing solutions have lacked the necessary mix of tenure and flexibility
A mix of rental and ownership housing is required to address affordable housing needs
effectively. Rental housing is particularly important for addressing the needs of low-
income residents in the context of a rapid rise in the urban population. However, rent
control policies aimed at protecting renters have had the unintended consequence
of deterring investment in rental housing, causing the share of rental stock to decline
by 46percent between 1961 and 2001 and driving lower-income households into
slums (Exhibit3.4.11). In addition to the inconsistent delivery of housing units, most
government programs (including the recent "Affordable Housing in Partnership" and
schemes under JNNURM) promote ownership housing and do not look at creating
rental stockthe most feasible first option for the lowest-income groups.
Exhibit 3.4.11
Rental share of housing stock in India has progressively declined
with urbanization
SOURCE: National Housing Board; Census 2001
%
Urbanization rate
29
34
47
53
54
1961 2001 1981 1991 1971
-46%
18 20 23 26 28
Exhibit 3.4.11
An institutional framework to support affordable housing is
not in place
India has failed to create an institutional framework on two fronts. First, India has not
built up a supporting ecosystem to trigger the construction of affordable housing stock
including a favorable tax regime as well as a mortgage guarantee fund that provides
a degree of security for lending to low-income groups. At the same time, affordable
housing has never received the serious attention of the urban planning process to date.
Second, India has lacked a systematic network of institutions that are responsible for
facilitating or building affordable housing units in a manner that coordinates policies
across central, state, and local governments. The absence of organizations dedicated
to housing has been particularly absent at the municipal and metropolitan levels.
INDIA CAN CREATE A VIABLE HOUSING MODEL BY PUSHING
INITIATIVES ACROSS THESE FIVE AREAS
India can trigger a surge in affordable housing stock if it pushes forward with a set of
policies that make the economics work, supported by a renewed focus on affordable
housing at the state, metropolitan, and municipality levels.
1. India needs to incorporate affordable housing in urban planning and
allocate land dedicated to this purpose
India can no longer let affordable housing be an afterthought; instead, it needs to
incorporate the sector into the full range of its urban planning. To do this effectively,
India should take the following steps:
Start estimating affordable housing requirements in every municipality
and metropolitan area at least once every five years and plan for space to
accommodate the demand. India should estimate its need for affordable housing,
taking into account projected population growth and changes in income distribution.
It should also bring into play adequate land for affordable housing through zoning.
It should use slum land to house slum residents formally. In addition, it should bring
private land into play through zoning and mandates. India can also deploy more
tracts of government-held land for affordable housing along with new pockets of land
132
opened up by investments in public transportation as well as through increases in FAR
in a systematic, planned manner (Exhibit3.4.12).
Exhibit 3.4.12
The government needs to make new sources of land available to
complement slum and privately owned land
Square kilometer
Area from
rehabilitation
of slum land
Redevelopment
of current
government
housing with
increased FAR
of up to 1
Other sources
to be made
available by the
government
Area from
mandates on
private land
2010E
Area required
to address
affordable
housing
demand
GREATER MUMBAI EXAMPLE
Exhibit 3.4.12
27
12
46
91
6
Includes part of salt-pan
lands, port trust land,
other government-held
land and land outside
city limits
Mandate an allocation of 25percent space in all urban developments above
an acre in Tier 1 and 2 cities. India should allocate land for affordable housing
according to the need of a particular city in new developments of more than an acre.
Overall, cities should allocate up to 25percent of built-up area to affordable housing.
To ensure that the allocation is not a tax, India needs to complement mandates with
incentives and to monitor allocations closely to make certain that they are actually
used for the intended purpose. With a huge expansion in residential space expected
over the next 20 years, this is not only an opportunity but an absolute necessity.
2. Offer a basket of incentives and subsidies to make affordable
housing economics work
India needs to design a mix of subsidies and incentives to make affordable housing
economically viable for all potential participants in the value chain. The assumption,
of course, is that governments see broader economic and social value in making
the investments that are needed to bridge the gap between what housing costs in
cities and what low-income residents can afford. The nature of these subsidies and
incentives can vary based on ownership of land and whether the land is currently
occupied by slum dwellers. We propose one potential framework for making the
economics work and developing a viable affordable housing model in India:
Offer three incentives to trigger around 500,000 affordable units a year
on private land. Since affordable housing is not economically viable without
government support, India should offer three specific incentives to create
affordable housing stock on private land: an additional FAR grant of up to 1 on land
used for affordable housing (depending on type of city and land prices); a capital
grant to support infrastructure between 50,000 and 100,000 rupees (depending
on the tier of city); and allowing utilization of up to 5percent of incentive area for
commercial use. With such a combination of incentives, our research indicates
that private developers can hand over to the government 25 to 30percent of the
built-up area consisting of 200 to 500-square-foot housing units and still make a
healthy return of between 20 and 30percent. The government housing agency,
in turn, can either sell or rent these units at affordable prices through a fair and
transparent process (e.g., a publicly notified lottery) to low-income beneficiaries.
In the case of outright sales, governments should seek a minimum contribution of
80,000 rupees to 130,000 rupees from beneficiaries. The minimum contribution
would entitle a household to a housing unit in the range of 200 to 300 square feet
(depending on the policy adopted by the state), with additional square footage
purchased by the household at market prices. In parallel, India could design a
rental system centered on an average monthly rent around 1,500 to 3,000 rupees
in Tier 1 cities. To leverage scale, such a scheme is most likely to be effective in new
private developments above an acre (Exhibit3.4.13).
The underlying aim of any such model would be to make investing in affordable
housing attractive to the private sector and to minimize the strain on the public
purse. However, it is important for city governments to be judicious in the use
of the FAR increases to ensure that they are consistent with the overall urban
plan of the city, that infrastructure is developed in tandem, and that any surplus
value is retained by the city. Using FAR to finance a part of affordable housing is
consistent with our recommendations on urban funding where land monetization
is a key source of revenue to support the development of infrastructure, including
affordable housing (see section 3.1).
Because the cross-subsidy model requires a corresponding sale of residential and
commercial land to the market, the number of affordable units that can be created
may be limited by the markets demand for space. However, we estimate that this
policy approach can trigger at minimum the creation of 500,000 units a year.
Exhibit 3.4.13
affordability gap Tier 2 example
Rupees thousand
260
50
40 90
130
345
95
440
Construc
-tion cost
Infra-
structure
cost
Maximum
affordable to
beneficiary
Capital grant
per 275-square-
foot house
Net cost Market cost
(275-square-
foot house)
Interest
subsidy of
57% for
20 years
Additional
FAR of up to
1 with 5%
commercial
area; 25%
area for
affordable
housing
Exhibit 3.4.13
Offer the same three incentives (but with different support levels) to
develop 1million slum households annually. The package of incentives that
would be effective in the case of private land would also work in the case of
slum redevelopmentbut the level of public support would need to be different.
134
We estimate that the redevelopment of slums would require an additional FAR
grant of up to 1.5; a capital grant of around 100,000 rupees; and the use of up to
5percent of the incentive area for commercial purposes. Unlike many existing
slum redevelopment schemes, we recommend that India provide a housing unit
with a minimum of 275 square feet in exchange for a beneficiarys contribution.
Free housing is not sustainable in the long term, nor, with significant economic
value accruing to beneficiaries, is it necessary. India should discover the
appropriate level of any FAR incentive through an auction process so as to ensure
that valuable land necessary to finance development is not given away at too low a
price. A combination of FAR incentives and subsidies will be viable in Tier 1, 2, and
3 cities. In fact, in Tier 1 cities, where land prices are in the range of 700 to 1,300
rupees per square foot and property rates command 2,500 to 3,500 rupees per
square foot, slum redevelopment with FAR incentives can generate surplus funds
that the city should ring-fence to pay for infrastructure development. The size of
the capital grants necessary will depend on the price of land (which depends on
the tier of city). Even with FAR incentives and subsidies of the magnitude we have
outlined, slum redevelopment in Tier 4 cities may not be viable; instead, in these
cities, India may have to consider upgrading slums, at least in the short term.
Overall, we estimate that 60percent of slums in Tier 1 and 2 cities and 50percent
in Tier 3 cities can be redeveloped using this model (Exhibit3.4.14).
Exhibit 3.4.14
affordability gap for slum redevelopmentTier 1 example
Rupees thousand
460
63
90
430
100
Construc-
tion
Infra-
structure
cost
Transit cost
Effective
affordable
contribution
per slum
household
1
Effective
interest
subsidy
2
27
Net cost of
redevelop-
ment
Capital grant
per slum
household
0
Additional
FAR of up
to 1.5 with 5
percent
commercial
area
Market cost
of redevelop-
ment per
slum
household
550
20
Exhibit 3.4.14
1 30 percent households assumed to not access a loan and move to renting; contribution from balance 70 percent at 90,000
rupees per household.
2 Interest subsidy at 40,000 rupees per household for the 70 percent households accessing a loan.
Retain interest subsidies of 5 to 7percent to make housing finance available
to low-income segments. At the 18 to 20percent that housing finance or
microfinance companies charge, low-income households can barely service
a loan of 75,000 to 80,000 rupees. However, allowing for an effective rate of 11
to 12percent, these households would be able to afford 50percent more. The
government already runs a 5percent interest subsidy scheme for loans up to
100,000 rupees; we recommend that this program be expanded to a subsidy
level of 7percent. Such a modification to the scheme would potentially open up
the necessary finance for housing purchase to the deprived income segment. In
addition, the government should make the interest subsidy accessible to bank
and housing-finance company loans that are made to the lowest-income groups.
Create a favorable tax regime for affordable housing. Taxes and levies
account for around 27percent of the total cost of a house in India today, a
significant burden on the ability of low-income groups to afford housing. To reduce
this burden, India should not only provide capital grants to offset development
charges, as we have described, but also cap stamp duties at 1 to 2percent for
all affordable units and consider providing 100percent income-tax rebates for
affordable housing projects when all units are below 500 square feet.
3. Government should build 500,000 units annually on government
land or on unviable slum land (using the same package of incentives)
With mandates and incentives, the private sector is likely to address 40percent of
the total demand for affordable houses. Like elsewhere in the world, the government
needs to fill the gap using the same set of incentives available to private developers:
an additional FAR grant on land used for affordable housing of up to 1 (depending
on the type of city and land prices); a capital grant to support infrastructure; and
the utilization of up to 5percent of land for commercial use. The government also
needs to play the catalyzing role in slum redevelopment projects that are seen as
unviable by the private sector. In addition, one of the most significant opportunities
for the government is to buy land outside city limits (especially in tandem with
rollout of new public transport infrastructure) and develop affordable housing units
along transportation corridors. The experience of South Africa shows that when
accommodation is provided outside city limits, it has to be supported with public
transportation so that these groups have easy access to their livelihoods.
4. Create flexible affordable housing solutions with 30 percent rentals
and 5 to 10 percent dormitories
The 25million households that cannot afford housing today represent a diverse
constituency in terms of their income, the nature of employment, and their needs.
Some of these households earn less than 40,000 rupees per annum, while others
earn as much as 200,000. Some live as singles; others have large households.
Some are migrants; others are established residents. Some are looking for short-
term accommodation, others for the long term. Some find employment in the formal
sector, while others are active in the informal sector or are unemployed. Therefore,
a one-size-fits-all solution to affordable housing just will not work. Housing policy
should drive a diversity of options through the following four measures:
Promote the development of mixed affordable housing; the range should be
between 200 and 500 square feet
Increase rental housing stock as an option for lower-income groups; 30 to
40percent of affordable stock should be for rent (from the stock that is created
through the private land incentives and slum redevelopment) with an average
rental payable of 1,500 rupees to 3,000 rupees per month
Create dormitories (with specified rents) of 150 square feet as temporary
housing options for migrant workers or the unemployed, particularly in
industrial and commercial hubs; given shared spaces and amenities, the cost
of such units can be substantially reduced over normal units
Create incentives for companies to produce housing for blue-collar
employees through accelerated depreciation or setting off rent paid for employee
housing against taxable income
136
Together, these measures provide an opportunity to create a meaningful amount of
housing stock in formats that are consistent with household needs and income levels.
Like other countries in the world, India can improve these formats over time. However,
the kind of measures and the provisions that we have discussed are necessary in the
short term.
5. Construct an enabling framework to bridge the affordability gap,
including dedicated organizations, a mortgage guarantee fund, and
transparent processes
The successful delivery of affordable housing requires an enabling framework
that spurs lending, that has organizations at the city level that are accountable
and responsible for planning, construction, and overseeing operations, and that
incentivizes processes that are transparent.
We believe that four elements of such a framework are critical:
Establish an efficient and transparent process. To ensure efficiency and
transparency, India should link any decision to redevelop a slum to the citys
overall development plan. India should allocate projects through an auction
to technically qualified bidders who either offer the greatest profit share to
government or demand the lowest subsidy. At the same time, India should
empower slum residents to form cooperatives that can bid for a redevelopment
project either by themselves or in partnership with a certified real estate developer
or a relevant state housing board. For their part, state housing boards should
create dedicated departments to lend project planning and management support
to these cooperatives. A committee of residents, the developers, the housing
board, and representatives of local and regional government should make all key
decisions on redevelopment projects. The agency involved in redevelopment
needs to circulate the reserve surplus or subsidy expected from each project
according to standardized templates, and winning bids should be in line with
these estimates.
Consider setting up a mortgage guarantee fund. Such a fund can help Indias
middle-income groups to afford to own their own homes more quickly by making
higher loan-to-value loans accessible to them, reducing the size of the down
payment. The fund, for instance, could guarantee 20 to 30percent of a loan,
thereby lowering the risk exposure of the primary lender. This same principle
might apply to low-income households whose lack of credit history deters
lenders. This option is subject to debatesome argue that using a mortgage
guarantee fund in this way will encourage defaults and lead to a deterioration of
quality in bank lending portfolios. However, we argue that the 70 to 80percent of a
bad loan that lenders would still have to take onto their books is sufficient incentive
to perform due diligence, while at the same time having the advantage of a portion
of the risk being borne by the mortgage guarantee fund. We propose such a fund
with an initial corpus of 15billion rupees and a capital adequacy ratio of 12 to
15percent.
For metropolitan areas, create a corporatized agency for affordable
housing under the Metropolitan Development Authority. Around the world,
local governments are responsible for the delivery of affordable housing, and
we regard this as the long-term solution for India, too. For now, however, Indias
third tier doesnt have the capacity to do this job. Nor do we believe that it is
practical to create a city housing authority from scratch in every municipality; it
would take time to build scale and expertise, and in the meantime the agencies
currently involved will initially be reluctant to give up their responsibility. The near-
term solution is to rely on metropolitan development authorities that are in place
in Indias large urban centers (see section 3.2). These authorities are already
responsible for regional planning and managing transport and infrastructure
projects, and they have substantial planning and project management and
execution capabilities. We therefore propose that these authorities create a
corporatized agency, a Regional Housing Development Authority (RHDA),
which would be responsible for planning and delivering affordable housing.
We think a corporatized agency with a board (consisting of officials as well as
experts) is preferable to a department. This structure would more likely allow for
the development of the specialized skills that will be necessary. In the case of
cities and municipalities that do not come under the auspices of a metropolitan
development authority, the State Housing Board (such as MHADA in Maharashtra)
should assist the city and the local municipality. State Housing Boards need to
be restructured with targets, mandates, transparent processes, and boards that
inspire confidence.
Consider creating rental management companies to operate and maintain
the rental stock. Experience suggests that the government should not
operate rental stock directly, as this leads to increased rental defaults and poor
management. The preferred model around the world is for the private sector or
not-for-profit sector to operate rental housing. We propose that the government
encourage private-sector companies or nongovernmental organizations to set
up rental-management companies, similar to the trusts in the United Kingdom.
The rental stock would be leased to these companies, which can in turn charge
specified rents from tenants and, in return, maintain their properties. The company
would pay a fixed but reasonable dividend to the regional housing authority out of
its profits. The authority could make periodic audits and should have the ability to
revoke the contracts.
We believe that, as part of a concerted effort by government and the private sector,
these measures would allow India to bridge the gap between demand for, and the
ability to pay for, affordable housing over the next 20 years (Exhibit3.4.15).
Exhibit 3.4.15
3.1
3.3
3.7
11.4
37.9
Rental
Owner-
ship
26.5
Affordable housing
demand 201030
Redevelop-
ment of slums
12.3
8.6
Creation of new
affordable stock
1.3
3.0
Redevelop-
ment of slums
7.8
Creation of new
affordable stock
10.2
7.1
11.1
4.3
A combination of cross-subsidization by the market and direct government
construction can bridge the demand for low-income housing
Million households
Cross-subsidized by market Direct government construction
40 60
Percent
of demand
Exhibit 3.4.15
138
INDIA IS CAPABLE OF UNLEASHING A WAVE OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING STOCK EVEN IN THE SHORT TERM
While providing sufficient affordable housing is a daunting challenge, we believe that
it is possible for India to unleash a huge wave of private and government investment
in housing stock within a relatively short period. By and large, there is a political
consensus emerging that the government does need to play an active role in shaping
affordable housing. And there seems to be a willingness, especially at the central
government level, to commit meaningful resources to making a dent in the shortage
of housing stock for low-income groups in cities.
A necessary first step for central government is to formalize a framework for
affordable housing, including a significant increase in funds committed to spur stock
creation. We believe that the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) scheme is a right step in this
direction.
We estimate that with an annual outlay from the government of around 15,000
crore rupees ($3.3billion) over the next 10 years RAY could help create 1.5million to
2million units a yeara significant leap toward delivering affordable housing in India.
While a substantial share of the necessary resources can come from the central
government, it is important for state governments to contribute their share of
favorable policies and incentives that can make the economics of affordable housing
work in their cities. Three measures are critical from state governments:
Design a FAR incentive program in a planned and systematic manner that
avoids giving away surplus funds that are needed for infrastructure development
Commit to plans on affordable housing construction, supporting this
with adequate budgetary outlay and measures to bring new land areas under
development
Develop housing organizations at the metropolitan and municipality levels to
ensure a renewed focus on the affordable housing sector.
For city governments, the renewed focus on housing from the central and state
governments represents a tremendous opportunity to shape the fate of their cities for
the next two decades. It should actively shape the process through creating focused
institutions as well as reflecting demand or housing units in their urban plans and
zoning norms.
* * *
The lack of affordable housing in cities across India is evident in the slums that deface
the urban landscape. This may be the most visible challenge India faces. If India fails
to ramp up investment in affordable housing, putting in place the enabling policies
needed to make the economics of the sector work and attract private enterprise,
urban India faces the possibility of 38million people living in slum conditions. For
the sake of social inclusionand the economic benefits that would come from a
construction boomthis is a challenge India needs to face.
3.5 Shaping a land of 6,000 cities
Few growing economies have had the chance to influence the distribution of their
urban population across different cities and within them. Most have seen their urban
shape emerge by chance. But todays India has an opportunity to anticipate the next
20 years of rapid urban expansion and proactively influence the process.
There are two areas where India can have somewhat of an impact on the shape of its
urban expansion. First, policy makers can have a degree of influence over the nations
overall portfolio of citieshow many of each type of cities there should be, and how
the countrys existing and new urban population may spread out among them. We
call this the external shape of urbanization. Countries usually make these choices by
deciding on locations for future economic-growth centers (e.g., financial hubs and
manufacturing centers), future transportation networks (e.g., expressways, rail routes,
and airports), and other investments in urban infrastructure (e.g., power, water, and
sewage) within and across cities. It is important for India to think through what external
shape is likely to optimize the countrys deployment of investment in urban areas.
Second, India can also make choices about the internal shape of its citiestheir
design in terms of overall look and how each city uses its space for living and working
as productively and inclusively as possible. While this aspect of urbanization falls
within the purview of urban planning, one reason to highlight the internal shape
of cities in this section is its strategic implication for how India can accommodate
growing demand for urban land.
In this section, we explore some lessons on urban shapes from other countries,
discuss what choices India practically might have about the external and internal
shape of its urbanization, and what policy and investment options could potentially
achieve the most productive outcome.
EXTERNAL SHAPE NORMALLY GROWS OUT OF HISTORY BUT
INTERNAL SHAPE IS ALWAYS DRIVEN BY CITIES
With the exception of China, most countries have urbanized over much longer
periods than India and therefore their portfolios of cities have evolved rather than
been designed. Looking at urbanization around the world, two main patterns of
external urban shape have emerged:
Concentrated urbanization. A concentrated pattern of urban growth can
produce one megacity such as Seoul in South Korea, or a small number of very
large cities with populations of 20million to 40million as we observe in Japan.
Distributed urbanization. Another pattern of urbanization is distributed in shape
where a large number of cities are developed simultaneously. One example is the
United States where several medium-sized cities with populations of 1.5million
to 5million have developed in addition to a few megacities. Another example of
distributed urbanization is Germany, which has seen a much more fragmented
pattern of urbanization through the development of many small cities with
populations of 500,000 to 1.5million. These patterns have inevitably grown out
of history. The only exception has been China. The shape of Chinas urbanization
has been relatively dispersed, or distributed, thus far. However, there has also
been an element of concentration in its coastal cities, whose development was
consciously pushed by investing in building urban infrastructure ahead of demand,
140
and proactively seeking to attract foreign investment by designating them special
economic zones (SEZ). Now, China is moving toward a more concentrated,
cluster-based urban development model, especially in coastal areas.
7

It should be noted that external pattern of urbanization is not just about size. Shape also
relates to building a portfolio of cities that have varying degrees of sectoral specialization,
and achieving a balance between legacy cities and new green-field developments.
Internal shape is also important. Almost every major city in the world invests substantial
resources and policy attention to this question. Cities drive their internal shape by
making explicit choices on the distribution of density, land usage, and the linkages
between where people live and work, with particular focus on the interplay between
public transportation and affordable housing through their urban planning process.
Across the world, large cities, in general, have chosen to accommodate increasing
demand for space by expanding upward, especially in Central Business Districts
(CBD) and along major transportation corridors (Exhibit3.5.1). However, this is
always done based on long-term systematic plans that ensure construction of
supporting infrastructure (such as water-supply, sewerage, storm water-drains,
solid-waste management, mass transit, and roads) is in line with such densities.
Seoul, for instance, has opted consistently for vertical development, especially in
business districts (FAR of 8 to 10) and key transit corridors, including around metro
stations (FAR of 4 to 8). This has encouraged walking or taking public transport
to work. Singapore, too, has adopted a shape that combines a high-rise central
business district (FAR of 8 to 25) with densely occupied commercial buildings along
key roads leading out of the center through their master-planning process, a design
that has attracted highly productive services sectors. In the case of Singapore,
even residential areas next to the business district have an FAR as high as 6 and
then dropping to between 1 and 2 as one moves farther away from the CBD. New
York, too, has adopted a high-density vertical model that embraces both its central
business district and in residential areas of Manhattan (with FAR of 15 and up to 10
respectively). This approach has enabled the island to preserve 25percent of its land
area for the green public space of Central Park. In contrast, Los Angeles has only
selectively intensified land usage in downtown areas (FAR up to 13) while the rest of
the city has adopted a low-rise model in order to preserve the citys historically widely
spaced, single- and multifamily residential neighborhoods.
7 MGI recommended that China consider fostering a more concentrated shape of urbanization
over the next 20 year to reap the benets that would thereby accrue in the form of higher
urban productivity. For detail, see Preparing for Chinas urbanbillion, McKinsey Global
Institute, March 2009 (www.mckinsey.com/mgi).
Exhibit 3.5.1
Across the world, FAR values decline with distance from central
business district
0
5
10
15
20
25
25 km 20 km 15 km 10 km 5 km Central
business
district
30 km
0
2
4
6
8
10
Central
business
district
5 km 10 km 30 km 25 km 20 km 15 km
Maximum commercial FAR
Maximum residential FAR
F
A
R

v
a
l
u
e
s
F
A
R

v
a
l
u
e
s
Distance from central business district
Distance from central business district
Singapore
New York
Seoul
Vancouver
Singapore
New York
Seoul
Vancouver
SOURCE: Alain Bertaud; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Exhibit 3.5.1
There are many options in the internal design of cities but what is important is
that these choices are clear, that development standards are consistent with the
approach taken, and that the urban infrastructure is sufficient to make a particular
option viable for citizens and investors.
INDIA NEEDS TO START THINKING BEYOND THE TRADITIONAL
LAISSEZ-FAIRE APPROACH TO SHAPE
In India, there has thus far been no conscious approach to shaping either the external
or internal shape of its cities.
Taking external shape first, India has not thought either at the national or state level about
what portfolio of cities would most suit Indias economic growth and social objectives.
India would serve its cities better if it started to make conscious choices on the external
shape of its urbanization, and make decisions about which of the several alternatives
it has at its disposal would best fit with Indias needs. Does India want to mostly focus
on megacities or should India mostly focus on its emerging Tier 2 cities? Should Indias
focus be on investing in the renewal of existing cities or the creation of new cities and
satellite townships? How should India think about smaller specialist cities (such as Agra
that focuses on tourism, or Bhilai that has world-class steel facilities)?
Neither has the internal shape of cities in India evolved with any strategic objective
in mind that takes into account the best outcomes for urban residents; rather the
design of cities has come about through private choices (e.g., slums near commercial
centers), and sometimes ad hoc public choices (e.g., FAR allowances by state
governments for specific projects). Moreover, Indias tendency to use just one FAR
value across a city is in contrast to the approach in other countries whose cities
use a variety of FAR values in different areas. Almost always, Indias approach has
resulted in urban sprawl that increases the long-term costs incurred not only by the
city in question but also the state and the nation as a whole in terms of the suboptimal
use of land, increased costs of delivering services, and the adverse impact on the
142
environment. Therefore, India would do well to start thinking consciously about
the internal shape in its cities. How should cities utilize land and what is the best
relationship between a citys residential, commercial, and community spaces?
What is the best way to bring these spaces together through transportation links?
What should be the distribution of densities in a city? Should a city grow vertically
or horizontally and what consequences are each of these options likely to have on
Indias stock of agricultural land?
We argue that Indias historical approach to the shape of its urbanization will not
work given that the nation is on the verge of doubling its urban population. MGI is
convinced that India needs to start a debate and start making conscious choices
about both the external and internal shape of its urbanization if the government is to
meet its aim of inclusive growth and the expansion of basic services. By making a
shift toward proactivism in this regard, India could win itself a powerful lever to shape
the contours of its economic growth over the next 20 years.
We now turn to the recommendations for India that arise out of our analysis that we
believe can help to shape the external and internal pattern of urbanization in a way
that optimizes outcomes.
INDIA SHOULD CONTINUE ON ITS PATH OF DISTRIBUTED
URBANIZATION
In contrast to China where MGI recommends a shift toward a more concentrated
model of urbanization, in Indias case our view is that India would do better to
continue with the current distributed pattern of urban expansion. There are three
reasons for this view:
First, Indias current shape is already distributed. Over the past 100 years, the
nation has accumulated a mixed portfolio of cities of a wide range of sizes and
types. By 2006, 27percent of the population lived in Tier 1 cities (with populations
of more than 4million), 14percent in Tier 2 cities (populations of 1million to
4million), and 58percent in Tier 3 and 4 cities (with populations of less than
1million) (Exhibit3.5.2).
Exhibit 3.5.2
Indias historic urbanization shape has been distributed
Urban population
Million
Urban GDP
Billion rupees, 2008 prices
Exhibit 3.5.2
61
59
15
14
100% =
Tiers 3/4
Tier 2
Tier 1
2006
324
27
1999
274
24
53
51
17
15
100% =
2006
23,871
34
1999
13,964
30
Second, a distributed shape is more suited to Indias federal structure in which
individual states play a large role in driving economic growth and are likely to make
choices in creating a portfolio of cities relevant to each states stage of economic
development and urbanization.
Third, a distributed pattern would support Indias diversified model of economic
growth more effectively. Various types of cities have played different but
complementary roles in Indias economy. Tier 1 and 2 cities have attracted the lions
share of the most productive sectors including banking, high-end financial services,
fashion and entertainment, and modern format retailing. Some smaller Tier 3 and
4 cities are home to important manufacturing centers (e.g., Bhilai, Jamshedpur,
Ambujanagar, and Jamnagar) that provide rapid growth in jobs and wages.
If India continues on its current distributed path of urbanization between now
and 2030, our projections suggest that a diversified portfolio of cities will develop
(Exhibit3.5.3).
Exhibit 3.5.3
Based on current trends, Indias urbanization shape is expected
to remain distributed
61
59
56
15
14
18
100% =
Tiers 3
and 4
Tier 2
Tier 1
2030
590
26
2006
324
27
1999
274
24
53
51
49
17
15
17
100% =
2030
165,071
34
2006
23,871
34
1999
13,964
30
Urban population
Million
Urban GDP
Billion rupees
Exhibit 3.5.3
SIX KEY INITIATIVES WOULD ENABLE EFFECTIVE DISTRIBUTED
URBANIZATION TO 2030
If India were to consciously pursue distributed urbanization as its preferred path
over coming decades, what policy changes are most likely to optimize investment,
enables economic growth, and facilitate a higher degree of social inclusiveness? In
this section, we discuss six recommendations arising out of our analysis.
Renew Tier 1 cities through a substantial new investment program
India should renew its focus on its largest nine cities (Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata,
Chennai, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune, and Surateach with a
population exceeding 4million). Today, Tier 1 cities have a combined population of
93million people and we project that this figure will reach 155million by 2030. India
should seek to unleash the ability of these cities to fund their own growth through the
infusion of $288 per capita for capital expenditure in urban infrastructure (see section
3.1).
144
The case for a renewed focus on Indias largest cities is compelling. First, these large
cities are critical to the growth of high-value-added sectors like banking and financial
services, real estate, transportation, and communication. All of these are anchor
sectors that drive Indias overall economic growth, and are more productive in the
largest cities (Exhibit3.5.4).
Exhibit 3.5.4
Tier 1 cities house the most productive subsectors crucial to the economy
87
Tier 1 Tier 2
78
Tiers 3/4
77
+13%
Trade/ retail
GDP per worker, rupees real 2000, fiscal 2005
188
Tier 1
266
Tier 2
189
Tiers 3/4
+41%
Finance, real estate
105
Tier 1
130
Tier 2
112
Tiers 3/4
+24%
84
Tier 1 Tier 2
73
Tiers 3/4
72 14%
Construction Transport and communication
Exhibit 3.5.4
Second, Indias largest cities have historically underperformed compared with their
international peers due to neglect and underinvestment (Exhibit3.5.5). The time has
now come to return these cities to their potential. Around the world, large cities have
fuelled the growth of national economies. For example, the annual GDP growth rates
of Chinas Tier 1 cities were more than double the rate of Indias Tier 1 cities between
1999 and 2005. Even in the United Kingdom, Londons growth rate has consistently
been 20percent higher than the rest for more than two decades. This suggests that
there is large scope for additional growth from Indias largest cities that India has
failed to catalyze thus far. The scale and agglomeration benefits that have driven
productivity and innovation in large cities around the world clearly suggest that Indias
large cities should be delivering more growth. A lack of investment has clearly been
one major hurdle to maximizing growth in these cities.
Third, these megacities are capable of funding 85percent of their investment
program from the internal resources (land, debt, PPP, property taxes, etc.) as long as
enabling policies that allow them to unlock these funding sources are in place. This
would obviate the need for substantial transfers from state and central governments
(see section 3.1). As a result, these large cities can deliver high GDP per dollar
invested by state and the center (Exhibit3.5.6).
Exhibit 3.5.5
Indias largest cities have historically underperformed their
international peers
7.5
8.4
8.3
Tiers 3 and 4
Tier 2
Tier 1
11.3
14.7
16.4
Tier growth rates
%
India, 19992006 China, 200006
Exhibit 3.5.5
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; McKinsey Global Institute China All City Model; McKinsey Global Institute
analysis
Exhibit 3.5.6
Larger cities provide more growth per dollar of investment from the state
and central governments
Incremental GDP, 201030
49
81
306
Incremental urban
spending support from
state and central
government, 201030,
Incremental GDP per dollar of
support from state and central
government
5
13
11
Tier 2
1,421
645
852 Tier 1
Tier 3/4
Exhibit 3.5.6
Preemptively shape the trajectory of the 24 largest Tier 2 cities
India has a golden opportunity to ensure that, as its Tier 2 cities expand, they do not
emulate the urban decay of todays Tier 1 cities. To avoid repeating history, India
needs to act preemptively to shape the growth of its Tier 2 cities by creating the
right policies and injecting sufficient funds to match the needs that will arise as they
expand (see section 3.1). India could use these Tier 2 cities as the test bed for reforms
in urban planning and local governance, which would ensure that these cities can
sustainably play host to a greater share of Indias urban population and account for a
larger share of economic output than is likely on current projections.
146
There is a clear case for picking the 24 large Tier 2 cities and investing $133 per capita
and per annum in them. First, as we have noted, investing in their growth preemptively
will prevent Tier 2 cities seeing a proliferation of slums, gridlocked movement of
people and goods, and a declining quality of life, as we see in many Tier 1 cities today.
Second, even without a particular emphasis and targeted investment, many of these
Tier 2 cities will grow rapidly, often doubling their population, in the next 20 years.
In short, these cities are destined for expansion even with current policiesand
directing this growth will be essential (Exhibit3.5.7).
Exhibit 3.5.7
India needs to influence the trajectory of its top 24 Tier 2 cities proactively
2.9
3.3
2.9
2.4
1.6
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.7
2.5
1.9
1.3
1.8
2.1
1.4
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.9
1.0
0.9 Rajkot 2.6
Visakha-
patnam
2.6
Indore 2.8
Patna 2.8
Madurai 2.9
Coimbatore 3.1
Lucknow 3.7
Amritsar 3.7
Vadodara 4.2
Kanpur 4.2
Nagpur 5.2
Jaipur 5.4 1.5
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.6 1.9 Jabalpur
Warangal 2.0
Ghaziabad 2.1
Meerut 2.3
Bhopal 2.3
Agra 2.3
Salem 2.3
Ludhiana 2.3
Kochi 2.4
Nashik 2.5
Vijayawada 2.5
Varanasi 2.6
2010 population
Incremental 201030
City population, million
Exhibit 3.5.7
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
Finally, like Tier 1 cities, Tier 2 cities, especially the larger ones, have the ability to fund
80 to 85percent of their own investment requirements. This will again ensure that the
external funding provided by the central and state governments is fully leveraged.
Nurture the top specialist Tier 3 and 4 cities
India has 70 to 100 cities that have strong economic propositions linked to an anchor
sector, mainly in manufacturing, the extraction of resources, transportation, and
tourism and pilgrimage. Such cities, typically in the Tier 3 and 4 categories, have
traditionally created a much higher number of jobs and attracted much higher levels
of private capital investment than their peers (Exhibit3.5.8). Given their significance
for Indias economic growth, central and state government needs to supplement
private investment in these specialist cities through the infusion of at least $96 per
capita per year in urban infrastructure investments (see section 3.1). Such support
would allow these cities to sustain their economic advantage and eventually grow
into fully-fledged multisector cities that can provide employment to a larger share
of Indias urban population, while maintaining the distributed nature of Indias
urbanization.
Exhibit 3.5.8
Indias specialist cities have attracted a disproportionate share of
investment
SOURCE: Center for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE); S. Chakravorty, Spatial Dimensions of Structural Reform
20
100
Other
Tier 3 and 4 cities
Specialist
Tier 3 and 4 cities
4 X
Average private investment, 199298
Rupees per capita per annum (indexed)
Illustrative list of specialist cities
Iron and
steel
Jamshedpur
Bokaro
Rourkela
Durg-Bhilai Nagar
Oil and
gas
Jamnagar
Digboi
Rajamundry
Mathura
Tourism
Haridwar
Siliguri
Bikaner
Agra
Jodhpur
Dehradun
Puri
Port
Porbandar
Haldia
Paradip
Mining
Bellary
Chitradurga
Dhanbad
Asansole
Barabil
Exhibit 3.5.8
Facilitate creation of 25 new world-class satellite cities near the largest
metropolitan areas
There has been a significant recent debate in India about whether the answer to decay
in its existing cities is a huge investment program in brand-new cities. Our analysis
shows that may not work. Building new cities is an expensive proposition, sustainable
only when they create at least 30,000 to 50,000 core jobs and host a population of
at least 500,000 to 1million (Exhibit3.5.9), a landmark that usually requires strong
anchor tenants and several years of incubation. International experience shows that
new cities often take 15 to 20 years to reach this level of population.
Exhibit 3.5.9
A new greenfield city is sustainable only when it achieves a population of
500,000 to 1 million, driven by core job creation
200,000
30,000
500,0001,000,000
Total population Total jobs Core jobs
Number of jobs and population
Steel mill
Window frame
manufacturer
Jobs in globally
competitive industries
(up- and downstream)
Industrial services
Enabling services
Freight forwarder
Retail shops
Hairdressers
Spouses, children
Retirees
Dependents of
employees
Visitors
Description
Examples
Exhibit 3.5.9
148
As a result, building these new cities is around 1.5 times more expensive as renewing
an existing midsized city on a per capita basis (Exhibit3.5.10). The costs can
escalate even further if these new cities are not built in the vicinity of large, existing
metropolitan areas, driven by the need for long transportation links, airports, etc.
Exhibit 3.5.10
Building greenfield cities is around 1.5 times as expensive in per capita
terms as rejuvenating existing Tier 1 cities
133
288
425
Average Tier 2 city Average Tier 1 city Greenfield city
(500,000 population
over ten years)
+48%
Funding required per capita (capital expenditure)
Slow growth in
population leads to
high per capita
costs
Exhibit 3.5.10
We are not arguing that new cities have no role to play in Indias emerging
urbanization path. We believe that India will definitely need new cities, especially to
create and showcase a model city. However, we urge India to build its new cities in
an economically sound manner and recommend that India facilitate the development
of new satellite townships within 50 kilometers of existing and emerging metropolitan
regions in order to leverage the momentum of existing urban centers.
We estimate that India needs to develop one to two new satellite towns or cities in
each of the largest metropolitan regions by 2030. With a population of 0.5million
to 1million in each, these new cities can absorb as high as 20million to 25million
additional urban residents.
To make these new cities successful, India must also create the right urban policy
environment. We recommend two initiatives. First, India should use best practice
in planning, funding, and governance from the inception of these cities, rather than
utilizing the existing laissez-faire, unplanned approach. This would allow these new
cities to become benchmarks of planned, well-governed urban centers with a high
quality of life and inclusive urban living. Second, the government should not view
these cities as a purely private play, and should become an active facilitator especially
in the provision of infrastructure with long lead times such as bulk water, electricity,
and trunk-transportation connectivity (i.e., roads and rail).
149
Create a basic quality of life for smaller Tier 3 and 4 cities through a
specified minimum funding support
India would be wise not to neglect its smaller Tier 3 and 4 cities. Apart from
considerations of inclusiveness, these cities are important for three reasons. First,
Indias smaller cities have delivered robust economic growth over the last 15 years
comparable with Indias largest citiesdespite very small inflows of public investment
(Exhibit3.5.11). Second, our model shows that, on trend, smaller Indian cities will
add 136million to the overall urban population and contribute 49percent of overall
urban GDP. Third, provision of basic services in these cities would reduce some of
the migration load on larger cities. Given that these smaller cities can only generate
around 50percent of their funding requirement internally (using land monetization,
debt and PPP, property tax, and user charges), we recommend that the state and the
central government hand-hold them till they become self-sufficient by providing
an annual grant of $20 per capita. While we recognize that such a grant would not
be sufficient to meet their needs, this support would at least enable them to provide
some necessary urban services at minimum service levels (e.g., 90 liters per capita
per day of water, 50percent sewage treatment) to their residents. The presence of a
large number of towns and cities that offer an improved quality of life will ensure that
migration into the largest cities will be driven by the pull" of more productive jobs
rather than the push of poor access to services in villages and smaller towns and
cities.
Exhibit 3.5.11
Smaller cities have historically posted robust growth despite receiving little
funding support
12
38
Tiers 3/4
Tier 2
Tier 1 130
7.5
8.4
8.3
Municipal spending
Tier growth rates, 19992006
%
Exhibit 3.5.11
Seed future urbanization by building selected transportation
corridors and creating clusters
Indias top-tier cities would be more productive if communication and transport
links between them were stronger. We recommend facilitating the emergence of
economic clusters of top-tier cities by providing rapid transport systems (such as
eight to ten lane expressways) to connect them. We have identified 19 such clusters
of two or more big cities together with their surrounding towns that account for
55percent of the urban population and can seed the next wave of urbanization in
India even beyond 2030 (Exhibit3.5.12). Such transportation corridors cost around
$50 per capita to build, and offer a low-cost seeding mechanism for Indias ongoing
urbanization.
150
If India were to adopt and implement these recommendations, Indias portfolio of
cities would develop the shape illustrated in Exhibit3.5.13.
Exhibit 3.5.12
India should develop its top 19 clusters at the cost of $50 per capita to seed
the next wave of urbanization
15
16
13
17
8
7
12
9
6
5
3
11
10
1
2
18
14
4
19
Illustrative list of clusters
1
2
3
4
5
7
6
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
13
15
17
18
19
SOURCE: 2001 National Council for Applied Economic Research survey; United Nations Industrial Development Organization;
Exhibit 3.5.12
Hyderabad Warangal
Vijayawada Vishakhapatnam
Bangalore Mangalore Mysore
Durg-Bhilai Nagar Raipur
Chennai Pondicherry
Coimbatore Madurai Salem Thanjavur
Tiruchirapalli
Ahmedabad Surat Vadodara
Bhavnagar Jamnagar Rajkot
Kochi Kozhikode Thiruvananthapuram
Aurangabad Nagpur
Bhopal Indore
Mumbai Nashik Pune
Gurgaon New Delhi Faridabad Ghaziabad
Meerut Agra
Bhubaneswar Cuttack
Amritsar Chandigarh Jalandhar Ludhiana
Jaipur Kota
Allahabad Kanpur Lucknow Varanasi
Kolkata Asansole
Dhanbad Jamshedpur Ranchi
Exhibit 3.5.13
India needs to facilitate a planned portfolio of cities
52
93
2030
590
20
331
104
135
2008
340
195
2 Tier 2 cities: Fast-growing
multi-service cities
55 cities with
population of
1.9 million each
Amritsar
Kochi
Indore
1 Tier 1 cities: Multi-service
metropolitan regions
3 cities above 20
million and 10 others
with average size of
57 million
Mumbai (MMR)
Delhi (NCT)
Kolkata
Chennai
5 World-class new cities near
Tier 1 cities: Small new
cities in metropolitan areas
with world-class facilities
25 cities of average
population 0.5
1 million
Lavasa
Type of city
Number, average
size in 2030 Examples
India urban
population
Million
3 Specialist Tier 3/ 4 towns:
Towns specializing in specific
sectors (e.g., manufacturing,
tourism)
Other Tier 3/4 towns:
Other small towns which hold
a major chunk of urban
population
5,900 towns of
40,00060,000 each
Jamshedpur
Puri
4
70100 specialist
towns
Panvel
Palghar
Exhibit 3.5.13
19 super corridors to connect Tier 1 and
Tier 2 cities to seed future urbanization
INDIA ALSO NEEDS TO THINK THROUGH ITS POLICIES ON
INTERNAL SHAPE
Indias cities have so far developed in a way that largely ignores the design or internal
shape of its citiesa factor that many other emerging economies have addressed
over the past 50 years.
There are consequences for India of not having effective policies on internal shape
including the loss of potentially arable land, urban sprawl, and pressure on the
environment. Cities already account for almost 2.8percent of Indias land mass, and
demand for land is set to increase substantially with the near doubling of Indias urban
population and quadrupling of per capita urban incomes that we expect over the next
20 years. Based on Indias current internal shape (average FAR of 1), we estimate
that an incremental 11million hectares of land may be necessary to meet urban
demand. Urban sprawl, which grows out of a lack of planning, increases the cost of
delivering services to a population spread over a larger area. And the environmental
cost of additional commuter miles adds to a citys carbon footprint. The pressure on
the environment is likely to increase dramatically in India in the absence of a more
thoughtful approach to internal shape (see appendix B on the mitigation of carbon
emissions in urban India). So we offer one key recommendation on internal shape:
Proactively plan Indias internal urban shape and density to optimize costs,
save land, and reduce emissions
Our analysis shows that if Indias cities systematically plan for higher density
around business districts, together with transit corridors and other supporting
infrastructure can save up to 6.2million hectares of land (Exhibit3.5.14). What is
critical is integrated forward planning on infrastructure requirements including
water supply, sewage, solid-waste management, and transportation. Besides the
mitigation of loss of arable land, proactive planning for shape and a push toward
greener buildings can become a powerful lever to reduce cities carbon footprint
(see appendix B for detail).
Exhibit 3.5.14
India could potentially save 6.2 million hectares of land through effective
planning for land use
12.4
18.6
7.5
2007 Poor land-
use planning
Effective land-
use planning
-6.2
Effective land-use
planning, especially in
central business
districts and transit
corridors, can mitigate
loss of land
Demand for urban land
Million hectares
2030
Exhibit 3.5.14
152
ALL THREE LEVELS OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT NEED TO PUSH
THE WAY FORWARD ON SHAPE
If India reaches the conclusion that a distributed shape of urbanization is the nations
best option, the next issue is what India has to do to produce this pattern. The role of
all three levels of government will be critical. State governments (and to some extent,
central government) have the most power to influence the external shape of cities,
while state and local governments can determine their internal shape. In this section,
we explore potential roles of the different tiers of government and some next steps
that each might take.
Indias central government can play a powerful facilitating role through the National
Urban Renewal Mission (NURM) as a vehicle. Through NURM, it can continue to
facilitate the necessary investment into Tier 1 and 2 cities. However, we think NURM
should launch another scheme to reflect the requirements of specialist cities as well
as other Tier 3 and 4 cities. In addition, central government can support the creation
of city master plans that give due importance to the issue of density and internal
shape through the NURM conditionality and funding. Finally, and importantly, central
government should consider introducing another NURM conditionality that each
state submit a 2020 and 2030 urbanization strategy and blueprint in a specified
format (including forecasts for urban shape, overall investment requirements, key
projects, and funding mechanisms).
States, too, have a major role to play. Every state should create urbanization
blueprints and formulate a strategy based on their projections for the development of
the urban populations in their states. This blueprint should lay out how states intend
to respond to these projections in terms of planning and pre-investment. We would
recommend that every state should plan ahead on how to invest in their Tier 1, Tier 2,
and specialist cities. In addition, states should give priority to the construction of key
transportation corridors over the next five years, and issue guidelines to each city to
proactively plan their internal shape to save on precious agricultural land.
Cities themselves can play their part by moving aggressively toward the creation of
city strategies including a blueprint for how they intend to plan ahead for the citys
needs in 2030, as well as for the internal shape of the city.
* * *
Almost no debate on the future shape of Indias urbanization has yet taken place.
Having such a national conversation is a necessary first step toward a comprehensive
national urban strategy. Some of the recommendations that we have made will be
easier to implement than others. But a systematic movement toward implementation
will create rich dividends for India.
This report has made the case that managing the path of Indias urbanization is
essential to its agenda of inclusive economic growth and its ability to raise the living
conditions of a substantial number of its citizens. It is well within Indias ability to put
into action the 34 recommendations we have proposed in the next five years. If India
does so, it can change the face of its cities in a decade.
However, India is in a state of deep inertia about the urgency and scale of urban
reforms. Despite the perilous state of many Indian cities and the impending wave of
urbanization, there seems to be comfort with the status quo, resistance to change,
and a lack of recognition of the urgent need for change.
In this chapter, we discuss how India can facilitate a debate on reform and make
change happen in a way that involves all key stakeholderscitizens, the private
sector, and governments (national, state, and city). The 74th Amendment of Indias
constitution has already laid out the philosophical and legal framework for most of the
changes we propose in this report. Our recommendations, in many ways, attempt to
translate the intent and spirit of the amendment into specific changes that can help
local governments function more effectively on the ground.
We outline a potential way for the countrys leaders to put India firmly on a path toward
urban renewal the effective implementation of urban reforms. And we highlight the
central role of citizens and the private sector in making change happen.
CHANGE WILL REQUIRE POLITICAL WILL AND THE CATALYTIC
ROLE OF THE CENTER
While all 34 recommendations are eminently achievable in the short to medium term,
we recognize that varying levels of difficulty are associated with implementing them.
We have accordingly organized these reforms based on the difficulty in building
potential consensus around each and in their implementation. In ranking the reforms
in this way, we take into account whether the solutions are completely new or have
been tried somewhere in India. (see box 11, Summary of recommendations at the
end of this chapter for a listing of recommendations in each of the five elements of
MGIs proposed operating model for Indias "urbanization")
At one end, we have built some recommendations around changes that India has
already attempted with a degree of success and that are therefore relatively feasible
politically. For these recommendations, the next step should be to replicate on a
national scale successful models that have already emerged.
At the other end lie recommendations for tough reforms that are new to India
and that would require a process of building consensus and political will before
implementation is possible. Many of these reforms require a strong push to create
cohesion around the ideas involved, and sometimes financial incentives for the state
and city governments to make change happen on the ground. In almost all cases,
India needs to augment by a significant margin the physical, managerial, and financial
4. First steps toward Indias
urban awakening
154
capacity of city governments. See Exhibit4.1 for illustration of the segmentation of
our recommendations in four categories.
Exhibit 4.1
Mechanisms to make change happen vary
Exhibit 4.1
Difficult
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y
Medium
Relatively
easy
Totally new
Ease of implementation
Somewhat new, done
somewhere
India already doing in
several places
Metropolitan mayor
1820 percent GST share
True devolution to third tier
Modified mayor-
commissioner system in
municipalities
State level urban regulator
Tier 3 and 4 city funding
Metropolitan authority
Private-sector
participation
Transport corridors
Integrated and cascaded
planning system
Urbanization road map for
each state
Municipal cadre
Empowered MPCs
World-class Planning
institutes
Land-monetization policy
with ring fencing
Corporatized municipal
functions
Distributing new funding
equally between municipal
and metro. authorities
Increased property tax and
user charge collections
New satellite-township policy
Affordable housing
incentives with mortgage
guarantee fund
Need for political
alignment on ideas
Push immediately
Need to create new
incentives (and
capacity) to make it
happen
Need to augment
capacity at the state
and local government
levels
1
3
2
4
The actions that India would need to take vary according to the category of reform:
Category 1. These are reforms that are politically difficult because they have
few, if any, precedents in India. These reforms include sharing of 18 to 20percent
GST with city governments, true devolution of power, and empowered political
executives for cities. Achieving progress in this category will require political
alignment starting from the very top of government, perhaps from the Prime
Minister of India himself.
Category 2. This category comprises reforms that have been tried to an extent
in India with some success and that involve moderate political difficulty. These
reforms include land monetization policies, ring-fenced city development funds,
the separation of metropolitan and municipality functions, and the creation of a
satellite-township policy. These reforms will require some push from the center
(perhaps through new incentives) as well as a helping hand in drafting appropriate
rules, regulations, and laws. Progressive states and chief ministers have the
opportunity to push this set of reforms ahead.
Category 3. These reforms are somewhat new to India but are not very difficult to
implement politically. The only major constraint might be Indias lack of sufficient
expertise and capacity in state and local government, which means that the
need for assistance from the central government is even more acute. Reforms in
this category include the creation of a cascaded planning system, the process
of creating urbanization road maps at the state level, and the creation of a city-
specific cadre.
Category 4. In this category are reforms that have established precedents in India
and should not involve much political difficulty. We might characterize this group
as stroke of the pen measures. This group includes creating a fund aimed at Tier
3 and 4 cities and instituting functional metropolitan development authorities in
large urban agglomerations.
Using this segmentation as a framework, we now discuss how India can take the first
steps toward urban reform at the three levels of government.
The central government can catalyze urban reform by creating
political alignment and by using the JNNURM as the institutional
basis for action
We believe that the central government has to play a catalytic role in ensuring
implementation of these reforms. This is despite the fact that, according to Indias
constitution, urban affairs are in the realm of state governments. The centers role
is essential for three reasons. First, states have been historically unwilling to cede
power to local governments. Without political push and incentives from the center,
it is unlikely that change will happen. Second, the center can play a positive role in
addressing, through financial as well as technical assistance, the severe capacity
shortage that states and cities face. Finally, finding a path to managed urbanization
is such a critical priority for Indias economic future that there needs to be a national
consensus on reformsand only the central government can orchestrate it.
We think three actions by the central government can pave the way for change at the
state and local levels:
Facilitate political alignment around category 1 reforms. India cannot put
category 1 reforms into motion unless there is a general agreement among
the political parties and key policy makers. Only the central government can
trigger this debate and shape national alignment on this, naturally with the active
involvement of state governments and national and regional political parties. While
the process will take time and require bold political leadership, an immediate
step may well be to institute an empowered group of ministers or a high-powered
committee to create broad national backing of critical urban reforms.
Launch second-generation JNNURM. In the JNNURM, the central government
has a ready-made, proven vehicle to determine the framework of reforms as
well as established institutional and incentive mechanisms to push for their
implementation. India created the JNNURM in 2006 to advance a set of four
objectives: (1) to catalyze investments in the urban sector; (2) to ensure the
integrated and holistic renewal of cities; (3) to advance the reform agenda
with states and ULBs; and (4) to support capacity development to ensure the
sustainability of development and reforms. After four years, these objectives
continue to underpin the missions work. But while the JNNURM has been
successful in catalyzing significant investments into the physical infrastructure
of cities, the mission could do a lot more to push states and cities to enforce the
reform conditionality embedded in the program. While the JNNURM has used
conditionality to set states on the path of urban reforms with the added incentive
of financial support from the center, the center can do more to reinforce this
direction. Our discussions suggest that many states and cities are now willing to
go even further than existing conditionality might suggest, as long as the central
government provides a framework for change. On the fourth dimension of the
missions work, the central government has a tremendous opportunity to support
states and cities in building local technical, managerial, and financial capacity.
156
Five key changes will be particularly significant as the center launches the
second-generation JNNURM:
Substantially increase funding support to JNNURM. Currently, JNNURM
funding support from the central government is around 10,000 crore rupees
($2.2billion) per year. JNNURM has already catalyzed investments in cities to
some extent. However, given the enormous gap between current spending and
what is required, and given the powerful nature of the financial incentive to states
and cities, the central government should consider tripling the missions annual
allocation to at least 30,000 crore rupees ($6.7billion) per year. If, and when, a
formula-based GST transfer to cities becomes a reality, India can scale back this
funding to the mission.
Launch a new incentive fund under JNNURM to catalyze category 1, 2,
and 3 reforms for willing states. While more money is part of the answer,
India needs to couple increased funding with a push for more reforms. Our
discussions have revealed a reservoir of willingness, especially within the
more urbanized states, to embark on the next generation of reforms. What
could give a boost to these progressive states is the creation of an incentive
fund within JNNURM of 8,000 crore rupees ($1.8billion) per year that would
allocate additional financial assistance from the center to states and cities that
are willing to initiate the second generation of reforms along the lines of the
recommendations in this report.
Launch a new fund for Tier 3 and 4 cities under JNNURM. Given the
historical under investment in Tier 3 and 4 cities, and the need to bring these
cities to at least a basic minimum standard in services, we recommend that
a new fund with an annual allocation of 10,000 crore rupees ($2.2billion) be
launched under JNNURM focused on these cities.
Bolster the program of urban capacity development. Financial assistance,
especially in a form that creates a sense of competition among states, is
essential to move the reform agenda forward. But this in itself would not
be sufficient. Even when the political will exists, many states and cities
have been unable to leverage available funds or implement reforms, mainly
because of a lack of local capacity and technical expertise (e.g., the ability
to prepare detailed project reports and making changes to the property tax
regime). The central government should consider investing 5 to 10percent
of any augmented JNNURM funding (2,000 crore rupees a year, or around
$0.4billion per year) in initiatives that provide technical know-how in the short
term and capacity building in the long term. This funding can be used for the
deployment of specialist teams, expert assistance, hand-holding for PPP
projects, and giving assistance to states and cities on the ground. At the same
time, the central government should facilitate the creation of three or four
large-scale, national urban institutes around the country that can provide a
reservoir of technical and reform expertise that state and local governments
can tap.
Develop framework laws and implementation models. To complement
capacity development, there is an opportunity for the center to develop
model regulations, guidelines, laws, and frameworks. In most of the areas of
recommended reform, the devil is in the detail (e.g., in the case of the roles
and responsibilities of the commissioner and the mayor that we discussed
in section 3.2). In the long term, each city should be developing its own set of
urban policies and plans. However, given the distributed scale and scope of
Indias urbanization and the starting point, at least in the short term the central
government will need to play the role of facilitator in developing frameworks
and policies that state and city governments can use as templates for driving
change on the ground. A few areas require specific, urgent attention: model
municipal laws for devolution, model land monetization guidelines, model
regulation for city development, model guidelines for a cascaded planning
system, and framework for the involvement of the private sector in the delivery
of urban services.
Revamp and launch Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY). The central government is
currently considering the launch of a new large-scale affordable housing program
with incentives and financial support from central government for states and
municipalities. We estimate that an annual outlay from the government of 15,000
crore rupees ($3.3billion) for RAY would trigger the creation of 1.5million to
2million affordable housing units a year, a significant step toward eradicating
slums in India. A few key changes in the current design of the scheme can
enhance the programs effectiveness, including planning for at least 30percent of
the programs construction to be of rental units, the integration of multiple housing
schemes, the use of FAR incentives, and seeking contributions from beneficiaries
of affordable housing based on their ability to pay.
Both the JNNURM and the proposed RAY scheme can benefit from a revamp
of administrative structure and processes, especially around three changes:
converting the current approval process into a two-stage process to facilitate true
costing of projects where projects are approved in principle at the first stage, and
municipalities are offered an opportunity to revise estimates before final approval;
requiring financial closure from municipalities and state governments before funds
are released; and through setting timelines and targets for the project appraisal,
review and monitoring processes
STATES AND CITIES NEED TO DO A LOT MORE; EARLY MOVERS
WILL BENEFIT ENORMOUSLY
Urban reform should not just be about state governments responding to an agenda
set by the center on the back of financial incentives. There is absolutely no reason for
states and cities to wait for a push from the center. Indeed, it is in their self-interest
to act now, not just because a lack of firm action will lead to a rapid deterioration in
the lives of citizens but also because urban reforms can give states a compelling
new competitive advantage against other states in attracting new investments, and
creating jobs (see box 10, The urban reform journey can deliver positive outcomes
for states and cities).
For progressive state leaders, one potentially effective approach to urban reform
would be to create the enabling framework of funding, planning, and governance
immediately and then to apply the reforms in stages. States could start reform in a few
cities at a time, and then use the experience gained as a stepping-stone to deeper
reforms across all cities.
So what should the short- and medium-term priorities be for Indias states?
Short term. Given that almost no state in India has even considered a holistic urban
strategy, a sensible first step should be the creation of a 2030 urbanization blueprint
and strategy that sets the framework for the states portfolio of cities and its model
of governance, planning, funding, and sectoral policies. These reforms should
include some category 1 and almost all category 2, 3, and 4 reforms. These could
158
include land monetization policies, ring-fenced city development funds, appropriate
frameworks for PPP, and leveraging debt in the arena of funding; the confirmation of
an urban regulator law, the creation of functional metropolitan authorities, devolving
power to metropolitan and local authorities, moving to a modified commissioner-
mayor system at the municipal levels, and the development of frameworks for
corporatization of key delivery agencies in governance; and the confirmation of
guidelines on the development of concept and master plans, especially in large
cities in planning. Willing states can create the blueprint for these initiatives and start
applying it to a few cities in 18 to 24 months.
Medium to long term. In the medium to long term, the agenda for progressive states
would be to extend reforms undertaken in a few cities to all cities within a state, and
to start the process of deepening reforms. We argue that the priority should be to
empower city leaderships, including allowing the direct election of metropolitan
mayors, especially in Tier 1 cities and extending to Tier 2 cities within five years.
Cities need to provide a parallel thrust on urban reforms and even push state
governments for devolution and other reformsfor cities that have the most at
stake. We recognize the vast differences across cities in terms of their stage of
development, their unique challenges, and their political constraintsfactors that
have a direct bearing on the urban reform agenda. Clearly, there is no one ideal
journey for a city: the path of reform will vary depending on the size of a particular city
and its starting point.
States and cities that take a proactive approach delineated in this report can not
only escape the fate of urban chaos and gridlock but also reap enormous benefits.
These benefits will translate to significant economic growth, boost tax revenue,
attract new investments, and create a dramatic improvement in the quality of lives.
For state chief ministers and political leaders, therefore, managed urbanization
represents a powerful populist vehicle that can be the basis for winning elections,
a fact that will be further accentuated by an ever-increasing share of voters being
housed in urban India.
Box 10. The urban reform journey can deliver positive outcomes
for states and cities
States and cities need to pursue urban reform in an integrated, mutually
reinforcing manner, rather than with a piecemeal approach. As illustration, we
examine how the reform journey might unfold in Maharashtra, one of Indias most
urbanized states.
While the state faces significant challenges in its cities, particularly in Mumbai,
Maharashtra has taken a comparatively open and progressive approach to urban
reform, which gives it a good starting point. However, the state could do more
and reap positive outcomes.
Maharashtras urban population is set to increase from 48million (44percent of
the total population) in 2008 to 78million (58percent) by 2030. The states urban
GDP will increase from 4,847billion rupees (or $107billion) to 26,660billion
rupees (or $592billion) by 2030, accompanied by a threefold increase in urban
per capita GDP from 101,000 rupees per year ($2,250) to 341,000 rupees
annually ($7,580). In every respect, Maharashtra is at the cusp of a significant
urban transformation and, like in the rest of India, the state will see a huge surge
in urban demand for services and a significantly larger need for investment
(Exhibit4.2). Cumulatively, Maharashtra will require 14,265billion rupees (or
$317billion) of urban capital investment over the next 20 years. The state will also
need 9,315billion rupees ($207billion) of operational expenditure over the same
horizon. Maharashtra can fund this urban spending program by unlocking key
funding levers (see section 3.1).
Exhibit 4.2
Maharashtra needs around $320 billion in CapEx investment over the next
20 years
65
80
145
317
11
CapEx Affordable
housing
1
Mass transit Storm water
drains and
roads
Solid waste
2
Sewage
13
Water
1 Net of beneficiary contribution.
Exhibit 4.2
Maharashtra needs to use reform to drive this investment program. We believe
that the stateand its major citiesshould pursue a program of reform
organized into three waves:
Phase 1 (12 months). In the next six months, Maharashtra should develop
a state urbanization blueprint and reform road map that formulates and
articulates the citys urban vision. In parallel it should focus on deepening some
of the institutional architectures that have already worked to a degree in the
state; set the stage for new reforms; and pick the first set of city candidates
for greater devolution. The creation of a state urban regulator followed by the
development of policies in land monetization (including ring fencing of funds)
and affordable housing are critical. The blueprint should also address the
question of increasing capital investments through the four funding sources
we have listed, as well as leverage any model laws and frameworks from the
center (covering, for example, satellite-township policies). Other reforms could
include the adoption of a modified commissioner-mayor system in ULBs in
the chosen cities; the creation of metropolitan authorities with MPCs; and the
corporatization of core services, including transportation, water, and waste
management at the municipal levels. This would also be the right time to set up
functional metropolitan authorities in at least Pune and Nagpur, in addition to
MMRDA, the authority that is already functioning in Mumbai. In this first wave,
the state should also decide on the first set of cities (e.g., Mumbai and Pune)
that will see greater devolution and reforms to service delivery.
160
Phase 2 (12 to 36 months). With a state urban blueprint in place, Maharashtra
can start implementing reforms in its first set of cities (Mumbai, Pune, and
Nagpur are ideal candidates). This would be the right phase for the state to start
building key transportation corridors as well as pushing for new urban concept
plans for at least the three largest cities in the state. The state can also develop a
framework for cities to hire and develop their own municipal cadres.

For their part, cities need to use the umbrella of support for reform from states
to deliver real impact on the ground for citizens.
Mumbai. Mumbais urban challenges are well known. Despite Mumbais
being the financial and commercial capital of India, its citizens experience
a poor quality of life. By 2030, our base case projects that Mumbais
metropolitan population will touch 33million and its urban GDP 11,925billion
rupees (or $265billion), at 2008 prices. So Mumbai needs not only to clear
the citys existing investment backlog but also to pre-invest in impending
growth to establish itself as one of Indias prime growth engines. To do so,
Mumbai needs to make the transition to a well-resourced, proactive, and
accountable urban operating model. In the context of reforms driven by the
state government, Mumbai could push for five initiatives in the short term:
(1) build on its existing metropolitan authority structure and make a MPC-
MMRDA combination work. The city also needs to demarcate clearly the
responsibilities of metropolitan authorities and ULBs; (2) accelerate the
internal generation of funds through new land monetization policies and
leverage these funds using debt and PPP; (3) complete and make statutory
a long-term 2032 and 2052 concept plan made binding on local municipal
development plans; (4) put in place a modified mayor-commissioner
structure at the municipal level for all corporations in the region and
corporatize key services in its largest municipalities (e.g., Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Thane Municipal Corporation); and (5) put
in place and disburse a capital investment program of 330billion rupees (or
$7.3billion) per annum (200billion rupees, or $4.4billion, from MMRDA and
the rest from municipalities) over the next five years. If Mumbai is successful
in pushing through these initiatives, the turnaround of the city would be
dramatic in just five years (Exhibit4.3).
Pune. The same holds true for a city such as Pune, whose challenge is to
manage its rapid development and growth before it faces challenges on
the scale that Mumbai faces today. Many of the reforms that Pune should
consider are similar to those we suggest for Mumbai, including the creation of
a metropolitan authority, the need for a concept plan, creating a ring-fenced
Pune city development fund, creating a plan to unlock the four sources
of funding for the city, creating a modified mayor-commissioner system,
and creating corporatized agencies in water, transportation, and waste
management at the municipal level. In terms of capital investment, Pune will
need to execute a capital investment plan of 68billion rupees (or $1.5billion)
per annum over the next five years, with 34billion rupees (or $0.75billion)
coming from a newly constituted metropolitan development authority and
the rest coming from the municipalities. Pune, too, can achieve compelling
benefits (Exhibit4.4)
Exhibit 4.3
If Mumbai were to adopt recommended reforms, the city
would be transformed
Current
Target
100
40
130
40
Sewage treated
% of sewage generated
Storm-water drains
% of total road length
0
54
9.0
0.1
Slum population
% of total population
112
375
195
500
Congestion in public transit
People per compartment (peak)
Exhibit 4.3
Exhibit 4.4
Pune could secure compelling improvements in its
citizens quality of life if the city embraces reform
100
48
130
30
Sewage treated
% of sewage generated
Storm-water drains
% of total road length
0
31
9.0
1.4
Slum population
% of total population
112
260
50
30
% share of mass
public transit
Exhibit 4.4
Current
Target
Phase 3 (three to five years). In the third wave of urban reforms, Maharashtra
should consider extending reforms to all the cities in the state, including greater
devolution of powers; modifying the leadership of cities to mayor-commissioner
systems; and pushing for the corporatization of delivery of all key services. The
lessons from the first and second waves will provide a solid platform and a rich
set of experiences that the state can use to extend reforms. This will also be the
right stage at which to deepen reforms, including allowing metropolitan regions
(especially in Mumbai, Pune, and Nagpur) to elect their mayors directly.
162
A VOCAL CITIZENRY DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY IS
ESSENTIAL TO CHANGE IN CITIES
While governments have an enormous opportunity to change the face of cities in
India, their appetite for change will be bolstered, and many times triggered, by a
citizenry that actively demands accountability for the fate of the cities in which they
live. While many dispersed citizen movements exist around the country and many
outstanding organizations focus on urban causes, the focus by and large has been
on roads and potholes. The time is ripe for a fundamental awakening of Indias urban
citizens. The worst victims of the consequences of inaction will be those very citizens.
And it is not just the poorest of the poor who will bear the brunt of urban deterioration
if India fails to embark on reform, life will get tougher for every urban resident. History
teaches us that change has happened on the ground in cities around the world when
citizens have asked for local representation and local accountability for the citys
direction, the right amount of funding for the citys development, and improvement
in the quality of services delivered. It is time for the citizens of Indias cities to
recognize that the fate of their future is in their hands. And that the only way to get the
improvement that they seek in their lives will come from their advocacy for reforms,
including having leaders who represent them, having mechanisms that tell them
how well their city is delivering services, and having ways to hold their leaders and
organizations accountable.
First, the citizens of Indias cities need to understand the complexity of the urban
transformation, gaining a perspective on the actions available to them to create real
results on the ground. While this report offers a perspective on the urban challenge
and ideas for the way forward, citizens need to be convinced on both. Second, the
focus of citizens needs to shift from small, reactive, noninstitutional demands to a
call for fundamental institutional change. Too often, citizens have expended energy
on specific projects or causes that, while worthy, have not had the transformational
impact on the ground that Indias cities desperately need. In short, Indias urban
residents need to stop asking their political leaders to fix the roads and instead ask
them to fix the institutions that fix the roads.
The demand for institutional change needs to be incessant. Citizens should demand
implementation of the reform agenda at every election, every forum, with every state
government leader with whom they come into contact, and through every media
outlet that will be supportive of their cause. Unless there is a systematic campaign
to create a groundswell of support and clamor for change in Indias cities, the reform
agenda seems destined to be stuck in a pincer between the complexity of the task
and the reluctance of state governments to drive change.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE A
SUPPORTIVE PARTNER TO PROGRESSIVE CITIES
Citizens demanding change will catalyze Indias urban transformation, together
with action from progressive state governments that understand the urgent need
for change. But a key stakeholder and partner in this transformation is the private
sector. For any private institution whose future is linked to Indias economic future,
urbanization is an issue of vital importance. The ability of cities to create thriving
living conditions, facilitate networks that foster innovation, and in general create
the basis for attracting talent will be crucial to the ability of private companies to
house themselves in productive settings that trigger growth. As investors, they
therefore have the obligation to demand urban transformation as a prerequisite for
investmentand lobby a lot more vigorously than they have in the past.
It is also in the business interests of investors to engage. Indias unprecedented
urbanization represents an attractive new investment opportunity for the private
sector. As explained earlier, the rise of a new urban population and the accompanying
fivefold increase in per capita incomes will accelerate demand in markets across the
spectrum, from consumer markets to infrastructure to services. Equally important,
urban reforms will unlock a whole new market for private participants in assisting city
governments to meet the impending, explosion in demand for urban services, including
water, sanitation, waste management, public transportation, and affordable housing.
Manybillion-dollar businesses will be built on the back of these opportunities. With
limited internal capacity and investment resources in the short term, governments
will need assistance from the private sector to build infrastructure and to deliver and
maintain services. As we have discussed, we project that $2.2 trillion in new urban
spending will be necessary over the next 20 years, including $1.2 trillion in new capital
investment. For the private sector, this represents an exciting new opportunity that will
also transform Indias urban landscape.
It was evident from our visits to states that the private sector today is simply not
geared up to address this opportunity. Companies therefore need to think through
urgently how they can bring their financial and managerial capacity to bear on the
difficult but exciting task of Indias urban transformation.
* * *
It is easy to be skeptical about Indias ability to transform its cities. But we are
optimistic. The recent past shows that once India engages in a national discussion,
as it did on economic reforms, action soon follows. The same needs to happen now,
urgently. Nothing less than the sustainability and inclusiveness of Indias economic
growth are at stake.
Box 11. Summary of recommendations
1. Funding
Spend $2.2 trillion in cities over the next 20 years, including $1.2 trillion in
capital investment (eight fold increase in spending from $17 per capita per
year today to $134)
Make Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities near self-sufficient (around 80-85percent)
through monetizing land assets, maximizing property tax collections,
recovering O&M costs through user charges, and pushing for greater
leveraging of debt and private participation
Create a sufficiently funded grant system from state and central
governments by tripling annual JNNURM allocation in the short term and
sharing 18-20percent of GST with cities in the medium term
Give an additional support to weaker Tier 3 and 4 cities from the central and
state governments of at least $20 per capita per year
Distribute government grant and land revenues equally between municipal
and metropolitan authorities
Create the enabling mechanisms such as a ring-fenced city development
fund, an effective accounting system and a vibrant municipal bond market
164
2. Governance
Devolve real power to cities by implementing the 74th constitutional
amendment in full
Institutionalize metropolitan structures for at least 20 urban agglomerations
with multiple municipalities
Implement the modified mayor-commissioner system in at least 35 to
40cities
Allow for directly elected mayor for metropolitan areas in the medium term;
rely on metropolitan authorities in the short term under the Metropolitan
Planning Committee (MPC)
Modernize service delivery structures, including corporatization of select
municipal functions and leveraging targeted private sector participation
Improve local government capacity through creating a new city cadre and
allowing lateral hires from the private sector
Drive transparency and accountability in city government through city
charters, MOUs between mayors and agencies and through a state-level
urban regulator
3. Planning
Devolve the planning function to local governments by empowering MPCs
to create statutory metropolitan plans and transferring local urban planning
powers to municipalities
Execute an integrated, cascaded planning system consisting of 20 year
master plans at metropolitan and municipal levels containing calculations of
predicted population, GDP, required transportation, affordable housing and
other urban infrastructure as well as land use and FAR norms
Create well-resourced planning organizations at metropolitan and municipal
levels and innovate with latest planning technologies and models
Create tight execution and enforcement mechanisms for city plans with a
transparent system for exemptions and sufficient public participation
Build sufficient urban planning capacity by building six to eight world-class
urban-planning institutes to train 3,000 to 4,000 planners annually
4. Sectoral policies: Affordable housing and climate-change mitigation
Affordable housing
Encourage metropolitan governments and municipalities to plan for
affordable housing and allocate land dedicated for this purpose
Mandate 25percent area for affordable houses in new developments above
an acre, with associated incentives
Offer a basket of incentives (additional FAR of up to 1, capital grant, utilization
of 5percent incentive area for commercial use, interest rate subsidies and
favorable tax regime) to developers and state housing boards to trigger new
affordable units and slum redevelopment
Create flexible affordable housing solutions with 30percent rentals and 5 to
10percent dormitories
Create a national mortgage guarantee fund to spur lending to low-income
groups with an initial corpus of 15billion rupees and capital adequacy ratio
of 12 to 15percent
Consider creating a corporatized agency for affordable housing within
metropolitan authorities and rental management companies to operate and
maintain rental stock
Climate-change mitigation
Reduce vehicle emissions by nearly 100million tonnes of CO
2
equivalent
through greater use of public transportation, improving vehicle efficiency,
and use of electric vehicles
Reduce emissions by nearly 310million tonnes CO
2
e by reducing energy
consumption in buildings, appliances, lamps and street lights
Improve city design to develop energy-efficient clusters to abate nearly
30million tonnes CO
2
e
5. Shape
Facilitate distributed urbanization
Renew Tier 1 cities through a substantial new capital investment program of
$288 per capita annually
Preemptively shape the trajectory of the largest Tier 2 cities, through $133
per capita investments a year
Nurture top 100 specialist cities focused on sectors such as tourism and
manufacturing through a capital investment program of $96 per capita a
year
Raise the quality of life to at least a basic standard in smaller Tier 3 and 4
cities through minimum government support of $20 per capita per year
Facilitate 20 to 25 new cities near the largest 20 metropolitan areas
by providing adequate infrastructure such as water, electricity and
transportation links
Seed future urbanization by building 19 transportation corridors linking Tier
1 and Tier 2 cities
166
The economic rise of the developing world is emphatically under way and driving
a wave of global urban expansion. At the heart of this story is the spectacular
renaissance that we are seeing in Asia, with China and India at its vanguard in
returning to the global prominence they played before the European and North
American industrial revolution (ExhibitA.1).
Exhibit A.1
40
20
100
0
China
80
60
500 1000 1500 2000 2008 2020
China
India
Japan
Rest of Asia
North
America
Europe
Rest of
world
2030
SOURCE: Angus Maddison, Historical Statistics for the World Economy: 1-2003 AD; Global Insight; McKinsey Global Institute
analysis
Discovery
of America
Fall of
Roman Empire
Industrial
revolution
Marco Polo's
trips to Asia
Share of total world GDP
%
Asias economic renaissance is well under way
1970 1800
Exhibit A.1
Underpinning this economic renaissance is a wave of global urban expansion. In both
economies, urbanization is unfolding on a huge scale and with unprecedented pace.
The scale benefits, network effects, and superior productivity of dense population
centers mean that urbanization has very significant economic consequences for both
nations and potentially large opportunities for businesses.
In this appendix, we take a comparative look at urbanization trends in both countries,
drawing out both similarities and differences, and discussing some of the implications
for businesses looking to capitalize on the rich potential of these expanding urban
markets.
8

8 The period used for these comparisons between India and China are for 2005 to 2025
because Preparing for Chinas urbanbillion, McKinsey Global Institute, March 2009
(www.mckinsey.com/mgi) forecast only to 2025.
Appendix A: Comparing urbanization
in China and India
168
INDIA AND CHINA TOGETHER ARE AT THE CENTER OF A NEW ERA
OF URBANIZATION
The share of the global population living in cities surpassed 50percent in 2008,
according to the United Nations. Urban populations around the world have grown
nearly 1.6 times more than rural populations since 1950, driven both by migration
from the countryside to cities and higher organic growth in urban populations.
Between 2005 and 2025, the global urban population will swell by 1.6billion.
The cities of developing countries will account for nearly 95percent of this growth.
Economies in Asia (and Africa) still have a majority of their populations living in
rural areas. At the same time, the proportion of the population living in cities in the
developed world, especially North America and Europe, is likely to remain static.
Asia is driving todays wave of global urbanization
The urban expansion that we project in Asia will be nearly 30 times as large as the
urbanization that unfolded over half a century ago in the United Statesand will
take place in less than 20 years. By 2025, nearly 2.5billion Asians will live in cities,
accounting for almost 54percent of the worlds urban population (ExhibitA.2).
Exhibit A.2
Asia will lead the growth in global urbanization
SOURCE: United Nations; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
433
575
444
526
545
349
658
15 337 268 110
281
Europe
Oceania
North America
Africa
2,536
737
1950
574
107
198
180
1,519
1975
1,565
30 24
3,165
2005
4,680
2025
237
33
Asia
69
Latin America
8
Percentage of
population
urbanized in Asia
32.2 37.8
Compound
annual growth
rate, 200525, %
2.4
3.2
49.4 54.2
0.2
1.4
1.1
Global urban population
1
Billion people
1.2
1 Asias urban population in 2025 is based on MGI estimates for India and China and UN estimates for the rest of Asia.
2.0
Exhibit A.2
India and China are at the forefront of Asias urbanization
India and China alone will account for more than 62percent of the overall growth of
urban populations in Asia and a 40percent share of global urban population growth
from 2005 to 2025 (ExhibitA.3). China will have the worlds largest urban population
at triple the size of that of the United States; Indias urban population will be double
that of the United States.
Exhibit A.3
India and China will account for 40 percent of urban population growth
from 2005 to 2025
SOURCE: United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects 2007
60 Rest
of world
India
14
China
26
100% = 1.6 billion people
Share of growth of global urban
population from 2005 to 2025
%
1 India and China urban population for 2025 are based on MGI estimates; rest of world based on UN estimates.
69
Rest
of world
India 11
China
20
100% = 4.7 billion people
Share of global urban population,
2025
%
Exhibit A.3
CHINA IS URBANIZING MORE RAPIDLY THAN INDIA WITH A
MORE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH
The scale of urbanization for both countries is far greater than we have seen in any
other economy. Never before in history have two of the largest nations in terms of
population urbanized at the same time. India and China have already urbanized at a
significant speed since the 1970s (see box 12, Urbanization definitions). However,
Chinas urban expansion has clearly outpaced Indias despite the fact that China had
started with a lower proportion of its population living in cities than India (ExhibitA.4).
Exhibit A.4
Chinas urbanization has outpaced that of India
Projected urbanization
Sources of urban population increase
Historical urbanization
1950 2005
29 17
SOURCE: World Urbanization Prospects 2007, United Nations; India Urbanization Econometric Model; McKinsey Global Institute
China All City Model
Million people,
Cumulative 19502005
1950 2005
41 13
Urbanization rate
%
Urbanization rate
%
458
262
China India
1.7x
400
215
China India
1.9x
Million people,
Cumulative 200525
2005 2025
38 29
2005 2025
64 41
Urbanization rate
%
Urbanization rate
%
Exhibit A.4
170
In our base case, MGI projects that on average Chinas urban population will increase
by 20million annually from 2005 to 2025, compared with nearly 11million for India.
9

Box 12. Urbanization definitions
Definitions of urbanization differ significantly for each country, and the fact that
there is no single definition of urbanization makes comparisons difficult. For
the purposes of this report, we have taken India and Chinas own definitions of
urbanization with adjustments to data to make the comparison more consistent.
We believe that this approach gives us a more accurate picture of the actual state
of urbanization in India and China than published estimates based on a common
definition of urbanization. Even though there are commonly known problems with
cross-country comparisons and aggregation using different country definitions,
there are also legitimate factors for using differing definitions. Countries have
historically adjusted their urbanization definitions to more accurately reflect
the true picture of each countrys unique urban and rural characteristics. For
example, in the case of China, definitions were updated in 2000 to incorporate
common components used in international definitions of urban (e.g., population
density, urban contiguity) as well as such practical issues as ease of data
collection. Common definitions, despite using same criteria, can fail to capture
such characteristics and thus not provide a realistic picture of each country.
Urbanization for India uses a combination of population, density, and employment
thresholds and results in a narrower definition than tends to be the case around
the world. India classifies as urban an area with a population of more than 5,000,
a density exceeding 400 persons per square kilometer, and 75percent of its male
workers in a nonagricultural profession. State governments also have the flexibility
to declare an area as an urban territory for administrative purposes.
China uses a higher density definition of urbanization than India. China bases its
definition of urban on density and a particular geography. China defines urban
areas as those areas with population densities of more than 1,500 people per
square kilometer. In addition, for areas whose population density is less than
1,500 people, China also includes streets, towns, and townships where the
district or city government is located, and resident/village committees where the
town government is located.
The most commonly cited population data set for city and urban population data
is the World Population Prospects of the United Nations Population Division. The
UN compiles information on urbanization through questionnaires that countries
report to the UN using their own country-specific definitions, and it makes the
data readily available through updates every two years. Other data sets combine
geo-referenced data with population databases to determine urban populations.
Among them are the Gridded Population of the World database, LandScan Global
Population database, and the Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP).
9 Details of the base cases for each country include 7.4percent GDP growth for India and
6.8percent GDP growth for China from 2008 to 2030. MGI bases its projections for GDP
growth rates on assumptions about economic policies and investments that in turn create
demand, and increases output and jobs where GDP growth is a consequence. Chinas
6.8percent GDP growth rate reects dated estimates when MGI published Preparing for
Chinas urbanbillion in March 2009. Latest MGI estimates for Chinas GDP growth are
7.6percent from 2008 to 2030. For a full discussion of Chinas urbanization and related
assumptions, see Preparing for Chinas urbanbillion, McKinsey Global Institute, March 2009
(www.mckinsey.com).
Based on findings from the 2007 revision of the UNs World Population Prospects
report, China is more urbanized than India, and most other urbanization data
sets support that finding. GRUMP, which a February 2010 study by the World
Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University
(UNU-WIDER) considered to be the most promising alternative database, also
finds China to be more urbanized than India.
10
As of 2000, the United Nations
estimates Chinas urban population share to be 36.7percent and Indias to be
27.9percent. GRUMP, in comparison, estimates Chinas urbanization to be lower
at 34.2percent and Indias urbanization higher at 32.6percent. The differences
are meaningful, but Chinas share of urban population is still higher than Indias.
The results of MGIs calculations of urban population share are similar to results
published in the 2007 World Development Indicators report, which based
urbanization rates on the midyear population of areas defined as urban in each
country and reported to the United Nations. However, the World Bank has also
compared urbanization using a common definition called the agglomeration
index, based on three factors: population density; the population of a large
urban center; and travel time to that large urban center. Using that measure, India
is actually more urbanized than China, 52percent to 36percent for 2006. This
outcome likely reflects the greater density of India overall and is in contrast to
Indias larger share of the workforce employed in agriculture.
Chinas urban population will be larger, but Indias urban population
will be younger
Based on current trends, MGI projects that Chinas urban population will total
930million in 2025, which is significantly larger than Indias 530million in the same
year (ExhibitA.5).
11
However, Indias total population is projected to overtake that of
China within two decades as the result of contrasting demographic trends. China
will be grappling with the burden of an older population. By 2025, nearly 28percent
of the Chinese population is expected to be ages 55 or older, compared with only
16percent in India. Indias population will be growing more quicklyand have a
younger age profile. This relatively youthful population will see India potentially
adding almost 170million workers to its labor force from 2005 to 2025, compared
with an estimated increase of nearly 50million in Chinas workforce over that period
(ExhibitA.6).
Over the longer term, Indias economy could benefit significantly from its relatively
young and fast-growing population if India can manage its urban expansion in a way
that optimizes the productivity and GDP potential of its cities. If India pulls this off, it
could reap a demographic dividend that supports long-term rapid economic growth.
However, if India mishandles its urban expansion, the demographic dividend could
10 Urban Settlement, United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economic
Research, February 2010.
11 In Preparing for Chinas urbanbillion, MGI analyzed four possible shapes of urbanization. Two
of these envisaged concentrated growth patterns. In a supercities scenario, a small number
of very large citieswith populations of 20million or morecould emerge. Under a hub
and spoke scenario, clusters of medium-sized and small cities could develop around larger
ones. Two other patterns would see dispersed growth. Under a distributed growth scenario,
a large number of cities with populations of 1.5million to 5million could spread throughout
China. Under a townization scenario, many smaller citieswith populations of 500,000 to
1.5millioncould be the model.
172
turn into a demographic debt. It is therefore critical that India remove remaining
barriers to growth and maximize growth to create sufficient jobs for its citizens.
12

Exhibit A.5
China is more urbanized than India today and will urbanize more quickly
Projected urbanization of China
Million people
Projected urbanization of India
Million people
315
214
2025
530
2005 1990
+215
Urbanization rate
%
Total population
Million
29 38 25
1,106 1,410 839
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; McKinsey Global Institute China All City Model
530
315
2025
930
2005 1990
+400
Urbanization rate
%
Total population
Million
41 64 27
1,307 1,435 1,149
Exhibit A.5
Exhibit A.6
Indias labor supply is projected to grow at a much more rapid rate
than Chinas
Labor supply
Million people
Sources of urban population increase Labor supply
Million people
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; McKinsey Global Institute China All City Model
826 825 827
806
779
0.2% p.a.
2025 2020 2015 2010 2005
638
600
559
513
469
1.6% p.a.
2025 2020 2015 2010 2005
Exhibit A.6
12 India: The growth imperative, McKinsey Global Institute, September 2001
China will have more large cities than India
Around the world, the number of megacitiescities with more than 10million
inhabitantswill at least double over 10 to 20 years, and developing country megacities
will start to dominate the megacity size rankings. In 2025, Western megacities such as
New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Moscow will remain on the list of megacities
alongside the megacities of developed Asian economies that will include Tokyo, Osaka-
Kobe, and Seoul. But the dynamic new development will be the attainment of megacity
status of cities in India and China that are unfamiliar names today. In China, Chengdu,
Hangzhou, Xian, and Chongqing will have become megacities by 2025. In India, cities
such as Bangalore and Pune will become megacities (ExhibitA.7).
Exhibit A.7
Globally, the number of megacities will double over the next 10 to 20 years
1
SOURCE: World Urbanization Prospects 2007, United Nations; McKinsey Global Institute China All City Model; McKinsey Global
Institute analysis
1 Defined as cities with at least 10 million inhabitants.
2 Most recent available data.
Megacities 2007
Additional megacities by 2025
Mumbai
Delhi
New York
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Osaka-Kobe
Tokyo
Paris
Kinshasa
Lagos
Dhaka
Karachi
Bogota
Tehran
Lima
Rio de Janeiro
So Paulo
Jakarta
Manila
Lahore
Cairo
Istanbul
Moscow
Buenos Aires
Hyperabad
Bangalore
Pune Chennai
Chengdu
Beijing
Hangzhou
Xian
Shenzhen
Shanghai
Guangzhou
Tianjin
Wuhan
Kolkata
Chongqing
London
Seoul
Exhibit A.7
By 2025, more than 35percent of the Chinese urban population could live in 44
Tier 1 cities (with populations over 4million), a similarpercentage in 171 Tier 2 cities
(with populations from 1million to 4million), and the rest in many Tier 3 and 4 cities
(with populations of less than 1million). In India, more than 25percent of the urban
population could live in 11 Tier 1 cities, 18percent in 50 Tier 2 cities, and the rest in
Tier 3 and 4 cities (ExhibitA.8).
174
Exhibit A.8
India and China are both moving toward unprecedented urban populations
Million
Tiers
3 and 4
<1 million
Tier 2
1 million
4 million
Tier 1
>4 million
2008
341
196
52
93
2025
~530
299
94
137
X Number of cities
9
33
~5,000 ~6,000
50
11 9
2
31
~19
~4,980
Tiers
3 and 4
<1 million
Tier 2
1 million
4 million
Tier 1
>4 million
2008
597
227
230
140
2025
~930
260
330
340
17
125
673 600
171
44 17
27
98
73
73
Chinas population by city tiers Indias population by city tiers
Exhibit A.8
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; Census 2001; McKinsey Global Institute China All City Model, January 2010;
China has a more proactive, methodical, and systematic approach to
urbanization than India
The most significant difference between the urbanization paths of India and China has
been China's deliberate and systematic effort to manage its urbanization, to ensure
the sustainability of rapid economic growth and improvement in quality of life. While
India has barely paid attention to its urban transformation, China has developed a set
of internally consistent and effective practices across every element of the urbanization
operating model: funding, governance, planning, sectoral policies, and shape.
Where India has underinvested in its cities, China has invested ahead of demand and
given its cities the freedom to raise substantial investment resources by monetizing
land assets and retaining a 25percent share of value added and income taxes. While
Indian cities have devolved little real power and accountability to the cities, Chinas
major cities have powerful and empowered political appointees as mayors. While
India still runs services in Indian cities out of city government departments, China
has experimented with innovative delivery models including the use of corporatized
agencies and special-purpose vehicles. While India's urban planning system has
failed to address competing demands for space, China has a mature urban planning
regime that emphasizes the systematic redevelopment of run-down areas consistent
with long-range plans for land use and transportation. Where India has paid little
attention to shaping its overall portfolio of cities, China's urbanization had a early
focus on the dynamic coastal cities, with the result that these cities now deliver
higher than national growth averages. This is the starkest contrast between the two
countries: China, that has embraced and shaped urbanization, and India, which is still
waking up to its urban reality and its inherent opportunities.
URBANIZATION IN THE TWO COUNTRIES WILL UNLOCK LARGE
NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Both China and India are seeing the emergence of large middle classes, focused
particularly in their cities. These income groups have the potential to offer international
businesses vital new growth markets. These middle-class income groups are set to
become significantly larger, fueling demand for increasingly sophisticated products
and services and increasing expectations for better infrastructure.
Per capita GDP will increase significantly in both countries
In both China and India, our base-case models show that per capita urban GDP will grow
much more rapidly than per capita GDP in rural areas. In India, urban per capita GDP
will grow at a rate of 6percent per year from 2005 to 2025 and, at the end of this period,
be 3.5 times as high as rural per capita GDP. In China, urban per capita GDP will grow at
7.3percent per year in the same period to stand 5.2 times as high as rural per capita GDP
(ExhibitA.9). India's urban per capita income will grow at 6.5 percent a year from 2005 to
2025, while China's urban per capita income will grow at an annual rate of 5.9 percent over
the same period.
For businesses, the significant increase in per capita urban incomes projected by MGI
in both China and India offers the potential of vibrant new consumer markets to serve.
13

Today, private consumption plays a larger role in Indias economy than it does in
China, accounting for 60percent of GDP in 2005, a level similar to the United States
and Japan. In comparison, Chinas consumption share of GDP was only 39percent
in 2005 (ExhibitA.10). However, courtesy of its much larger population, private
consumption in China is almost double that of India in dollar terms.
Exhibit A.9
Urban GDP per capita growth is expected to increase significantly
compared with rural per capita GDP
China real GDP per capita
Thousand renminbi, 2005
India real GDP per capita
Thousand rupees, 2005
SOURCE: India Urbanization Model; McKinsey Global Institute China All City Model, January 2010; McKinsey Global Institute
analysis
99
52
24
2005 2025
7.3% p.a.
2015
185
110
58
2015 2005
6.0% p.a.
2025
53
32
18
2005 2015 2025
5.5% p.a.
Urban
Rural
19
15
7
5.1% p.a.
2025 2015 2005
Urban
Rural
Exhibit A.9
13 For MGI research on the consumer outlook for India and China, see The Bird of Gold: The
rise of Indias consumer market, May 2007; From Made in China to Sold in China: The rise
of the Chinese urban consumer, November 2006; and If youve got it, spend it: Unleashing the
Chinese consumer, August 2009. All reports can be downloaded at www.mckinsey.com/mgi.
176
Exhibit A.10
India's consumption share of GDP is closer to those of Japan and the
United States than it is to Chinas share
34
44
23
20
10
14
18
16
-6
India
801
100%
60
Net trade
Investment
Government
consumption
Private
consumption
United
States
12,456
70
Japan
4,553
1
57
China
2,216
3
39
-4
Composition of GDP
%, $ billion, nominal, 2005
Exhibit A.10
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
SOURCE: Global Insight; McKinsey Global Institute
In India, the shape of the countrys income pyramid has changed dramatically during
the past two decades and will evolve even more significantly. In just one decade
from 1995 to 2005nearly 14 million households have joined its middle class. MGI
finds that the number of urban households with true discretionary spending power
in India could potentially increase sevenfold, from 13million households in 2005 to
89million households in 2025. As a result, consumption driven by choice instead of
need will grow significantly. Indias wealthiest segment in cities, defined as earning
more than 1million rupees a year, could number 11million households, more than the
total number of households in Australia.
14

Meanwhile, MGI projects that Chinas urban middle-class households could increase
by more than fourfold, from 55million households in 2005 to nearly 280million
households in 2025.
15
By 2025, this group could represent more than 75percent of
Chinas urban households.
Increases in incomes will significantly raise demand across all
consumption sectors
On the back of robust increases in per capita GDP, aggregate urban consumption in
India has the potential to increase nearly sixfold from 2005 to 2025outstripped only
by China, whose consumption could rise more than sevenfold.
14 The number of households with discretionary spending power includes both middle class and
wealthy segments categorized as globals. We dene middle class as households earning from
200,000 rupees to 1million rupees per year, and globals as households earning more than
1million per year. All gures are from the updated model based on the original Bird of Gold model.
15 Figures are based on updated McKinsey Insights China January 2010 model, which denes
middle class as earning greater than 45,000 real renminbi and less than 171,000 real
renminbi (2005 base year). For more research on the Chinese urban consumer, see From
Made in China to Sold in China: The rise of the Chinese urban consumer, November 2006
Prior MGI analysis finds that consumption in India could soar across categories, with
nearly 70percent of all consumption coming from discretionary spending by 2025.
16

As Indias middle class expands, the share of wallet spent on food and other basic
necessities will fall as discretionary spending rises.
Today, the largest categories in terms of market size in Indian cities are food,
transportation and communication, housing and utilities, and personal products
(ExhibitA.11). In the future, MGI finds that categories including health care, household
products, recreation and education, and transportation and communication will be
the fastest-growing consumption categories in cities.
Exhibit A.11
Businesses analyzing consumption at the granular level will see that the
evolution of consumption categories will vary between India and China
2025 urban
market size
$ billion, 2005
Aggregate consumption,
compound annual growth
200525, %
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Housing
and
utilities
Recreation
and education
Health care
Transportation and communication
Personal
products
Household
products
Apparel
Food
2025 urban
market size
$ billion, 2005
Aggregate consumption,
compound annual growth
200525, %
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Housing and utilities
Recreation and education
Health care
Transportation
and communication
Personal
products
Household products
Apparel
Food
Exhibit A.11
SOURCE: India Urbanization Model; McKinsey Global Institute China All City Model, January 2010; McKinsey Global Institute
analysis
In 2025, the largest markets in India will be transportation and communication, food,
and health care, followed by housing and utilities, and recreation and education. Even
Indias slower growing spending categories will represent significant opportunities
for businesses because these markets will still be growing rapidly in comparison with
their counterparts in other parts of the world. Indeed, Indias relative share of world
markets will rise in virtually every product and service category.
In Chinas cities today, the largest consumption categories are food, recreation and
education, transportation and communication, housing and utilities, apparel, health care,
and household products. The fastest-growing categories are likely to be transportation
and communication, housing and utilities, personal products, health care, and recreation
and education. Growth in discretionary items will be most noticeable.
Urban infrastructure needs in India and China will be immense
Both India and China will need to expand and build infrastructure on a grand
scale to meet the needs of their surging urban populations. This is a significant
market opportunity for international firms. From 2002 to 2007, India invested about
5.7percent of its GDP on infrastructure to Chinas 9.3percent. Over the next
16 We base this gure on prior research on Indian consumption; see The Bird of Gold: The rise
of Indias consumer market, McKinsey Global Institute, May 2007 (www.mckinsey.com/mgi).
178
20years, both countries will need to at least maintain, and, most likely, materially
increase this level of infrastructure spending to meet the challenge of urbanization.
We should note that India lags far behind China in terms of its stock of capacity
because of years of chronic underinvestment. In 2007, India made urban capital
investments of only $17 in per capita terms compared with $116 in China.
Take impending demand for residential and nonresidential space. Depending
on which urbanization planning scenarios each country pursues, India could
potentially need to build 700million to 900million square meters of new residential
and commercial space every year for the next 20 years, compared with 1.6billion to
1.9billion square meters per year for China. Or take metro railways and subways as
an example. India could potentially have to construct nearly 350 to 400 kilometers of
new metro railways and subways per year, while China may need to construct nearly
800 to 1,500 kilometers per year (ExhibitA.12).
Exhibit A.12
SOURCE: National Bureau of Statistics, China City Yearbook 2006, McKinsey Global Institute China All City Model; China Urban
Statistical Yearbook; Urban Statistical Yearbook 2006; India Urban Satellite Model; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Floor space construction Metro rail and subways
Million square meters Kilometer
1 Annual demand requirement estimates differ based on choice of urbanization scenarios by each country.
Urban infrastructure requirements will be huge in both India and China
China India
700900
1,6001,900
China
8001,500
350400
India
Annual new demand requirements
1
Exhibit A.12
* * *
The world has a stake in the rapid urbanization of India and China, which will define
the contours and characteristics of the worlds urban population and present
compelling new experience and lessons for cities everywhere. At the same time,
investors and businesses should prepare themselves to address the dynamic new
opportunities that this massive transformation of the two most populous countries in
the world will unlock.
MGI and McKinsey in India constructed a series of models for the purposes of
making the forecasts used in this report. We built an integrated econometric model
(at national, state, and district levels); nine satellite models (water, sewage, solid-
waste, storm-water drains, transportation, space requirement, affordable housing,
education, and health care) to estimate demand for facilities and services; a funding
model to estimate urban spending requirements; and an additional auxiliary model to
estimate urban GDP (ExhibitB.1). In this appendix, we will describe each of the most
critical models for this report.
Exhibit B.1
McKinsey Global Institutes India model system
SOURCE: India Urbanization Model System; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Urban GDP model
To estimate the urban spending that is required
to reach target service delivery parameters
Auxiliary model
Funding model
Integrated econometric model Satellite models
India model
National model
State model
District model
Water
Sewage
Space
requirement
Storm-water
drains
Transportation
Solid waste
Urban demand for facilities and services model
Affordable
housing
Education
Health care
Exhibit B.1
1. INDIA ECONOMETRIC MODEL
Many of the findings described in this report are based on our analysis of the outputs
of our proprietary econometric model, which we built on a historical database that
integrates data at the national, state, and district levels. This appendix provides an
overview of the econometric modeling approach and our data sources. Many of the
techniques and approaches are similar to those MGI used in its 2007 report on Indian
consumption and we refer to that report in this appendix where relevant.
17

17 The Bird of Gold: The rise of Indias consumer market, McKinsey Global Institute, May 2007.
Appendix B: Methodology
180
We divide this section into five topics:
Econometric model overview examines the three main modelshow they are
linked together and key points of difference
Macroeconomic context provides the background and relevant detail for the
discussion of the state and district models
State model explains how we applied and structured the state-level model
District model explains the structure and approach of the district model
Data sources and methodology describes the various data sources and
applications within the model
1.1 ECONOMETRIC MODEL OVERVIEW
The India Urbanization Econometric Model is actually a collection of three linked
models built onto the base of the Bird of Gold model from 2007. The urbanization
model updates the 2007 model and contains separate state-level and district-level
models (ExhibitB.2).
Exhibit B.2
We have developed an integrated econometric model at the national, state,
and district levels
Key
Variables
GDP growth and sectoral mix
Investment and consumption
Government expenditure
Population
Age distribution
Labor force
Urbanization rate
Educational attainment
Urban and rural incomes
Aggregate urban and rural
consumption, and by income
brackets
.
Maharashtra
Gujarat
Bihar
Mumbai
Pune
Nashik
India
Integrated econometric models
Investment
Government expenditure
Population
Age distribution
Labor force
Urbanization rate
Population
Labor force
Age distribution
Urbanization rate
District-level model State-level model National-level model
Exhibit B.2
We applied a top-down approach to building these models that has allowed us
to anchor our analysis in a broad macroeconomic context. We first set the path
for national GDP and its components, demographic trends, prices, and other
key variables. We then constrained state-level variables, such as GDP and urban
population, and adjusted them to be consistent with national aggregates. This
ensures that the overall context is reflected first in the state-level model, and then in
the district-level model.
During this process, we updated the 2007 Bird of Gold model with more recent
macroeconomic data as well as the latest income and consumption survey data
(ExhibitB.3). We also incorporated an updated perspective on the macroeconomy
reflecting the impact of the recent global economic downturn. The essential
conclusions from our work using the 2007 Bird of Gold model remained unchanged.
However, the updating exercise has illuminated some relevant changes that we
believe are important to our work in urbanization. We highlight a few aspects below:
India's middle class will emerge sooner. By 2012, the so-called seeker class
(households earning 200,000 to 500,000 rupees per annum) will be the single
largest income class, and the middle class will constitute half of all households by
2015.
Urban areas will have higher concentrations of better educated and smaller
households. Higher educational attainment will increase five times as fast in
urban households as it will in rural households, and incomes will rise more rapidly,
leading to smaller households.
Exhibit B.3
MGI developed national-level sociodemographic implications of Oxford
Economics base outlook through the Bird of Golds five-block structure
Derive consumer spending by category
of goods and income bracket
Incorporate exogenous forecasts of the macroeconomic environment
Forecast consumer spending and prices
by category of goods
Estimate income distribution
of households
Determine other key macroeconomic
and demographic drivers
Input forecasts of real GDP, population, inflation, interest rates, and exchange rates
Examine the impact of different macroeconomic scenarios
Develop forecasts for additional national and
regional macroeconomic and demographic
variables (e.g., urbanization, household size, and
educational attainment)
Use aggregate drivers to produce top-line forecasts
of prices and spending in 9 broad consumption
categories and 30 detailed subcategories
Combine income distribution and product category
forecasts to estimate consumption of goods by
income bracket
Estimate fixed-bracket income distributions based
on percentile-based survey data (e.g., number of
households earning between 90,000 and 200,000
million rupees)
Exhibit B.3
The national-level model also provides the macroeconomic as well as the
socio-demographic driversincluding urbanization, education levels, and
government financenecessary to develop a perspective about the evolution of
the individual states.
The state model covers all 24 of Indias major states, in addition to two regional
estimates of the North-Eastern states and three Union territories. The North-
Eastern region covers the eight North-Eastern states; we treat the three Union
territories of Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu as a
residual. Limitations with the underlying data including data quality and volatility
drove the decision to model the North-Eastern region and the Union territories as
two distinct and separate blocks.
The state-level perspective on the evolution of economic and socio-demographic
factors informs the evolution of these factors in the district model. The district-level
model covers 75 of the 626 districts in India today. These 75 districts cover 66 cities in
182
India in each of the top three tiers. We chose these cities primarily on the basis of their
economic and demographic importance (ExhibitB.4).
Exhibit B.4
MGI modeled Indias top 66 cities for the purposes of the research
Tier 1 cities Tier 2 cities
1. Mumbai (MMR)
2. Kolkata
3. Delhi (NCT)
4. Chennai
5. Hyderabad
6. Bangalore
7. Ahmadabad
8. Pune
1. Surat
2. Kanpur
3. Nagpur
4. Lucknow
5. Jaipur
6. Coimbatore
7. Kochi
8. Vadodara
9. Indore
10. Ludhiana
11. Visakhapatnam
12. Madurai
13. Bhopal
14. Patna
15. Nasik
16. Agra
17. Asansole
1. Tiruchirapalli
2. Amritsar
3. Faridabad
4. Aurangabad
5. Durg Bhilai
6. Allahabad
7. Ghaziabad
8. Chandigarh
9. Guwahati
10. Salem
11. Mysore
12. Ranchi
13. Gwalior
14. Jodhpur
15. Raipur
16. Bhubaneswar
17. Puducherry
Tier 3 cities
18. Varanasi
19. Rajkot
20. Vijayawada
21. Meerut
22. Jamshedpur
23. Thiruvanan-
thapuram
24. Jabalpur
25. Dhanbad
26. Kozhikode
18. Jalandhar
19. Bareilly
20. Cuttack
21. Kota
22. Warangal
23. Jamnagar
24. Aligarh
25. Moradabad
26. Mangalore
27. Gorakhpur
28. Bhavnagar
29. Dehradun
30. Goa
31. Thanjavur
32. Belgaum
Exhibit B.4
1.2 MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT
The structure of the national model remains unchanged from the 2007 Bird of Gold
work, but recent macroeconomic developments and the evolving outlook are new. In
this section we discuss the current outlook and the impact on main drivers of state-
and district-level activity.
Our forecasts of the distribution of state and district growth in India take as
exogenous the evolution of the macroeconomy. The primary source for our
macroeconomic projections is Oxford Economics (OE). OE projections are
developed using its proprietary Global Model, made up of 24 industrialized-country
models; 20 emerging-market country models (of which India is one); six trading blocs
providing top-line macroeconomic variables for an additional 39 countries; and a
world bloc.
The country models interlink fully via trade, prices, exchange rates, and interest rates
and, taken together with the other blocs, provide world coverage. OE offers a ten-
year projection with a quarterly frequency, providing us with input through 2018 (2017
on an Indian fiscal-year basis). MGI then developed a trend extension of OEs GDP
forecasts through 2035 and validated certain aspects of the forecast by means of our
own data and perspective.
Using OE as an input, we assume in our base case that India will continue to grow at
an annual rate of 7.4percent through 2030 (assuming a growth rate of 8.0percent
between 2009 and 2018, stabilizing to 7.0percent between 2018 and 2030). This
seems middle of the range with other known long-term estimates (ExhibitB.5). In the
short to medium term, the rate of GDP growth is expected to reach nearly 9.1percent
before slowing down gradually to an average annual 7percent growth rate between
2020 and 2030 (ExhibitB.6). Growth in fixed investment is responsible for the rapid
growth foreseen in the short to medium term.
Exhibit B.5
Oxfords forecast is in the middle of other long-term forecasts
6.2
6.4
7.4
8.0
8.4
IEP-Planning Commission
Goldman Sachs Base
Oxford Economics Base
Global Insight
Economist Intelligence Unit
Source
Real GDP growth
Compound annual growth rate, % Time frame
200830
200830
200830
200720
200620
Exhibit B.5
LONG-TERM FORECAST
SOURCE: Oxford Economics; Economist Intelligence Unit, Goldman Sachs, January 2007; Planning Commission; draft report of
the expert committee on integrated energy policy
Exhibit B.6
Oxford Economics forecasts a strong post-downturn rebound in Indias
GDP, resulting in a long-term forecast of 7.4 percent annually to 2030
SOURCE: India Urbanization Econometric Model; Global Insight; Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
Forecast
BoG/Oxford
Global Insight
EIU
1 Bird of Gold extends components of GDP at trend and calibrates to ensure that potential and expenditure-based GDP growth
tie in the long run.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990
India real GDP growth, 19902030
%
8.0 7.0
200918
1
20182030
7.4
20092030
Exhibit B.6
The short-term dynamics of the national model capture the impact of the business
cycle, but ultimately the growth rate is tied to the long-term potential of the economy.
Potential GDP growth is determined by longer-term trends in capital accumulation,
demographics, and productivity.
Capital accumulation is driven by investment and will continue to be shaped
by it. Investment growth has nearly doubled over the past decade, rising to
12percent per year between 2000 and 2009, compared with 6.3percent
between 1990 and 2000. Over the forecast, OE expects investment growth to
slow gradually to around 7.7percent a year.
184
Demographics. Indias population growth has fallen steadily from nearly
2percent a year in the 1990s to 1.6percent from 2000 to 2009. We expect that
population growth will continue to decline gradually and that from 2008 to 2030,
cumulative average growth will fall to 1percent per year. Our demographic
projections are in line with others, notably those of the United Nations (ExhibitB.7).
Although labor force participation fell between 1990 and 2000, the participation
rate has remained relatively stable over the past decade. We expect that this will
continue in coming decades as demographics cause the number of workers to
increase. As a result, Indias labor force is expected to reach 674million in 2030
from 493million in 2008.
Exhibit B.7
Indias population will touch nearly 1.5 billion by 2030
Total population
Billion
External provider 2015 2030
Selected
SOURCE: World Bank; IMF; Global Insight; Oxford Economic; Economist Intelligence Unit; Web search
Exhibit B.7
1 2030 values are estimated projections based on supplied information.
1.28
Oxford Economics
Economist
Intelligence Unit
1.30
1.27
Global Insight
1.31
1.27
Euromonitor
1
Bird of Gold
United Nations
1.27
1.42
1.50
1.47
1.45
1.53
1.47
Total Factor Productivity. Productivity growth has accelerated in the past
decade. We assume that productivity growth will continue to quicken in the near
term and then to stabilize eventually at a higher level.
Thus far, services have played a predominant role in driving growth in Indias
economy. The share of service sectors in GDP has risen from 42percent in 1990 to
51percent in 2000 and to 59percent in 2009. We expect that services will continue to
be an important engine of economic growth in India but that an increase in investment
could also benefit the industrial sector in our base case. Growth in industrial sectors
will accelerate to 7.4percent in our base case, compared with 8.2percent in the case
of services (ExhibitB.8).
Exhibit B.8
Services will continue to be Indias growth engine
Sectoral growth rates
%
8.5
6.2
2.5 Agriculture
Industry
Services 8.2
7.4
2.5
19902008 200830
Exhibit B.8
The rest of this section focuses on the impact of these macroeconomic parameters
on urbanization.
Urbanization. Urbanization is an important driver for a number of key variables in
the national model. For example, it has an impact on the size of urban households,
and it increases the dispersion of the urban income distribution. Simiarly, educational
attainment tends to affect education levels because educational attainment tends to
be higher in urban areas.
In 2006, data from National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) showed Indias
urbanization rate at 28.8percent, indicating an urban population of 324million,
a 50percent increase from the 1991 Census. These data indicate that the urban
population has grown 1percent higher than overall population in the same period.
We expect this acceleration to continue in our base case and estimate Indias
urbanization rate in 2030 to be 40percent, in line with other estimates.
Three factors move in tandem with urbanization in our model: services and industry
GDP; educational attainment; and increases in urban infrastructure spending. Lets
look at each in turn:
Services and industrial GDP. The presence of employment opportunities and
higher incomes drives urbanization. These jobs and higher incomes tend to be
found in the industry and service sectors, in line with these sectors growth rates.
Since consistent wage data on this sector was not available, we used economic
activity in these sectors as a proxy.
Education. Increases in attainment, especially in secondary and higher
education, enables people to shift to nonagricultural jobs, encouraging further
urbanization as individuals seek out those opportunities. Attainment is defined
as thepercentage of people in the relevant age group having completed a
particular education level. In our model, we also define an overall index of primary,
secondary, and tertiary education. Urbanization, household incomes (as a proxy
for willingness to spend on education), and government spending are used as
variables that move together with higher education. In our base case, educational
attainment nearly doubles from 2008 to 2030.
186
Urban infrastructure spending. Infrastructure is a critical enabler of urban
productivity, and therefore increased public spending on infrastructure drives
further opportunities and movement toward cities.
1.3 STATE MODEL
We have structured the state model around six interrelated concepts: economic
growth driven by labor productivity, capital per worker, infrastructure, education,
urbanization, and working-age population. These concepts are all determined
simultaneously within the model with associated drivers. However, at the core of
the model is an augmented production function with urbanization, education, and
infrastructure spending adding to the long-term determinants of investment and
employment (ExhibitB.9). In this section, we describe the main equations in the state
model and its determinants:
Exhibit B.9
The state model captures critical economic linkages with important
supporting details
Real GDP
per worker
Labor
%
Capital per
worker
Infrastructure
%
Education
Index
Urbanization
%
Real GDP per worker
Increases in productivity drives
labor force and total GDP growth
Industry detail (agriculture,
services, industry) drives
investment, education and
urbanization
Human capital index
Education enhances labor and
capital productivity
Driven by detailed projections
of primary, secondary, and
higher attainment
Capital stock
Accumulated public and private
investment affects real GDP per worker
Public infrastructure
Infrastructure impact is magnified by
increasing urbanization
Derived from detailed projections of
government spending and revenue
Demographics
Growing labor force can mask low
productivity growth
Driven by detailed population,
population by age (014,1539,4059,
60 and over) and labor force
participation rates
Main relationships within state-
level economic model
Exhibit B.9
Labor productivity. We define labor productivity as GDP per worker and it
estimated through a classic production function approach, relating output
to key input variables such as capital, labor, etc. At the state level, we model
labor productivity as a function of capital per worker, education attainment,
urbanization, and urban infrastructure.
Capital per worker. We determine capital per worker by the accumulation (using
the perpetual inventory method) of investment, in turn determined by state-level
nonagricultural GDP, state GDP growth, and urbanization.
Infrastructure. Infrastructure spending is determined by overall government
spending, allocation to capital spending, and urban capital expenditure. These
variables are, in turn, affected by labor productivity, government revenue (driven
by incomes), and urbanization.
Education. Educational attainment, measured as the attainment at the primary,
secondary, and tertiary levels, is driven by the industry and services share of GDP
and urbanization.
Urbanization. Urbanization is a reflection of the economic development and
growth for a respective state and is a function of nonagricultural GDP and the quality
of urban infrastructure, both of which affect urbanization positively and significantly.
The state-level model captures the core insights from economic growth theory and
the main drivers of long-term growth. Each of the main drivers is determined by other
factors included in the model, which as a result captures not only the process of
economic growth but also the underlying structural change occurring in individual
Indian states.
1.4 DISTRICT MODEL
Districts are one of the most granular administrative units in India, which has 626 such
districts. In this study, we modeled 75 districts encompassing 66 of Indias biggest
urban centers, according to the 2001 Census.
There were two major challenges in building the district-level model. First, districts are
not identical to cities. Second, data are extremely limited at the district level.
Most cities fall in a single district, but some of the big urban agglomerations, including
Kolkata and Chennai, are spread across multiple districts. Other cities, such as
Aligarh, are a relatively small part of a larger districtthe urban population of Aligarh
was less than 31percent of the overall population of the district in 2006. However,
for most districts in our model, the urban population of the district is approximately
the same as external estimates of the city size. We work around this problem by first
estimating key macroeconomic variables at a district level (e.g., population, GDP),
and then cascading these down to the city level.
The government has made significant efforts to improve data collection and
dissemination at the district level, resulting in the recent publication of district-level
domestic product estimates from 1999 to 2006. These data were supplemented
with information from the NSSO 19992000 and 200405 rounds. However, there
remains no authoritative source of other important parameters such as investment.
In summary, our district model is a simplified version of the state model, capturing long-
term stylized regularities of economic growth and urbanization in a broad directional
sense (ExhibitB.10). At the core of the model are five simultaneously determined
equations covering economic growth, population, urbanization, sectoral composition,
and educational attainment. Broadly speaking, the model captures the empirical
regularities of economic growth and development in terms of rising urbanization,
accompanied by an increasing share of nonagricultural GDP and education.
188
Exhibit B.10
District model captures the long-term stylized regularities of economic
growth and development
Education
Population,
million
Urbanization
ratio
Industry mix
ratio
Real per
capita GDP
4. Share of nonagricultural value added
Driven by urbanization, rise in real per
capita GDP and education
1. Real per capita GDP
Driven by education, share of
nonagricultural GDP, and size of
urban agglomeration
2. Population
Driven by real per capita GDP and
urbanization rates
3. Urbanization
Driven by education and share of
nonagricultural sectors
5. Education
Driven by growth in real per capita
GDP and share of nonagricultural
sectors
Main relationships within district model
Exhibit B.10
1.5 AUTHORITATIVE DATA
We assembled the data used in this work from multiple sources with varying degrees
of coverage. In this section, we offer a brief overview of the process and techniques
used to create a complete historical database.
Sources
We rely on three different types of sources for our data. First, we use macroeconomic
sources for projections and top-line socio-demographic data. Second, we use
cross-cutting data sources that provide additional detailed data at the national, state,
and district levels. Finally, we tap state- and district-specific sources.
For macroeconomic data, we rely primarily on national sources such as the Central
Statistical Organization (CSO) and the Reserve Bank of India. We integrate these
with data from the United Nations and the World Bank, and forecasts from Oxford
Economics. Finally, we rely on survey data for information on income distribution at
the national, urban, and rural levels.
CSO. The CSO is responsible for collecting and disseminating Indias official
macroeconomic data. We use the most recent series available from the National
Accounts Statistics and make it consistent across different base years to create
an extended time series from 1980 to 2006. The CSO is also the source for GDP
data at the state level.
Reserve Bank of India. We use data on monetary aggregates as well as national
and state government revenue and expenditures from RBI for the periods 1970 to
2006.
National Council of Applied Economic Research. NCAER has been conducting
extensive income-distribution surveys since 1987 at regular intervals. We use its
data, including the latest 200405 round, for our income-distribution estimates
and projections.
World Bank/United Nations. The United Nations and World Bank provides
additional extended data on education and population growth for the periods
1970 to 2006.
Oxford Economics. We used OEs March baseline macro scenario through
2019 to provide the broad macroeconomic context for the national, state, and
district models.
There is a set of cross-cutting sources that we have tabulated at the national, state,
and district levels that supplement the national-level data above.
Census. The Census is the most authoritative source available across all levels.
However, the Census provides only demographic data and is available only for
1991 and 2001. We have therefore supplemented the Census with additional
information from:
National Sample Survey Organization. NSSO is responsible for collecting
and disseminating survey data on consumption distribution, employment,
education, urbanization, and other socio-demographic variables. NSSO
conducts these surveys at regular intervals, using both thick and thin
data rounds. The thick surveys can have sample sizes of 59,000 households,
compared with thin rounds of approximately 33,000 households. To preserve
statistical significance, we rely on the thick rounds for the district model.
At the state level, we supplement these data with investment estimates obtained
from the CSO.
18
Other standard sources of state-level investment data, including the
Center for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) and Annual Survey of Industries (ASI),
are imperfectly aligned with National Accounts definitions.
At the district level, the Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES) has compiled
and disseminated data on sectoral District Domestic Product from 1999 to 2006 for a
majority of the districts.
Reconciling sources and methodologies
Many of the challenges we faced were similar to those that emerged when we
developed the Bird of Gold model. Specifically, we needed to address survey
discontinuities, definitional differences among sources, and missing data. We
described these issues in our 2007 report. However, here we describe a number of
specific data integration challenges for the state- and district-level models.
Estimates of state-level GDP do not equal national GDP. It is well known that
state-level GDP does not equal the national GDP for a number of reasons that
include methodological as well as vintage differences. Historically, state-level
GDP has averaged 90 to 95percent of overall Indian GDP. Between 1999 and
2006, estimated total state GDP growth was approximately 1percent less than
national growth estimates. Because the sectoral composition of the data provides
important information about the differences between state economies, we have
scaled the state-level GDP so that it is consistent not only with total GDP but also
so that individual sectors (agriculture, industry, and services) within states are
consistent with national estimates of sectoral GDP.
18 Prakash Lakhchaura, Capital Formation at State Level, Central Statistical Organization
Working Paper; Gross Fixed Capital Formation at State Level, 2004-05, Central Statistical
Organization Working Paper
190
New states. Three new states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Uttaranchal were
created in 2000 from the states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh,
respectively. The state model starts from 1985, so we needed separate data for
the newly created states prior to 2000. In this case, we estimated historic relations
between state-level data and their drivers to extend the series prior to 2000.
Where possible, we linked these historic data with existing data by tabulating
historic data (e.g., from the Census) in such a way as to make them consistent with
the current state configuration.
State-level capital formation. As we have noted, we have estimates of state-
level investments from the CSO, developed in two separate vintagesfrom 1993
to 1999 and from 2004 to 2005. To create a complete and consistent historical
data set, we needed to ensure that these data totaled national estimates of
investment, and to estimate intermediate values in missing years. To do this,
we estimated drivers for the ratio of state investment to GDP and spliced in the
predicted values of those regressions. After producing a complete historical
series, we scaled the investment data to be consistent with the national estimates.
District domestic product (DDP). Of the 75 districts encompassing 66 urban
centers, we managed to collect actual district domestic product data for 59
districts. For a few states, notably Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and
Haryana, the DDP data were not available when we were developing the model.
Since our focus is to capture the directional dynamics of these cities, we created
proxy GDP data for these missing districts, using their socio-demographic data
from the Census and NSSO and pegging it to similar states.
These challenges overcome, we had a complete historical database and began
construction of the main state- and district-level simulation models.
2. SATELLITE DEMAND MODELS
To estimate demand for the facilities and services essential for quality urban dwelling, we
developed nine satellite models: water demand, sewage, solid-waste generation, storm-
water drainage needed, transportation requirement, space requirement, affordable
housing, education, and health care. There are two important features of these models:
Integrated. The nine satellite models derive macroeconomic inputs from MGIs
econometric model for India and can work at national, state, or district levels. We
have ensured that specific inputs and the outputs are mutually consistent and
integrated across these levels.
Tied to target service levels. Each satellite model also incorporates a
customized set of relevant variables for providing a particular service or facility to a
city dweller. These variables assume targets for the attainment of basic essential
or best-in-class standard of living in each service or facility. For instance, under
each facility (e.g., target water supply for residential purposes could either be
a basic 150 liters per capita per day based on national benchmarks or a more
aggressive 220 liters per capita per day based on global benchmarks). For the
purpose of this report, we have factored in targets for basic standards of living
(see chapter 2, for a list of current and target parameters for attaining a basic
standard of living).
Once we estimated demand levels for facilities and services parameters, we used those
results to estimate the actual funding required to meet demands using our funding model.
We will first explain in detail seven of the nine satellite models that were directly relevant for
our work and then proceed to a full explanation of the funding model in the next section.
2.1 WATER MODEL
Methodology
We constructed a model to forecast demand for water in urban India. For the purpose
of this analysis, we concentrated on two key variables: quantity and coverage. We
did not focus on water quality. To forecast water demand for our base case, our
model uses a bottom-up methodology structured around three components of water
demand: residential, commercial, and other uses (ExhibitB.11). The following is an
overview of each of these components.
Residential: Estimates of residential water demand are based on a target daily
water consumption of 150 liters per capita per day, which was calculated based
on the desirable consumption standard for urban dwellers as specified in several
national documents (including the Urban Development Plan Formulation and
Implementation guidelines, or UDPFI) and international documents. Urban
population forecasts from the MGI econometric model for India were used to
arrive at the estimated demand. The base case assumes that 100percent of
households have private water connections.
Commercial: We estimated water demand for industrial and service sectors
based on a regression relationship between water demand and GDP growth of
industrial and service sectors. Since this information is not readily available at the
national level in India, we benchmarked other developing countries to determine
the relationship between water demand and GDP for these sectors. For the base
case, we used the relationship derived from the China MGI model.
Other uses: We also attempted to estimate the use of water for other
nonresidential and noncommercial purposes (e.g., firefighting). Because the
data were not directly available for India, we evaluated trends in other developing
countries. A factor of 10percent of total water demand, derived in the China MGI
model, was assumed to estimate this usage.
Exhibit B.11
Methodology for estimation of urban water demand
1 Liter per capita per day.
SOURCE: India Urbanization Water Model; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Urban
water
demand
Residential
demand
Commercial
demand
Other purposes
demand (assumed
10% of total)
Urban population
forecast
Standard LPCD
consumption
1
Unaccounted for Water
(UFW)
Services sector GDP
forecast
Services water intensity
factor
Industrial sector GDP
forecast
Industrial water intensity
factor
Services
demand
Industrial
demand
Exhibit B.11
192
In determining the actual supply requirement from forecast demand, we also factored
in the effect of unaccounted for water (UFW), which includes the water wasted in
the supply chain. We assumed the current UFW value of 31.8percent and held it
constant in our base case.
We also estimated coverage requirements for infrastructure necessary to meet
the water demand. For the coverage analysis, we looked at three components:
estimation of number of connections, total pipe length, and number of storage
reservoirs. The number of connections was estimated based on population and
household size forecasts available from the MGI India Urbanization Econometric
Model. Due to lack of data, we estimated pipe length based on a regression
relationship between pipe length and overall population, without accounting for
the effect of city size. Similarly, the number of reservoirs was estimated based on
standard benchmark permillion liters per day of water supply, without accounting for
the effects of city size and variation of peak demand factors across cities.
Assumptions
We have chosen to not factor in the role tariffs can have in constraining water
demand, given the reasonably low water tariffs in India and minimum basic target
water-supply parameters.
We made the simplifying assumption that water is not recycled.
We have also assumed that the UFW value will remain constant at 31.8percent
in our base case. We ran a separate scenario where we estimated that the
value would gradually reduce to 20percent of total demand, resulting in an 8 to
10percent decrease in overall water-supply demand. Our conversations with
experts suggested that a value below 15 to 20percent may be highly capital-
intensive and may not happen, given the paucity of funds at municipal levels.
We do not envisage major changes in water intensity factors for the commercial
sector for industry and services sectors.
Sources
Due to the limited amount of data available, at national, regional, and district levels,
we have used multiple data sources to triangulate and inform our basic assumptions
in this model.
For basic benchmarks on water supply, we used multiple sourcesUrban
Development Plan Formulation and Implementation (UDPFI) guidelines,
Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO)
guidelinesTechnical Wing of the Ministry of Urban Development, Indian
Standard Code; the ADB Water Utilities Handbook; Handbook of Service Level
Benchmarks, Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), Government of India; and
the New Delhi Master Plan 2021.
UFW values are based on multiple sourcesADB 2007 Water Utilities Factbook,
the KPMG report on public infrastructure, and expert interviews.
Figures for the current water supply are based on Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission project databases and city development plans for more
than 65 cities in India as well as the ADB Water Utilities Handbook.
2.2 SEWAGE MODEL
Methodology
For purposes of this analysis, we concentrated on two key variablesquantity
and coverageto determine the amount of sewage generated and subsequent
infrastructure requirements.
To estimate the amount of sewage generation, we linked sewage generation to water
demand, a commonly followed international practice. We assume that sewage
demand would equal 80percent of water supply. To gauge the amount of coverage
required for infrastructure, we estimated the total pipe length from a regression-
based relationship with the overall population.
Assumptions
We do not assume any recycling of water, hence 80percent of the water that is
used is converted to sewage.
While calculating total pipe length, we did not factor in the effect of city size, and
instead based the total pipe length required on population.
Sources
For sewage, we referenced special reports written at the city level (e.g., Sule,
Surekha, Sanitation system for Mumbai: Understanding our civic issues,
Bombay Community Public Trust) as well as by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests and other government sources.
The sewage generation norms are based on reports such as the ADB 2007 Water
Utilities Factbook, New Delhi Master Plan 2021, Planning Commission of India,
and the KPMG report on public infrastructure.
For basic benchmarks, we referred to the Handbook of Service Level
Benchmarks, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.
For current sewage parameters, we referenced JNNURM project database, and
city development plans for more than 65 cities in India.
2.3 SOLID-WASTE MODEL
Methodology
In constructing a model to forecast solid-waste generation in urban India, we used a
bottom-up methodology that estimates two critical componentsmunicipal waste
and construction debris. We identified a clear relationship between municipal waste
generated per person and GDP per capita, using data from several international
cities. The regression formula obtained from this relationship was modified to
reflect the consumption and waste-generation patterns observed in India today and
was used to estimate future per capita municipal waste generation. To calculate
construction debris, we evaluated 20 countries to determine a relationship between
solid waste generated and GDP growth of the construction sector. For all the waste
generated, we have assumed 100percent collection.
Assumptions
Due to insufficient information and variability of solid waste by country, we did not
factor into the model the amount of medical or pharmaceutical solid waste.
194
Sources
The relationship between per person waste generation and GDP per capita was
derived from local country sources for New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Toronto, Tokyo, Johannesburg, Singapore, London, Paris, Berlin, Hong
Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing, among many other cities.
Published papers and conference material consulted include:
For municipal waste management: Singhal, Shaleen, and Suneel Pandey,
Solid waste management in India: Status and future directions, TERI
Information Monitor on Environmental Science, Volume 6, Number 1, pp.
14; and Kumar, Sunil, Municipal solid waste management in India: Present
practices and future challenge, Asian Development Bank, August 2005.
For landfills: Patel, Almitra H., Bio-remediation of old landfills, Proceedings
of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management,
September 57, 2007, Chennai, India, pp. 30411.
Several papers on the solid waste supply chain, including Dasgupta,
Shubhagato, Solid waste transfer systems: India: Country experience and
project lesson learnt, World Bank, 2005.
Construction sector GDP projections were consistent with the overall sectoral
forecasts of the MGI India econometric model.
For basic benchmarks on sewage, we referred to Handbook of Service Level
Benchmarks, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.
2.4 STORM-WATER DRAIN MODEL
Methodology
We constructed a model to forecast demand for storm-water drains in urban India.
We estimated the length of drains required in urban cities today by directly relating
it to future requirements for the length of roads. Our transportation model was the
source for length of roads required in urban India. We assumed full coverage of road
length as a target basic standard of service, as specified by the Handbook of Service
Level Benchmarking, published by the Ministry of Urban Development, India.
Assumptions
In calculating drain lengths, we did not consider the volume of waste generated;
instead, we used the standard city planning practice of linking it to road length.
Drain length as a proportion of road length is taken as 130percent for basic and
200percent for best in class service standard, based on national and international
standards for city planning.
Sources
For basic benchmarks on solid-waste management, we referenced Handbook of
Service Level Benchmarks, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.
For city comparisons, we analyzed city plans for international cities, including
New York, London, and Singapore.
For benchmarks, we referenced the JNNURM project database, and city
development plans for more than 65 cities in India.
2.5 TRANSPORTATION MODEL
Methodology
We constructed a model to forecast transportation demand in urban India to
determine the required length of roads and metro and other intracity railway tracks.
We developed the transportation demand model based on a bottom-up analysis
following a three-step processestimating total transportation volume; splitting this
volume among different modes; and consequently forecasting the capacity required
to meet the generated demand (ExhibitB.12).
Exhibit B.12
Methodology for estimation of transportation capacity requirements
1 DRK Directional Route Kilometers.
Step
Transportation
volume
forecasts
Defining
target model
shares
Infrastructure
requirements
- Roads
- Rail-based
mass-transit
- Buses
- BRTS
Drivers
Projected number of trips
Basis for projection
Based on global relationships, based on population
(employment), and GDP per capita growth
Target share of public transportation either set by
global benchmarks or as residual of increase in
private transportation
Length of road lanes
DRK
1
of rail-based mass
transit
Number of buses
Based on international standards of vehicular density
(e.g., vehicles per lane km)
Based on modal share of rail-based mass-transit
volume and global relationship between DRK and
rail-based traffic volumes
Based on modal share of road-based mass-transit
volume and standard bus capacities
Projected length of each trip Driven by city area and structure
Share of private transportation Estimated based on increase in urban vehicle stock
with GDP per capita or as a residual of increase in
public transportation
DRK
1
of bus rapid transit
system (BRTS)
Based on global per capita benchmarks
SOURCE: India Urbanization Transportation Model; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Exhibit B.12
We also evaluated three scenarios for the transportation demand model. The
scenarios in the model depend on four key characteristics of a city: structure (i.e.,
mono-centric versus, poly-centric), shape (i.e., sprawl versus compact), land-use
pattern (i.e., mixed use or specialized use), and preference for mode of transport (i.e.,
public versus private) (ExhibitB.13).
196
Exhibit B.13
Transportation demand model evaluates three scenarios, factoring in
four key drivers
Scenarios modelled
Private sprawl
1
Public sprawl
2
Public compact
3
Scenario definition, based on four key characteristics of a city
Number of central business districts
Mono-centric
Poly-centric
Structure
Spread/expanse of city
Sprawl
Compact
Shape
Allocation and use of land for various purposes
like living, working, public amenities, etc.
Mixed use
Specialized
Land-use
pattern
Residents preference for mode of
transportation
Public transportation
Modal
preference
Exhibit B.13
At an urban India level, we defined the three scenarios as:
Private sprawl (Scenario 1): Mono-centric city structure with FAR values in line
with current trends and little investment in public transportation
Public sprawl (Scenario 2, base case): Mono-centric city structure with FAR
values in line with current trends and high investment in public transportation
Public compact (Scenario 3): Poly-centric city structure with high FAR values
and high investments in public transportation
An additional factor of city-structure (mono-centric versus poly-centric) and
land-use pattern (mixed use versus specialized use) was included in city-level
transportation analysis.
We now explain each component of the three-step process methodology to estimate
transportation demand in more detail. First, we estimated total transportation trip
volume by disaggregating it into the number of trips and length of each trip. To
calculate the number of trips, we found that the number of trips shows two strong
independent correlations, one between number of trips and population (used as a
proxy for employment) and the other between the number of trips per capita and
GDP per capita. We obtained these correlations by evaluating data from several
developed and developing countries. The regression formula was further modified to
fit the India context based on results from two Indian reports on urban transportation
(Rites, 1994, and Wilbur Smith Associates, 2007). To calculate the length of each
trip, we evaluated the area and density of cities. We found that the length of a trip
depends on the structure and shape of a city. For the scenarios with sprawl as city
characteristics (Scenarios 1 and 2), we assumed length of trips to grow linearly over
time, as also shown in the Rites, 1994, and Wilbur Smith Associated, 2007, projects.
In the scenario where the city pursues compact development (Scenario 3), we held
the length of trips constant at their present level.
The second step is to estimate modal split, i.e., how much each form of transportation
contributes to the trip volume estimated in the first step. In Scenario 1, we estimate
modal share of private transportation directly based on growth in vehicle stock and
treat modal share of public transportation and nonmotorized transportation (walking
and cycling) as residual. In this scenario, we also assume no major investments in
public transportation take place. In Scenarios 2 and 3, we fix a target public and
nonmotorized transportation modal share and treat the private modal share as a
residual. To estimate the right target public model share, we conducted a bottom-up
analysis of different cities based on sizes, compared their modal split to our tier-
wise city mix, and calculated at an overall modal split for urban India. For each of the
scenarios, we also further break down the public modal share into three components:
rail-based, road-based, and other independent public transportation. Current and
final modal shares vary by different types of cities (ExhibitB.14).
Exhibit B.14
We defined a target 2030 modal share for different types of cities
SOURCE: Study on traffic and transportation policies and strategies in urban areas in India, Wilbur Smith Associates and Ministry
of Urban Development; India Urbanization Transportation Model
SCENARIO 2
Modal share of public mass transit
% of total daily trips
50
2005
15
2030
Scenario 2
35
2005 2030
Scenario 2
5
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
60
2030
Scenario 2
2005
42
Exhibit B.14
Below, we present the methodology for estimating growth in urban vehicle stock for
Scenario 1:
To calculate a bottom-up estimate of vehicle growth in urban India, we divided
vehicles into four categories: cars, two-wheelers, jeeps, and others. For the number
of cars and two-wheelers, we analyzed global trends and relationships between
GDP per capita and car ownership at multiple points in time (ExhibitB.15). We further
studied this trend to arrive at a low- and a high-growth scenario for cars. The high-
growth scenario relationship was adjusted for the Indian context and used to project
the number of vehicles in urban India. To estimate the number of jeeps and other
vehicles, we assumed that the historical elasticity for vehicle ownership with GDP
would apply in the future as well.
The third and final step involves deriving the capacity of roads and mass-transit
infrastructure needed based on the rise in private and public transportation volumes
across the three scenarios. To estimate the length of roads, we worked backwards from
a target average time to travel in peak traffic and derived a target peak vehicular density
of 112 vehicles per lane kilometers. Once this is in place, we can estimate the increase in
lane kilometers and road kilometers required to sustain the new private transportation
volumes. To estimate rail-based mass-transit infrastructure requirements, we
198
calculated directional route kilometers based on global trends with peak carrying
capacity (passenger kilometers). Similarly, the number of buses was calculated based
on maximum carrying capacities. The length of Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS),
meanwhile, was calculated based on global length per capita benchmarks.
Exhibit B.15
As incomes rise, vehicle ownership will rise proportionately
Two-wheeler ownership
Per 1,000 population
Per capita GDP
Car ownership
Per 1,000 people
Per capita GDP
Exhibit B.15
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 5,000 10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
SOURCE: Global Insight; Indiastat; press searches; National Highway Authority of India; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Assumptions
For the public transport driven scenario, we have not factored in the effect of
increase in traveling cost by public modes of transport.
We conservatively assume the length of trip remains constant in Scenario 3
(compact public); however, we realize that the actual length may decrease over
time as the city moves from its present shape to a compact one.
In line with global trends, we derive transportation infrastructure requirements for
peak AM/PM demand levels.
We assume provision of rail-based mass-transit infrastructure in each of the top
35 cities in India. For the top 13, the requirement is immediate, while for the rest,
the infrastructure may be phased in over the next 20 years. We assume that public
bus transportation is applicable to all cities and that BRTS are provided in all cities
above the population of 1million.
Sources
For information on existing Indian transportation system and basic benchmarks,
we referred to the Report on Urban Transportation in India by Wilbur Smith
Associates and MoUD (May 2008), RITES report on Urban Transportation
1994, Technical Assistance Report by ADB (2006), and Transport service level
benchmarks by Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.
For information on international cities (macroeconomic and transportation-
specific parameters), we compiled statistics from UITP Mobility in cities from the
International Association of Public Transport, local sources from each country and
city, congestion reports on cities in the United States and city plans for various
international cities (including New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago,
Toronto, Tokyo, Johannesburg, Singapore, London, Paris, Berlin, Hong Kong,
Shanghai, and Beijing).
For information specific to Indian cities and states, we consulted city development
plans for the top 65 cities in India, specific transportation projects such as the
Comprehensive Transportation Survey for Mumbai Metropolitan Region, and
master plans for cities (e.g., New Delhi Master Plan 2021).
2.6 SPACE REQUIREMENT MODEL
Methodology
We constructed a model to forecast space requirements in urban India. We estimated
space demand for four major components: residential, commercial, community
activities, and infrastructure facilities. Methodology of the approach is described in
more detail below (ExhibitB.16).
Exhibit B.16
Methodology for estimation of urban space requirements
Urban
space
requirement
Residential
space
Community
space
Infra-
structural
space
Per capita benchmarks from
developing countries driven
by GDP per capita
1
Commercial
space
Space per employee
benchmarks for developing
countries
Employee per subsector
Projected sector GDP
Projected sector productivity
Schools, hospitals, open
and recreational spaces
Relevant population
Roads
Projected road length
Landfills
Projected waste generation
Standard landfill dimensions
Per capita space norms
from developing countries
1 Assumes a minimum floor area of 5 square meters per capita in line with standard affordable housing norms in India.
Average width of road
SOURCE: India Urbanization Space Requirement Model; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Exhibit B.16
Residential: We followed a top-down approach to estimate residential demand
for space and used the regression equation derived from a strong correlation
between space per capita and GDP per capita for more than 14 countries. Using
this equation, we obtained residential demand based on global benchmarks. This
equation was used for different income brackets to estimate space required by
each income bracket, assuming a minimum area of 5 square meters of space per
capita, especially for lower-income segments (ExhibitB.17).
200
Exhibit B.17
Residential space demand is based on global relationships
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
GDP per capita PPP (USD)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
p
a
c
e

p
e
r

c
a
p
i
t
a
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Norway
Sweden
UK
US
China (urban)
Variation of residential space per capita with GDP per capita
We assume a minimum
area of 5 square meters
per capita
Exhibit B.17
Commercial: Commercial space requirement was calculated using both top-
down and bottom-up approaches. In the top-down approach, as in the approach
followed for residential, we analyzed the trend of commercial space per capita
over time for several countries. From this relationship, we projected per capita
value for commercial space in India. To triangulate these forecasts, we also did a
bottom-up analysis for space demand based on sector employment forecasts,
derived from the econometric model, and international norms for minimum space
required per employee in each sector.
Community activities: We conducted bottom-up estimates for four public
amenitiesschools, hospitals, community or recreational centers, and open
space. We estimated space required for schools by projecting the number of
seats required (primary and upper primary) and using national and international
norms for space per child. We cross-checked these norms through field visits to
a few institutions in India. Similarly, for space needed for hospitals, we estimated
the number of beds required and used specific space per bed benchmarks.
We estimated the space required for recreational, community, and religious
activities and the area to be reserved as open space by consulting national and
international planning standards and choosing those relevant in Indian context.
Infrastructural facilities: We estimated the space needed for infrastructural
facilities to meet the fast-growing population of city dwellers for two primary
areasroads and landfills. The transportation model gives us the road lane
kilometers needed. We used a width of 12 feet per lane to get the area required.
For landfills, we took cumulative solid waste generated over years from the solid-
waste model. Assuming standard depth of landfills and density of waste, we
calculated the space required for landfills.
Assumptions
While estimating space demand, we have not factored in affordability as a
constraint.
We assume no commercial space requirement for employment in the household
sector (e.g., maids, drivers).
Sources
Income distribution for the residential demand estimate has been derived from
MGIs India econometric model.
To calculate regression from global countries for residential demand estimation,
we analyzed data for 14 countries over multiple years obtained from local country
sources.
Commercial space norms have been sourced from the Urban Redevelopment
Authority for Singapore, the New Delhi Master Plan, and IFMA reports for the
United States.
Open space and community space per capita norms are from the New Delhi
Master Plan and other available global benchmarks.
Economic Census for India 199899 and 200405.
City development plans for more than 65 cities in India and city concept and
master plans for several international cities.
Urban Development Planning Formulation and Implementation (UDPFI) guidelines.
2.7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING MODEL
Methodology
We constructed a model to forecast the demand for affordable housing in urban India
and identify the mix of private-sector and direct government participation required to
bridge the gap.
2.7.1. Demand for affordable housing
We first assessed the demand for affordable housing in urban India in 2010. We based
our analysis on households having access to a minimum area in a formal housing
settlement. To this effect, we estimated the market value of a 275-square-foot housing
unit based on the land cost, the construction cost, the infrastructure development cost,
the financing cost, the overhead cost, and a return of 20 to 30percent to the developer.
Given that land costs vary across cities and are higher in the larger cities, we took a tier-
wise approach to affordability, doing the analysis for each tier of city. Further, given that
land prices in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) are higher than in other Tier 1
cities, we looked at the MMR region separate from the other Tier 1 cities.
We then estimated the maximum house value affordable by a household. This was
determined as the housing loan value serviceable by the households deploying a
stipulated fraction of gross monthly household income toward loan installments (at
defined interest rate and tenure) and considering a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio typically
applicable to the income group. Tenure for loans is considered as 20 yearsthe
higher end of tenure usually seen in the Indian mortgage market. For example, for
the lowest income group earning below 90,000 rupees per annum, we assumed an
outlay of 25percent of monthly income and an interest rate of 18 to 20percent [typical
of housing loans extended by banks or Median Family Income (MFIs) to this income
segment]. An LTV factor was not considered for this segment as financial savings are
a constraint; instead, savings of 10,000 rupees per household were added to the loan
value serviceable to arrive at the maximum house value affordable.
202
Households for whom the maximum value affordable was less than the market price
of a 275-square-foot housing unit in the particular city tier were considered unable to
afford housing.
Of the total households identified in a tier as not able to afford housing, the slum
population corresponding to the city tier (projected from the 2001 Census data) was
subtracted to arrive at households that were residing not in slums but in congested and
dilapidated conditions; these households were identified as the non-slum households.
We then looked at how this demand was expected to evolve from 2010 to 2030. The
two factors considered to have an impact on affordability are, first, the change in the
household income distribution with economic and population growth and, second,
the price of residential real estate that is expected to factor the net effect of demand
and supply. We used the household income forecasts from the econometric model.
2.7.2. Mix of private-sector and direct government participation to
bridge the demand
The cost of building a new affordable house and of redeveloping a slum household
was determined for each city tier. A mix of beneficiary contribution (aided by interest
subsidy), additional FAR, and capital grants were used to make the economics viable
in each city tier. For slum redevelopment, given high dwelling densities to start with,
additional FAR to cross-subsidize was assumed to be as Transfer Development
Rights being used at one location. For new affordable housing construction where
part of the total development area is allocated for affordable housing, additional
FAR was assumed as consumed on the development site. Limits on additional FAR
were arrived at considering a maximum local density of 400 to 425 dwelling units
per hectare on the development site where the additional FAR was deployed. Such
a density is representative of local densities suggested for mixed-income housing in
notable planning documents. This translated into tier-wise saleable area required per
household built or redeveloped. Capital grants were to address the deficit, if any, after
beneficiary contribution and cross-subsidy from additional FAR.
To determine the amount of affordable housing that could be supported through
additional FAR-led cross-subsidization, we determined the total demand for
residential space from 2010 to 2030 on a tier-wise basis. Of this total demand, we
arrived at the proportion that could be available for cross-subsidizing affordable
housing and accounting for the additional FAR provided. Based on this pool and
the tier-wise saleable area needed per household, the number of affordable units
produced by FAR-led cross-subsidy was determined. The balance of demand was
assumed to be addressed by direct government construction.
Assumptions
We assume that a group of cities in a tier class have similar real estate prices,
economic growth, and income distribution (percentage). We do not assume
variations across cities in a tier class for these factors, except in the case of
Mumbai.
A household affording a housing unit in a particular year is assumed to have
access to that house going forward and is classified as affording a basic house
even if going forward the maximum house value affordable by the household is
less than the market price of a basic house.
We do not make a supply-side assessment of affordable housing units to be built
and shortfall from demand. We assume that the increase in real estate prices will
represent appropriately the gap between supply and demand.
We assume infrastructure cost to include the cost of water, sewage, solid-waste
management, storm-water drains, and internal roads. Other infrastructure
elements such as public transport, mass transit, etc., are not considered in the
infrastructure cost while computing the production cost of a housing unit.
Sources
For information on city income distribution, we tapped the NCAER 2001 survey
findings and the India Urbanization Econometric model.
For assessment of land costs across city tiers, we used a combination of
sourcesreal estate publications and portals as well as primary interviews with
real estate consultants.
For property price appreciation, we used the National Housing Boards Housing
Price Index for India and primary interviews with real estate consultants; for
mature markets, we used published indices such as the Case-Schiller index for
the United States.
Planning guidelines that we used include the Delhi Master Plan 2021 and from
other international cities including Hong Kong and Singapore.
3. FUNDING MODEL
Methodology
We constructed a funding model to forecast capital and operation expenditure
required for Indias urbanization. This model uses the demand forecasts of satellite
models as input and converts them to funding requirements based on standard cost
benchmarks. Like the individual satellite models, the funding model is integrated
across national, state, district, and city levels and can be adjusted for target service
parameters (Exhibits B.18 and B.19).
Cost benchmarks were derived from multiple sources, including the detailed project
reports of projects funded under JNNURM (ExhibitB.20).
204
Exhibit B.18
Funding calculations are linked to target service levels (1/2)
SOURCE: United Nations; City Development Plans; The Energy and Resources Institute; Planning Commission; Census;
150
105
100
74
100
63
100
30
100
72
100
20
% population
Sewage coverage
% population
Sewage treated
% sewage generated
% total waste generated
Stormwater drains
Road coverage, %
Current
Basic
Water supply
Sewage
Solid waste and
storm-water drains
Exhibit B.18
Exhibit B.19
Funding calculations are linked to target service levels (2/2)
112
170
50
30
4
35
1
0
24
Peak vehicles per lane
% share mass
public transit
Cities with rail-based mass-
transit system
Number
Slum population
% total population
Road
transportation
Mass transit
Affordable housing
1 Expected by 2030.
Exhibit B.19
Current
Basic
SOURCE: United Nations; City Development Plans; The Energy and Resources Institute; Planning Commission; Census;
Exhibit B.20
SOURCE: Press search; National Urban Renewal Mission); McKinsey Global Institute analysis
We studied detailed project reports under JNNURM
to determine urban cost benchmarks
Illustrative list of projects and description
Water
supply
JNNNURM (Bansberia): Water-treatment plant of 58 MLD
1
capacity in
Bansberia at a cost of $0.18 million per MLD
JNNURM (Asansole): Water-treatment plant of 26 MLD with
transmission and reservoir capacity at $0.23 million per MLD
Mumbai: Middle Vaitarna project, including dam construction, intake
tower and tunnel, treatment plant, pipelines, and pumping for capacity
of 455 MLD at $0.6 million per MLD
JNNURM (Kolkata): 68 MLD water-treatment plant, 19 elevated
reservoirs, 155 km of primary transmission lines at $0.3 million per MLD
JNNURM (Hyderabad): Transmission mains and distribution network of
mild steel and 3 to 4 km DI at $0.4 million per km
Source augmentation:
$0.10.3 million per MLD
Distribution and transmission:
$0.050.4 million per km
Connection: $4060 per
connection (incl. metering)
O&M
1
: $0.010.05 million per MLD
per annum
NOT EXHAUSTIVE
Exhibit B.20
Storm-
water
drains
JNNURM (Ujjain): Total network of 78 km with 14 outfall structures at
$0.15 million per km
JNNURM (Bangalore): Improvement to 478 km of drains at $0.05
million per km
JNNURM (Surat): 50 km of RCC
1
pipes and 2 km RCC ducts and 9
outfall structure at $0.18 million per km
Capital cost: $0.10.18 million per
km
Operating cost: $10002000 per
km per annum
Mass
transit
Rail-based mass-transit:
Delhi Metro: $38 million per km for Phase 1
Mumbai Metro: $47 million per km for Phase 1 (Andheri-Ghatkopar-
Versova line)
Bangalore Metro: $32 million per km for elevated and $80100 million
per km for underground
BRTS:
Ahmedabad BRTS: $2.5 million per km (Phase 1 of 58 km)
Urban Development Report: $4 million per km
Construction cost of metro:
$45 million per km
Operating cost of metro: 46
cents per passenger km per annum
Construction cost of BRTS:
$4 million per km
Operating cost of BRTS: 0.51
cent per passenger km per annum
Capital cost of buses:
$80,000100,000 per bus
Selected cost benchmark
1
1 MLD = million liters per day; O&M = operations and maintenance; DI = ductile iron; RCC: Reinforced cement concrete
Assumptions
We assume the use of existing technologies to service urban demand over the
next 20 years.
We considered the use of similar technologies across cities and did not consider
significant variations in costs with city size.
Sources
For capital and operating cost benchmarks, we consulted detailed project reports
(DPRs) of projects under the JNNURM.
Existing city development plans for more than 65 cities in India, including
expenditure statements.
Press searches for some specific cost benchmarks, including Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation, Bangalore Metro, Mumbai Metro, and Ahmedabads bus rapid
transportation system.
4. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND MODELS
We also devised many additional models and conducted analyses required for the
report. One key additional analysis that we highlight below is the urban-rural split
model.
206
4.1 URBAN-RURAL GDP SPLIT ESTIMATES
Methodology
Since our study is focused on urban India dynamics, one of the key variables we
needed was GDP split between urban and rural areas. However, there are no official
data on this split at a time series level.
In the absence of any standardized data, we had to estimate the series. There were
broadly two options: splitting the GDP using the split of disposable income from
NCAER from our national-level model, or using four data points available from the
Central Statistical Organization (CSO), where sectoral NDP split is provided, and use
it to create a consistent time series.
We experimented with these and a couple of other options. Both the income- and
CSO-determined NDP split gave us a strikingly similar spread of urban and rural
GDP; for ease of explanation, we resorted to the latter. Below, we describe the
methodology in further detail.
CSO provides four data points of NDP split between urban and rural areas, together
with the sectoral decomposition. These four data points spread correspond to 1970,
1983, 1993, and 1999. We used these four data points and ran auxiliary regression on
the ratio of sectoral NDP in urban areas as a function of growth of respective sector
aggregate and urbanization rate. Simply put, sectoral share of domestic product
in urban areas is a function of the overall growth of that sector and the extent of
urbanization. Given that urban/rural transition is a systemic development, discrete
points spread across three decades enabled us to estimate historical relationship.
Since we have history and projections for sectoral aggregate and urbanization, we
used that to complete the time series and project for the future as well. Rural share is
estimated as a residual.
We then used the ratio of household disposable income in urban versus rural areas
and the extent of urbanization to split GDP between urban and rural for states and
districts under consideration.
Indias urbanization has every potential to pay a significant economic dividend while
fulfilling national aims of achieving social inclusiveness. At the same time, the scale
of urban expansion will bring unprecedented multiple pressures on the environment.
According to the United Nations, cities account for roughly 75percent of global
energy consumption and 80percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Indias
economic growth in cities will swell demand for critical resources such as oil with a
parallel increase in GHG emissions.
While putting in place the building blocks that will sustain its urban expansion, India
needs to think about how to make urbanization sustainable in the long term. India
must explicitly incorporate sustainability objectives into its urban planning.
INDIA HAS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO ACHIEVE
SUSTAINABILITY, ESPECIALLY IN GHG EMISSIONS
Building sustainable cities requires careful consideration of energy consumption,
water resources, consumption, waste management, and air pollution. In this report,
we have chosen to focus on one area: GHG emissions. Given that 70 to 80percent of
the India of 2030 is yet to be built, India has a unique opportunity to pursue its urban
development while managing GHG emissions. India will need to leapfrog inefficient
technologies, assets, and practices and deploy those that are more efficient and less
emission-intensive.
Challenges are daunting, but there are excellent sustainability models
to follow
India faces undoubtedly daunting challenges if it is to meet its aspiration of
sustainability. Addressing the broad issues of sustainability is complex enough
and is exponentially so when taking into account rapid population growth, vast
infrastructure needs, and transportation requirementsall of which are subject to
often conflicting short-term political imperatives.
However, cities around the world already offer some excellent examples of innovative
approaches for sustainability that India could incorporate into urban planning and
development. One interesting example is Masdar, a clean-energy cluster city being
developed on the outskirts of Abu Dhabi city. Abu Dhabi is designing Masdar to
produce zero waste, be self-sufficient in terms of water, and be powered solely by
renewable energy. Masdar city will support 40,000 residents and 50,000 commuters,
will be car-free, and will incorporate light rail transit, personal rapid transit, and
associated logistics.
India can look to Masdar, and other innovative carbon-neutral cities around the
world, for inspiration. The successes and failures thrown up by such pioneers can
inform Indias approach where it involves the development of new towns. New
suburbs such as Gurgaon will have many of the characteristics of new cities and
can follow their own rules incorporating sustainability.
Appendix C:
SustainabilityClimate-change
mitigation in urban India
208
Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that the scope in India to create new zero
carbon cities will be limited because the majority of Indias urban growth will come
from the expansion of existing citiesa far more complex undertaking, in fact, than
building state-of-art new cities. The biggest and most urgent challenge for India is to
focus on how best to incorporate sustainability within Indias existing and emerging
urban centers, which today score poorly on sustainability.
Fortunately, global precedents for creating sustainability in cities already exist.
London is an excellent example of a large, established city that has started to
be proactive in shifting toward greater energy efficiency with the aim of abating
GHG emissions. The mayors office and the London Development Agency have
established detailed plans and resources to reduce GHG emissions through
transport schemes, home and building energy-efficiency development programs,
and urban planning partnerships with commercial property owners.
Setting targets is the critical first step to sustainability
The first task for any city seeking to address a complex sustainability issue such
as GHG emissions is to establish a baseline and set targets against which it can
measure progress. Many cities offer a model for how India might proceed. London,
for instance, aims to reduce GHG emissions by 60percent by 2025 compared with
its 1990 baseline. Melbourne aims for a 60percent reduction in GHG emissions by
2020. Victoria in Canada plans to make all city operations carbon-neutral by 2012.
Singapore has set targets for air and climate change, water, nature conservation,
and public health; it aims, for example, to increase its overall waste-recycling rate to
60percent by 2012. Globally, cities including Cape Town, Helsinki, Copenhagen,
and Abu Dhabi have all started putting in place initiatives to achieve sustainability by
setting defined targets.
Urban India can achieve significant GHG mitigation through urban
planning and energy-efficiency standards
Under MGIs base case for this report, GHG emissions in Indias cities could
increase to nearly 1.6billion tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO
2
e) by 2030
from 230million tonnes in 2005.
19
In per capita terms, this amounts to 1.1 tonnes
per capita. This amount represents GHG emissions generated by vehicle transport,
buildings, public areas, and city design. We base these estimates on conservative
assumptions that abatement from future technology advancements is minimal.
While equal focus is required on all elements of sustainability, our focus here is on optimizing
energy consumption and minimizing GHG emissions from Indias urban centers.
20
MGI
believes that urban India can set an achievable target of reducing GHG emissions by
28percent, or 440million tonnes of CO
2
e per year by 2030. To achieve such an aspiration
would require significant will and execution by all stakeholdersgovernment, businesses,
and citizens. The question is how India can best meet such a target.
19 MGIs base case resulting in 1.6billion tonnes of CO
2
e emissions in 2030 assumes that there
are no technology improvements, but does factor in efciency improvements.
20 We will return to the full range of sustainability issues in future research.
WELL-MANAGED URBANIZATION CAN CUT DEMAND FOR
ENERGY AND RESULTING GHG EMISSIONS
Experience around the world strongly suggests that denser cities produce lower
demand for energyindicating that Indias urbanization has the potential to help,
rather than hinder, efforts to cut carbon emissions.
The major sources of carbon emissions today are direct emissions from vehicles and
indirect emissions from energy consumption in buildings and public spaces. In Indias
cities, the total number of cars could rise by nearly sixfold, and the number of public
trips nearly threefold, by 2030. India may have to build 700 to 900million square
meters of residential and commercial space by 2030.
Given these enormous requirements, India needs to utilize smart urbanization
and proactive planning and management policies to have an impact on energy
sustainability. The benefits can be significant. For example, previous MGI research
indicates that if urban China promoted denser development coupled with the
smart deployment of transportation systems, there would be significant benefits,
including an improved quality of life in the urban environment, and hard impacts,
including deep cuts in transportation energy demand.
21
International studies have
also shown that for every doubling of residential density, driving declines by 20 to
30percent. Other academic research also suggests that a 20 to 30percent reduction
in vehicle miles traveled can be achieved by shifting from urban sprawl to compact
development of cities.
22
City design is therefore an important factor in urban planning
for sustainability.
India could achieve deep cuts in GHG emissions if its cities manage their demand
for energy proactively rather than simply focus on building the supply infrastructure
necessary to keep pace with demand. Previous MGI research in developing countries
finds that, by choosing more efficient cars and appliances, improving insulation
in buildings, and choosing lower-energy-consuming lighting and production
technologies, developing countries can cut growth in their energy demand by more
than half, from 3.4 to 1.4percent per year, by 2020.
23
In India, MGI has estimated
that the total national power demand can be reduced by as much as 25percent in
2030 by improving the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances, industry, power
distribution, agriculture, and transportation.
24

In the next section, we discuss the practical steps India can take to reduce urban
emissions.
21 Preparing for Chinas urbanbillion, McKinsey Global Institute, March 2009
22 Growing cooler: The evidence on urban development and climate change,
Urban Land Institute, 2007.
23 Fueling sustainable development: The energy productivity solution, McKinsey Global Institute,
October 2008 (www.mckinsey.com/mgi).
24 Environmental and energy sustainability: An approach for India, McKinsey & Company,
August 2009
210
URBAN INDIA HAS SEVEN KEY LEVERS TO REDUCE GHG
EMISSIONS BY NEARLY 440 MILLION TONNES OF CO
2
E
We see seven key levers for abating GHG emissions from three major sources of
emissions (ExhibitC.1):
Exhibit C.1
1 Metric ton carbon-dioxide equivalent.
2 Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning; compact fluorescent lighting; light-emitting diode
Reduce vehicle
usage through
public transport
India can use seven key levers to reduce urban carbon emissions
Lever Description Emission type
Potential impact
MtCO
2
e
1
Vehicular
emissions
A
50
Penetration of fuel economy bundles in
cars, buses, and trucks
Improve vehicle
fuel efficiency
A2
~45
Introduction of buses, bus rapid transport,
and metro systems in urban areas
A1
50 percent of two-wheelers will be electric;
60 percent of all projected two-wheelers
will be in urban areas
~5
Electric vehicles
A3
Building/
public areas
energy
consumption
B
Maximum insulation and highest efficiency
appliance to reduce HVAC
2
consumption
by 55 percent
150
Building envelope
(residential and
commercial)
B1
Penetration of high-efficiency devices and
one-watt standby standard for all electric
appliances and use of CFL
2
140
Appliances and
lighting
B2
Replace 80 percent of 250W sodium vapor
streetlamps with solar-powered LED
2
lights
20
Street lighting
B3
City design
C
Cluster design will result in more
people walking to work and reduce the
need for vehicle travel. Assumes 20
percent reduction in car travel.
~30
Selective
densification
of core
C1
Exhibit C.1
1. In vehicle emissions, reduce vehicle usage through public transport, improve
vehicle fuel efficiency, and increase the use of electric vehicles.
2. In buildings and public areas, reduce air conditioning consumption through
maximizing insulation and appliance efficiency, and utilize energy-efficient
appliances, compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), and street lighting.
3. Within city design, improve urban design and planning to produce more energy-
efficient denser clusters (supported by adequate infrastructure) within cities.
If India uses these levers to their full potential, MGI finds that it could abate GHG
emissions by 28percent, or 440million tonnes CO
2
e per year by 2030).
25
In per capita
terms, this reduction amounts to roughly 0.25 tonnes per capita from a baseline of
1.1 tonnes per capita of GHG emissions in 2030. We believe that India could achieve
even greater abatement if it were to pursue more proactive initiatives. We now look at
each of these key levers in turn.
25 Case reducing GHG emissions by 440million tonnes is based on the assumption that there
are no technology improvements through to 2030, but that an extra 100million tonnes of
abatement comes from the use of efcient appliances and lighting (90percent from CFL,
20percent penetration of efcient appliances and HVAC, and better fuel efciency of vehicles).
1. India has the potential to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles by
nearly 100 million tonnes of CO
2
equivalent (CO
2
e) by 2030
Shifting toward public transport could reduce nearly 45million tonnes of
CO
2
e. A shift to public transport, including buses, bus rapid transport, and metro
rail systems, can reduce the usage of cars from 10,000 kilometers a year to 7,100
kilometers a year. Such a shift could reduce distance traveled per urban cars by
29percent. In cities with a population above 5million people, the impact is even
higher: the reduction in distance traveled would be nearly 50percent). The result
could be nearly 45million tonnes of CO
2
e abatement.
Boosting fuel efficiency could reduce 50million tonnes of CO
2
e. There is
scope for significant fuel-efficiency improvements in cars, trucks, buses and two-
wheelers. A series of technical improvements to reduce tire and engine friction,
improve power trains, lower vehicle weight, and increase aerodynamic efficiency
could significantly improve fuel efficiency in cars and commercial vehicles. We have
also assumed that expected technology advancements in cars and two-wheelers
would increase the average fuel efficiency of petrol cars to 12.5 kilometers per liter,
of diesel cars to 16.1 kilometers per liter, and of two-wheelers to 58 kilometers per
liter by 2030. By boosting fuel efficiency from cars, two-wheelers, trucks and buses,
India could reduce nearly 50million tonnes of CO
2
e.
Shifting to electric vehicles could reduce over 5million tonnes of CO
2
e. The
adoption of electric technology in the case of two-wheelers and electric cars is
another source of carbon abatement, with most of the potential being in two-
wheelers. Increased use of electric two-wheelers in urban areas could result in over
5million tonnes of CO
2
e abatement. Adoption of electric cars could result in at least
300,000 tonnes of CO
2
e abatement, and this amount could potentially be much
larger if India encouraged a significant increase in the use of electric vehicles.
2. India can cut GHG emissions by 310 million tonnes CO
2
e by reducing
the energy used by buildings, appliances, lamps and streetlights by 2030
Cutting buildings energy consumption could reduce 150million tonnes of
CO
2
e. If India were to adopt the most energy-efficient standards of insulation and
appliances primarily in new residential and commercial buildings and thus reduce
heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) consumption by 55percent, it
could reduce carbon emissions by nearly 150million tonnes.
Raising the energy efficiency of appliances could reduce 140million tonnes
of CO
2
e. India could achieve significant carbon abatement if it were to push the
penetration of new high-efficiency appliances and make one-watt standby a
standard for all electronic devices. Use of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) can
raise energy efficiency compared to incandescent lamps. Furthemore, use of
the most efficient air conditioners and refrigerators, which comprise about half
of electricity consumption in households and offices, could significantly increase
energy efficiency in India.
Introducing more energy-efficient street lighting could reduce 20million
tonnes of CO
2
e. At current electricity tariffs, solar streetlights are an economically
viable option. Today, streetlights account for around 1.5percent of total electricity
consumption in India. Solar-powered lights can save 915 KWh per annum at
10 hours of usage per day. If India replaced 80percent of streetlights with solar
versions, it could reduce emissions by 20million tonnes, thereby reducing
evening peak demand by 1.5percent.
212
3. Adjusting city design to develop energy-efficient clusters could abate
30 million tonnes of CO
2
e by 2030
India could also take advantage of the higher energy efficiency that comes with
density by selectively incorporating compact city centers within urban design.
Cluster design can result in more people walking to work and reduce the need
for vehicular travel. For our analysis, we assumed that 30percent of the area of
a city is used for commercial areas and 70percent for residential living, and that
the city layout is radial. By planning for higher density (with increased FAR) along
with adequate infrastructure provisions, increasing FAR for both commercial and
residential, India could, for instance, achieve a 35 to 45percent reduction in vehicle
movement as more people walk to work. Today, India has not planned for higher FAR,
but it could do so in a systematic way. India could allow for higher ratios in central
business districts connected by high-speed transportation infrastructure and also in
proximity to transportation nodes including stations. By building such corridors, India
could achieve a 20percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled and nearly a 30million
tonne reduction in CO
2
e.
For the purpose of this analysis, we have not factored in further GHG emissions
abatement potential from the use of smart grids, solar rooftops, water heating, and
combined heat and power technology.
26
Deployment of these additional levers would
further increase CO
2
e abatement potential.
Given the multiple and growing strains on Indias cities, the danger is that policy
makers will allow sustainability and climate-change mitigation to slip down the
agenda in favor of near-term priorities such as providing basic services and building
the urban infrastructure. This must not happen. If India can adopt a green approach
to transport, buildings, and urban design, the nation can reap significant benefits
from reduced energy consumption and GHG emissions abatement. Not only would
that deliver a more pleasant quality of life in Indias cities, but it also would make a
contribution to national and global efforts to mitigate the impact of climate change.
26 Solar rooftop retrotting for water heating could potentially reduce an additional 10million
tonnes of CO
2
e, and use of combined heat and power (CHP) plants as a lever for both
addressing peak distribution losses and increasing the efciency of energy use could reduce
an additional 15million tonnes of CO
2
e.
Acharya, Arun Kumar, and Praveen Nangia, Population growth and changing land-
use pattern in Mumbai Metropolitan Region of India, Caminhos de Geographia,
February 2004, Volume 11, Number 11, pp. 16885.
Acs, Zoltan, Niels Bosma, and Rolf Sternberg, The entrepreneurial advantage of
world cities: Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Data, Scientific Analysis
of Entrepreneurship and SMEs (SCALES) (www.entrepreneurship-sme.eu).
Affordable housing for all: Report of the high level task force, Ministry of Housing and
Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, December 2008.
Ahmad, Ehtisham, Recentralization in China, International Monetary Fund Working
Paper Number 02/168, 2002.
Annez, Patricia Clarke, Urban infrastructure finance from private operators: What
have we learned from recent experience?, World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 4045, November 2006.
Appadurai, Arjun, Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of
politics, Environment and Urbanization, October 2001, Volume 13, Number 2.
Appadurai, Arjun, and James Holston, Introduction: cities and citizenship, Cities
and Citizenship, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999.
Appadurai, Arjun, Spectral housing and urban cleansing: Notes on millennial
Mumbai, Public Culture, 2000, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 62751.
Asian Development Bank, National Development and Reform Commission, Peoples
Republic of China town-based urbanization strategy study, August 2005.
Asian Development Bank, Urban indicators for managing cities: Cities data book,
2001.
Assessment of water supply options for urban India: Large dams have no case, South
Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People, November 1999.
Bandourian, Ripsy, James D. McDonald, and Robert S. Turley, A comparison
of parametric models of income distribution, across countries and over time,
Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Number 305, 2002.
Baviskar, Amita, Between violence and desire: space, power, and identity in the
making of metropolitan Delhi, International Social Sciences Journal, 2003, Volume
55, Number 155, pp. 8998.
Bertaud, Alain, The spatial organization of cities: Deliberate outcome or unforeseen
consequence?, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California
at Berkeley, Working Paper Number 2004-01, revised May 2004.
Bibliography
214
Bertaud, Alain, and Jan K. Brueckner, Analysing building height restrictions:
Predicted impacts, welfare costs and a case study of Bangalore, India, World Bank,
2004.
Bhagat, R. B., Urbanisation In India: A demographic reappraisal, International Union
for Scientific Study of Population (http://www.iussp.org/Brazil2001/s80/S83_03_
Bhagat.pdf).
Bhaskar, R. N., A gift for Gujarat and India, Institutional Investor, September 2007.
Bird, Richard M., Getting it right: Financing urban development in China, Asia-
Pacific Tax Bulletin, World Bank, March/April 2005.
Bird, Richard M., Local and regional revenues: Realities and prospects, World Bank
(http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/LearningProgram/Decentralization/
bird2003.doc).
Bisky, Jens, Berliner Zeitung, Berlin: A profile, Urban Age Conference, Berlin,
November 2006.
Boccanfuso, Dorothe, Bernard Bernard Decaluw, and Luc Savard, Poverty,
income distribution and CGE modeling: Does the functional form of distribution
matter?, Cahiers de recherche 0332, CIRPEE, 2003.
Botargues, Patricia, and Diego Petrecolla, Income distribution and relative economic
affluence between populations of income earners by education in Gran Buenos
Aires, Argentina, 199096, Argentine Association of Political Economy .
Broadberry, Stephen, and Bishnupriya Gupta, The historical roots of Indias service-
led development: A sectoral analysis of Anglo-Indian productivity differences, 1870
2000, Warwick Economic Research Papers, Department of Economics, University of
Warwick, October 2007.
Buckley, Robert M., Hyderabad, India, World Bank, January 2003.
Bureau of Labor Education, University of Maine, The US healthcare system: Best in
the world or just the most expensive?, Summer 2001.
Burgess, Gemma, Sarah Monk, and Christine Whitehead, The provision of affordable
housing through Section 106: The situation in 2007, RICS Research Paper Series,
Volume 7, Number 14, 2007, University of Cambridge.
Business plan for Coimbatore CorporationFinal Report, Wilbur Smith Associates
Private Limited, November 2006.
Business plan for Mumbai Metropolitan Region, LEA International and LEA
Associates South Asia, August 2007.
Calavita, Nico, and David Rosen, Inclusionary zoning: The California experience,
NHC Affordable Housing Policy Review, 2004, Volume 3, Number 1.
Caldern, Csar, and Luis Servn, Trends in infrastructure in Latin America, 1980
2001, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, Number 3401, September
2004.
Caldern, Csar, and Luis Servn, Infrastructure and economic development
in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, Number
4712, September 2008.
Census of India, Registrar General of India, Government of India, 1991 and 2001.
Central Electricity Authority, Formulation of operational cost norms for thermal
generation, September 2000.
Central Electricity Authority, Report on 17th electric power survey of India, 2007.
Central Pollution Control Board of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India (http://www.cpcb.nic.in/).
Central Statistical Organization, Statistical pocket book, 2008.
Cervero, Robert, Efficient urbanisation: economic performance and the shape of the
metropolis, Urban Studies, 2001, Volume 38, Number 10, pp. 165171.
Chakravorty, Sanjoy, The spatial dimensions of structural reform: Policy, investment
location, and the emerging economic geography of India, National Science
Foundation, 1999 (http://astro.temple.edu/~sanjoy/nsfreport.pdf).
Chandrasekhar, Rajeev, et al., Plan Bengaluru 2020: Bringing back a Bengaluru of
Kempe Gowdas dream, Agenda for Bengaluru Infrastructure and Development Task
Force, 2009.
Choe, K., and A. Laquian, City cluster development, Asia Development Bank, 2008
(ISBN 978-971-561-697-3).
Cities, climate change and development: Is urban change for sustainability possible?,
FAU Conference, 2008.
Cities of opportunity: Business-readiness indicators for the 21st century,
PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Partnership for New York City, 2007.
Citizens charter, City Municipal Corporation of Coimbatore.
City development plans for 63 cities under JNNURM.
Claudio, Acioly, Infrastructure for the poor: Case of Brasilia, Urban India, June 1987,
Volume VII, Number 1, National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi.
CLSA Asia Pacific Markets, Ramping-up: Asias infrastructure stimulus, March 2008.
Codato, E., Financing urban infrastructure, World Bank Experience, December 2001.
Cointreau-Levine, Sandra, and Adrian Coad, Private sector participation in municipal
solid waste management, SKATSwiss Centre for Development Cooperation in
Technology and Management, 2000.
Community Agency for Social Enquiry, Municipal cost recovery in four South African
municipalities, November 2003.
216
Confederation of Indian Industry and Ernst and Young, Public-private partnership
The learning curve, urban infrastructure development conclave, 2008.
Congressional Budget Office, United States, Federal subsidies for public housing:
Issues and options, 1983.
The Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 (http://indiacode.nic.in/
coiweb/amend/amend74.htm).
Correa, Charles, et al., Report of the National Commission on Urbanisation,
Government of India, 1988.
Urbanization in India: Creating places for people, India Habitat Centre, April 2008.
Crook, Tony, Jennie Currie, Alastair Jackson, Sarah Monk, Steven Rowley, Kerry
Smith, and Christine Whitehead, Planning gain and affordable housing, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, 2002.
Dasgupta, Shubhagato, Solid waste transfer systems: India: Country experience and
project lesson learnt, World Bank, 2005.
Delhi master plan 2021, Delhi Development Authority.
Demographia, World Urban Areas: World Agglomerations, March 2007.
Detailed project report on solid waste management for Coimbatore City, JNNURM,
National Consultancy for Planning and Engineering.
Developing and implementing local economic development strategies and action
plans, Bertelsmann Foundation and World Bank, Cities of Change Initiative, August
2003.
Development of the new LAA frameworkOperational guidance 2007, Department
of Communities and Local Government, United Kingdom.
Ding, Chengri, Policy and planning challenges to promote efficient urban spatial
development during the rapid transformation in China, Sustainability, 2009, Volume
1, Number 3, pp. 384408.
Ding, Chengri, Urban spatial development in Chinas pro-land policy reform era:
Evidence from Beijing, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, July 2003.
Draft master plan II for Chennai Metropolitan Area 2026, Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority.
Duggal, Ravi, et al., Health and healthcare in MaharashtraA status report, Centre
for Health and Allied Themes, 2005.
Duranton, Gilles, Cities: Engines of growth and prosperity in developing countries?,
Commission on Growth and Development, Working Paper Number 12, 2008.
The East Asian Seas Congress 2006, Proceedings of the thematic workshop on local
government financing for water, sewage and sanitation, December 1216, 2006.
Economic survey of Delhi 200809, Planning Department, Government of National
Capital Territory.
Election Commission of India, The delimitation of parliamentary and assembly
constituencies order, 2008.
Employment unemployment situation in India, National Sample Survey Organization,
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 1987, 1993, 1999, 2003.
Environmental and social management framework, Ministry of Urban Development,
Government of India, September 2008.
Environmental status of Pune Region20042005, Maharashtra Pollution Control
Board.
Esakku, S., et al., Municipal solid waste management in Chennai City, India, Eleventh
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, 2007.
Ewing, Reid, Keith Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman, et al., Growing cooler: The
evidence on urban development and climate change, Urban Land Institute, October
2007.
Expense revenue contract, Executive Budget Fiscal 2003, New York City
Finance Yearbook of China 2007.
Financial census of municipalities for the year ended 30 June 2007, Statistics South
Africa (www.statssa.gov.za).
Financial statistics of national government 2004/2005, Statistics South Africa.
Financial statistics of provincial government 2006/2007, Statistics South Africa.
Frigola, Richard, Ultimate challenges on public and private collaboration, The
Barcelona Urban Development Model: Innovation for sustainability, September 22,
2008.
Frost and Sullivan, The Indian telecom industry 19962006, country industry forecast
report service.
Fulton, William, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison, Who sprawls most?
How growth patterns differ across the U.S., Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy,
The Bookings Institution Survey Series, July 2001.
Gallup, John Luke, Alejandro Gaviria, and Eduardo Lora, Is geography destiny?:
Lessons from Latin America, Inter-American Development Bank, 2003.
Gangolli, Leena V., et al., Review of healthcare in India, Centre for Enquiry into Health
and Allied Themes, January 2005.
Garza, Adrin G. de la, Do smart cities grow faster?, Munich Personal RePEc Archive,
2008 (http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10881/).
Gertel, Hector R., Roberto Guiliodori, Paula F. Auerbach, and Alejandro F. Rodriguez,
Unemployment and income distribution analysis, Anales de la XXXVI Reunin Anual
de la Asociacin Argentina de Economa Poltica, Buenos Aires, 1416 November
(www.aaep.org.ar).
218
Ghate, Prabhu, Microfinance in India: State of the sector report, 2006, Ford
Foundation.
Ghosh, Archana, Mayor-in-council system in a comparative perspective, New Delhi:
Institute of Social Sciences, 2003.
Glaeser, Edward L., and Janet E. Kohlhase, Cities, regions and the decline of
transport costs, Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper Number
2014, July 2003.
Glaeser, Edward L., and Matthew E. Kahn, Decentralized employment and the
transformation of the American city, Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working
Paper Number 1912, February 2001.
Glaeser, Edward L., The economic approach to cities, Harvard Institute of Economic
Research Discussion Paper Number 2149, February 2007.
Glaeser, Edward L., Urban Colossus: Why is New York Americas largest city?,
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Number 11398, June 2005.
Gordon, Peter, Ajay Kumar, and Karry W Richardson, The influence of metropolitan
spatial structure on commuting time, Journal of Urban Economics, 1989, Volume 26,
Number 2, pp. 13851.
Government of India, Bharat Nirman: A business plan for rural infrastructure.
Government of India, Report of the eleventh finance commission (for 20002005),
June 2000.
Guidelines for affordable housing in partnership, Ministry of Housing and Urban
Poverty Alleviation, Government of India.
Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT), Presentation at Regional Best
Practices Seminar at Manila, Philippines, April 2009.
Guo, Li, Jonathan Lindsay, et al., China: Integrated land policy reform in a context of
rapid urbanization, Agricultural and Rural Development, World Bank publications,
Issue 36, February 2008.
Guofu, Gao Gao, Urban infrastructure investment and financing in Shanghai,
Chapter 6, Financing Cities: Fiscal Responsibility and Urban Infrastructure in Brazil,
China, India, Poland and South Africa, World Bank, 2009.
Hack, Adrian, et al., Penrith city centre and St Marys town centre vitality and viability
review, Penrith City Council, July 2004.
Hall, David, Public sector finance for investment in infrastructureSome recent
developments, Public Services International, May 2007.
Handbook of statistics on Indian economy 200809, Reserve Bank of India,
Government of India.
Hanrahan, David, Sanjay Srivastava, and A. Sita Ramakrishna, Improving
management of municipal solid waste in India: overview and challenges, World Bank,
2006.
Harding, April, and Alexander S. Preker, Understanding organizational reforms: The
corporatization of public hospitals, World Bank, 2000.
Harmonious urbanization: The challenge of balanced territorial development, The
Fourth Session of the World Urban Forum, United Nations Habitat, November 2008.
Henderson, J. Vernon, and Chun-Chung Au, Are Chinese cities too small?, Review
of Economic Studies, 2006, Volume 73, Number 3, pp. 54976.
Henderson, J. Vernon, Efficiency of resource usage and city size, Journal of Urban
Economics, 1986, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 4770.
Henderson, J. Vernon, The sizes and types of cities, The American Economic
Review, 1974, Volume 64, Number 4, pp. 64056.
Hirsch , Werner Z., Expenditure implications of metropolitan growth and
consolidation, MIT Press, 1959.
Historical statistics on governmental finances and employment (CG82(6) -4, issued
January 1985).
Hong Kong annual digest of statistics, Census and Statistics Department, 2008
Edition.
Hong Kong Yearbook, 2007 (www.yearbook.gov.hk/2007/en/index.html).
IL&FS IDC Services offered for JNNURM and UIDSSMT Schemes, Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited (http://www.ilfsindia.com/downloads/bus_
concept/JNNURM.pdf).
India infrastructure report 2006, Oxford University Press.
India: Urban finance and governance review, Volume I, Energy and Infrastructure
Unit, South Asia Region, World Bank, December 2004.
Information Center on Local Governance in India (http://www.localgovernmentindia.
org/)
Ingram, Gregory K. and Zhi Liu, Motorization and road provision in countries and
cities, World Bank, 1997 (siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANTRANSPORT/.../
wps1842.pdf).
Inland Authority of Singapore, Singapore Budget 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.
International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics 2008.
Janakarajan S., John Butterworth, et al., Peri-urban water conflicts: Supporting
dialogue and negotiation, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, 2007.
Jenkins, Rob, India in Transition: The Politics of SEZs in India: Promise and Pitfalls,
Center for the Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania, December 2007.
Kim, Sukkoo, Spatial dimensions of growth and urbanization, Commission on Growth
and Development, Working Paper Number 16, 2008.
KPMG, Bombay First, My BombayMy dream, healthcare in Mumbai, August 2009.
220
Jha, Gangadhar, Decentralisation and devolution for effective urban local
governance: The Indian experience, World Bank, 2006.
Jin, Hehui, Yingyi Qian, et al., Regional decentralization and fiscal incentives:
Federalism, Chinese style, Berkeley Publications, December 2004 (http://elsa.
berkeley.edu/~yqian/federalism%20chinese%20style.pdf).
Johannesburg, City of, Annual performance report 2007/08.
Juneja, Nalini, Primary education for all in the City of Mumbai, India: The challenge set
by local actors, Working Paper in the series: School mapping and local-level planning,
International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO.
Khanna, Tarun, Fiat and Fairness: Why China can build cities overnight and India
cannot, chapter 6, Billions of Entrepreneurs: How India and China are reshaping their
futures and yours, Harvard Business Press, 2008.
Kim, Sukkoo, The reconstruction of the American urban landscape in the twentieth
century, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8857, April 2002
(http://www.nber.org/papers/w8857).
Kim, Sukkoo, Urban development in the United States, 16901990, Southern
Economic Journal, 2000, Volume 66, Number 4, pp. 85580.
Kitchen, Harry, Financing Canadian cities in the future? Working Paper, Trent
University, May 2004.
Kolkata Metropolitan Planning CommitteeA paradigm of decentralized and
participatory urban planning, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, April
2008.
KPMG India, The India electricity market outlook 2008.
Kui, Ng Beoy, Hong Kong and Singapore as international financial centres: A
comparative functional perspective, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,
August 1998.
Kumar, Sunil, Municipal solid waste management in India: Present practices and
future challenge, Asian Development Bank, August 2005 (http://www.adb.org/
Documents/Events/2005/Sanitation-Wastewater-Management/paper-kumar.pdf).
Lakhchaura, Prakash, Capital Formation at State Level, Central Statistical
Organization Working Paper, 2004-05.
Lal, Deepak, Rakesh Mohan, and I Natarajan, Economic reforms and poverty
alleviation, A tale of two surveys, Economic and Political Weekly, March 2001.
Lall, Somik V., and Taye Mengistae, Business environment, clustering, and industry
location: evidence from Indian cities, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper
Number 3675, August 2005.
Level and pattern of consumer expenditure, National Sample Survey Organization,
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, 1987,
1993, 1994, 1995, 19972005.
Lindfield, Michael R., and Royston A.C. Brockman, Managing Asian cities, Asia
Development Bank (SBN: 978-971-561-698-0), June 2008.
Linn, Johannes F., The cost of urbanization in developing countries, Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 1982, Volume 30, Number 3, pp. 62548.
Liu, Amy, The benefits and realities of high density development, San Francisco
Urban Land Institute Conference, October 31, 2003.
The London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004) (http://www.london.gov.
uk/thelondonplan/about.jsp).
London travel report, Transport for London, 2007, 2008, 2009, Operations and
maintenance benchmarks, International Facility Management Association, 2006,
2007.
Los Angeles Department of Transportation, The city of Los Angeles transportation
profile, 2009.
Lowell, Lindsey, and Priya Deshingkar, et al., World migration report 2008,
International Organization of Migration.
Lyons, Michael, Place-shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government,
March 27, 2007 (http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/).
Ma, Jun, and John Norregaard, Chinas fiscal decentralization, International Monetary
Fund, October 1998 (imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/2000/idn/china.pdf).
Mahesh, Ashwin, and R. K. Mishra, Plan Bengaluru 2020: Road, traffic management
and transportation, Agenda for Bangalore Infrastructure and Development Task
Force (ABIDE), January 2009.
Malpezzi, Stephen, Rental housing in developing countries: Issues and constraints,
World Bank, 1990.
Market information survey of households, National Council of Applied Economic
Research, 1987, 199399, 2001.
Mathur, M. P., Impact of the constitution (74th) amendment act on the urban local
bodies: A review, National Institute of Urban Affairs Working Paper, April 2007.
Mathur, M. P., Municipal finance and municipal services in India: Present status and
future prospects, National Institute of Urban Affairs, 1998.
Mathur, M. P., et al., Norms and standards of municipal basic services in India,
National Institute of Urban Affairs Working Paper, April 2007.
Mathur, M. P., The Alandur: India underground sewerage system, Workshop on
International Best Practices in Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector, Asian
Development Bank, Urban Development Division, South Asia Department, Dhaka, 15
October 2006.
Mathur, Om Prakash, and George Peterson, State finance commissions and urban
fiscal decentralization in India, USAID, November 2006.
222
Mathur, O.M. Prakash, D. Thakur, and N, Rajadhyaksha, Urban property tax potential
in India, National Institute of Public Policy and Finance, July 2009.
McKenzie, David, and Isha Ray, Urban water supply in India: Status, reform options
and possible lessons, Water Policy, 2009, Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 44260.
McKinsey & Company and Siemens, Sustainable urban infrastructure: London
editionA view to 2025.
McKinsey & Company, Environmental and energy sustainability: An approach for
India, August 2009.
McKinsey & Company, Powering India: The road to 2017, 2005.
McKinsey & Company and Bombay First, Vision Mumbai: Transforming Mumbai into
a world-class city, September 2003.
McKinsey Global Institute, Accelerating Indias growth through financial system
reform, May 2006.
McKinsey Global Institute, From Made in China to Sold in China: The rise of the
Chinese urban consumer, November 2006 .
McKinsey Global Institute, Fueling sustainable development: The energy productivity
solution, October 2008.
McKinsey Global Institute, If youve got it, spend it: Unleashing the Chinese
consumer, August 2009.
McKinsey Global Institute, India: The growth imperative, September 2001.
McKinsey Global Institute, Preparing for Chinas urbanbillion, March 2009.
McKinsey Global Institute, The Bird of Gold: The rise of Indias consumer market ,
May 2007.
Mehta, Pratap Bhanu, India in transition: bleak urban future, Center for the Advanced
Study of India, University of Pennsylvania, March 2007.
Mello, L. R. de, Jr., Public finance, government spending and economic growth: The
case of local governments in Brazil, Applied Economics, 2002, Volume 34, Number
15, pp. 187183.
Melzer, Illana, and Ria Moothilal, Supply and demand of rental housing in South
Africa, Social Housing Foundation, 2008.
Merrill, Sally, and Douglas Whiteley, Establishing mortgage guarantee insurance
in transition and emerging markets: A case study of Kazakhstan, Housing Finance
International, The Urban Institute, 2003.
Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Economic Division,
Government of India, Indian public finance statistics, 200405, 200506, 200607,
200708.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, Report of the
11th five year plan working group on urban housing with focus on slums.
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India (http://morth.nic.in).
Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Department of Urban Development,
Government of India, Centrally sponsored scheme of infrastructural development in
mega cities, Guidelines, 1994.
Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Department of Urban Development,
Government of India, Integrated development of small and medium towns, Revised
Guidelines, 1995.
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India and Asian Development Bank,
Benchmarking and data book of water utilities in India, 2007.
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, Annual report 200607.
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, National urban transport policy,
2006.
Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation, Government of India,
Standing committee on urban development (20052006).
Misra, Smita, India: Cost effectiveness of rural water schemes, SASSD, World Bank.
Mohan, C. K., Urban infrastructure financing, Cityscapes 2006, Federation of
Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ministry of Urban Development,
Government of India.
Mitra, Arup, and Mayumi Murayama, Rural to urban migration: A district to rural level
analysis for India, IDE Discussion paper 137, Institute of Developing Economies,
Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO).
Mohan, Rakesh, and Shubhagato Dasgupta, Urban development in India in the
21st Century: Policies for accelerating urban growth, Working Paper Number 231 ,
Stanford University, October 2004.
Mohanty, P. K., B. M. Misra, Rajan Goyal, and P. D. Jeromi, Municipal finance in India:
An assessment, Development Research Group, December 2007.
Momoniat, Ismail, Fiscal responsibility in South Africa, National Treasury, Republic of
South Africa.
Monthly digest of statistics, Statistics Singapore, September 2009.
Moreno-Dodson, Blanca, Assessing the impact of public spending on growth: An
empirical analysis for seven fast growing countries, World Bank, Policy Research
Working Paper 4663, July 2008.
Morris, Sebastian, and Ajay Pandey, Towards reform of land acquisition framework in
India, Indian Institute of Management, Research and Publications, May 2007.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Annual report 20022003.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and LEA Associates,
Comprehensive transportation study, 2008.
224
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Regional plan for Mumbai
Metropolitan Region, 1973 and 19962011.
Murty, M. N., et al., Social cost-benefit analysis of Delhi Metro, Institute of Economic
Growth, Delhi University, October 2006.
Murthy, Raj C., et al., Integrated coastal management of Mumbai metropolitan
region, Elsevier Ocean and Coastal Management, 2001, Volume 44, Numbers 56,
pp. 35569.
Nallathiga, Ramakrishna, Metropolitan urban governance approaches and models:
Some implications for Indian cities, Local Government Quarterly, AprilJune 2008,
Volume LXXVIII, Number 2, pp. 8493.
National Accounts Statistics, Central Statistical Organization, Government of India
National Family Health Survey - 2, Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Governent of India, 199899
National Housing Bank, Report on trend and progress of housing in India2005 .
National Housing Bank, Report on trend and progress of housing in India2006.
National Institute of Urban Affairs, Appraisal of City Development Plan: Navi Mumbai,
July 2008.
National Institute of Urban Affairs, India, Appraisal of city development plan,
Coimbatore, July 2006.
National Institute of Urban Affairs, India, Appraisal of city development plan, Navi
Mumbai, June 2008.
National Institute of Urban Affairs, Model municipal law to improve reform process,
Quarterly Newsletter of NIUA, Volume 6, Number 4, December 2003.
National Sample Survey Office, Government of India, Housing condition in India,
2002.
National Sample Survey Organization, Indian Department of Statistics, Government
of India, Migration in India, 19992000, July 1999June 2000
National Solid Waste Association of India, Urban Municipal Waste Management
Newsletter, September 2008.
National survey of household income and expenditure, National Council of Applied
Economic Research, 200405.
National University of Educational Planning and Administration, District information
system for education 200809.
New York City Economic Development Corporation, A greener, greater New York,
PlaNYC 2030.
New York City Economic Development Corporation, Sustainable stormwater
management plan 2008, PlaNYC 2030.
New York City Economic Development Corporation, Climate risk information: New
York city panel on climate change, PlaNYC 2030.
Nilekani, Nandan M., Ramesh Ramanathan, Srikanth Nadhamuni, and V.
Ravichandar, Transforming urban India: The case for a National Urban Renewal
Mission adoptingcommon urban reform elements (CURE), November 2007.
Office of Management and Budget, New York City, Financial plan summary, fiscal
years 20022006.
Office of Management and Budget, New York City, Financial plan summary, fiscal
years and 20062010.
Overseas Development Institute, Internal migration, poverty and development in Asia,
October 2006.
Oxford Economics Forecasting, March 2010.
Padam, Sudarsanam. and Sanjay K. Singh, Urbanization and urban transport in
India: The sketch for a policy, The Transport in Asia Project, Harvard University, 2001.
Pai, Madhav, Transport in cities: India indicators, EMBARQWorld Resources
Institute Centre for Sustainable Transport.
Panickar, Meena, State responsibility in the drinking water sector: An overview of the
Indian scenario, IELRC Working Paper, 200607.
Paris transport and travel report, Paris Department of Transport, 2007.
Patel, Almitra H., Bio-remediation of old landfills, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, September 57, 2007,
Chennai, India. pp. 30411.
Patel, Sheela, Celine dCruz, and Sundar Burra, Beyond evictions in a global city:
people managed resettlement in Mumbai, Environment and Urbanization, Volume
14, Number 1, April 2002.
Patel, Shirish B., Alpa Sheth, and Neha Panchal, Urban layouts, densities and the
quality of urban life, Economic and Political Weekly, 2007.
Peterson, George E., Land leasing and land sale as an infrastructure-financing option,
Policy Research Working Paper Series Number 4043, World Bank, Transport and
Urban Development Department, Urban Unit, 2006.
Planning Commission, Government of India, India assessment 2002: Water supply
and sanitation.
Planning Commission, Government of India, Manual for integrated district planning,
2008.
Port sector and infrastructure development with private sector participation,
Government of Kerala Perspective.
Pradhan, Hemanta K., Local government finance and bond markets: India, Asian
Development Bank, 2002.
226
Pradhan, Hemanta K., Market-based financing of municipalities and sub-national
governments:Indian experience, XLRI Jamshedpur, September 2004.
Pucher, John, Nisha Korattyswaropam, et al., Urban transport crisis in India,
Elsevier Transport Policy, 2005, Volume 12, pp. 18598.
Quigley, John M., Urban diversity and economic growth, Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 1998, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 12738.
Quigley, John M., Urbanization, agglomeration and economic development,
Commission on Growth and Development, Working Paper Number 19, 2008.
Rajan, Raghuram, Utsav Kumar, Ioannis Tokatlidis, Kalpana Kochhar, and Arvind
Subramanian, Indias patterns of development: What happened, what follows?, IMF
Working Paper06/22, International Monetary Fund, 2006.
Rajput R., et al., Scenario of solid waste management in present Indian context,
Caspian Journal of Environmental Science, 2009, Volume 7, Number 1, pp.4553.
Ramanathan, Usha, Illegality and the urban poor, Economic and Political Weekly,
2006, Volume 41, Number 29, pp. 319397.
Rao, Govinda M., Fiscal decentralization in Indian federalism, Institute for Social and
Economic Change, 2000.
Rao, Govinda M., et al., Issues before the Thirteenth Finance Commission, National
Institute of Public Finance and Policy, Working Paper 200855, August 2008.
Reddy, Anita, Plan Bengaluru 2020, |Urban poor, January 2009.
Regulatory systems and networking of water utilities and regulatory bodies, Asia
Development Bank, November 2001.
Report of the group for examining discrepancy in PFCE estimates from NSSO
consumer expenditure, Central Statistical Organization, January 2008.
Report of the Working Group on Urban Development (excluding urban transport),
Urban water supply and sanitation (including low cost sanitation, sewerage and solid
waste management) and urban environment for eleventh five year plan (20072012),
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, 2008.
Revi, Aromar, Climate change risk: an adaptation and mitigation agenda for Indian
cities, India background paper, Global Urban Summit, July 2007, Bellagio, Italy.
The Rockefeller Foundation, Smart globalization: Benefiting more people, more fully,
in more places, 2007 Annual Report.
Rode, Philipp, Paula Miraglia, et al., Cities and social equity: Inequality, territory and
urban form, Urban Age South America (So Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires,
Bogota, Lina), Urban Age Programme, London School of Economics and Political
Science, 2009.
Rode, Philipp, Julie Wagner, Richard Brown, Rit Chandra, and Jayaraj Sundaresan,
Integrated city making: Governance, planning and transport, Urban Age India
(Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, London, New York, Berlin, Johannesburg),
Urban Age Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2008.
Rode, Sanjay, Sustainability drinking water supply in Pune metropolitan region:
Alternate policies, Urban Issues in Asia, Special Number 1S, April 2009.
Ron, Ilana, Johannesburg: Challenges of Inclusion?, Urban Age Conference,
Johannesburg, July 2006 (http://www.urban-age.net/03_conferences/conf_
johannesburg.html).
Roy, Ananya, Urban Informality: Towards an epistemology of planning, American
Planning Association, Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2005,
Volume 71, Number 2.
Rueben, Kim, and Carol Rosenberg, State and local revenues, Tax Policy Center,
Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, Tax Notes, April 2008.
Sabhlok, Sanjeev, A case for the rapid urbanization of India (indiapolicy.org/
publications).
Saeed, Mohamed Osman, et al., Development of municipal solid waste generation
and recyclable components rate of Kuala Lumpur: Perspective study, Waste
Management, 2009, Volume 29, Number 7, pp. 220913.
Sankhe, Shirish, Creating a modern Indian city: An interview with Delhis chief
minister, The McKinsey Quarterly 2007 special edition: Building a better India.
Schrank, David, and Tim Lomax, 2009 urban mobility report, The Texas A&M
University System, July 2009.
Sen, Somnath, and P. Divya, Water sensitive planning guidelines for the city of
Chennai, India, Architecture and Planning, IIT Kharagpur, 2008.
Serageldin, Mona, et al., Municipal Finance Conditions and Trends, UN-Habitat
Global Report 2005, Financing Shelter and Urban Development.
Shen, Chunli, Jing Jin, and Heng-fu Zou, Fiscal decentralization in China: History,
impact, challenges and next steps, Development Research Group, World Bank,
November 2006.
Shiling, Zheng and Chen Yi, The urban development and redevelopment in Shanghai,
City History and Multi-scale Spatial Masterplanning Workshop, The Bartlett School of
Graduate Studies, University College London, October 11, 2007
Shiling, Zheng et al., Shanghai, the fastest city?, Urban Age Conference, Shanghai,
July 2005.
Shukla, P. R. et al., Developing countries and global climate change: Electric power
options in India, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, October 1999.
Sikorski, Douglas, The perspective for privatization in Singapore, Asian Journal for
Public Administration, Volume 11, Number 1, June 1989.
Singapore land transport statistics in brief, Singapore Land Transport Authority,
2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009.
228
Singapore master plan 2008, Urban Redevelopment Authority (http://www.ura.gov.
sg/mp08/map.jsf?goToRegion=SIN).
Singapore Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Yearbook 2008.
Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Ashish Misra, Road accident analysis: a case study of Patna
City, Urban Transport Journal, 2004, Volume 2, Number 2, pp. 6075.
Singhal, Shaleen, and Suneel Pandey, Solid waste management in India: Status and
future directions, TERI Information Monitor on Environmental Science, Volume 6,
Number 1, pp. 14.
Sivaramakrishnan, K. C., Amitabh Kundu and B. N. Singh, A handbook of
urbanization in India, Oxford University Press, 2007.
Sivaramakrishnan, K. C., Power to the people? The politics and progress of
decentralisation, New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research, 2000.
Slack, Enid, Managing the Coordination of Service Delivery in Metropolitan Cities:
The Role of Metropolitan Governance, World Bank, 2007.
Smith, Laila, Neither public nor private: Unpacking the Johannesburg water
corporatization model, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development,
2006.
Socio economic survey of household in planned nodes in Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai
Municipal Corporation, 2000.
Solid Waste Management Department, Corporation of Chennai (http://www.
chennaicorporation.gov.in/departments/solid-waste-management/index.htm).
Soule, David, Joan Fitzgerald, and Barry Bluestone, The rebirth of older industrial
cities:Exciting opportunities for private sector investment, Center for Urban and
Regional Policy, Northeastern University, April 2004.
South Africa survey 2008/09, South African Institute of Race Relations.
South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People, Assessment of water supply
options for urban IndiaLarge dams have no case, November 1999.
Spear, Andrea, Chris Nailer, and Susan He, China infrastructure: Sectoral plans,
reforms and financing, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia, July 1997.
Srivastava, Ravi, and S. K. Sasikumar, An overview of migration in India, its impacts
and key issues, Regional Conference on Migration, Development and Pro-Poor Policy
Choices in Asia, Dhaka , June 2003.
State Level Committee on Road Connectivity and Traffic Improvements in Chennai,
Highlights of the recommendations, August 2008.
Study on traffic and transportation policies and strategies in urban areas in India,
Ministry of Urban Development and Wilbur Smith Associates, May 2008.
Su, Ming, and Quanhou Zhao, The fiscal framework and urban infrastructure finance
in China, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Number 4051, November
2006.
Sudjic, Deyan, Amitabh Kundu, et al., Urban India: Understanding the maximum
city, Urban Age Mumbai Conference, November 2007.
Sudjic, Deyan, Listening to the city, Urban Age Conference, Berlin, November 2006.
Sudjic, Deyan, Joan Clos, et al., London: Europes global city?, Urban Age London
Conference, November 2005.
Sudjic, Deyan, Richard Sennett, et al., New York: Almost alright?, Urban Age
Conference, New York, February 2005.
Sudjic, Deyan, Saskia Sassen, et al., Istanbul: City of intersections, Urban Age
Conference, Istanbul, November 2009.
Sule, Surekha, Sanitation system for Mumbai, Understanding our civic issues,
Bombay Community Public Trust (http://www.bcpt.org.in/Publications/Publications.
asp).
Sustainable streets index, New York City Department of Transportation, 2008.
Task Force on Affordable Housing set up by Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty
Alleviation, Government of India, Report of the high level task force on affordable
housing for all, 2008.
Thakur, Sandeep, Evaluating the financial health of Indian cities: A diagnostic report,
National Institute of Urban Affairs, December 2006.
Thakur, T. N., V. Ranganathan, and D. Narasimha Rao, Electricity trading and
wholesale trading (http://www.iimb.ernet.in/publications/review/march2004/
electricity-trading).
Tiwai, Geetam, Transport and land-use policies in Delhi, Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, 2003, Volume 81, Number 6, pp. 44450.
Toronto Economic Development, A driving force in the new economy: Torontos
financial services clusterA review, February 2001.
Torres, Haroldo da Gama, Peri-urban growth in Latin America, UN Expert
Group Meeting on Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and
Development, 2008.
Travers, Tony, The politics of London: governing an ungovernable city, Palgrave
MacMillan, 2003.
Tyabji, Amina, and Lin Kuo Ching, The financing of public housing in Singapore,
South Asian Journal of Social Science, 1989, Volume 17, Number 1.
Union Budgets, Government of India (http://indiabudget.nic.in/).
United Kingdom, The official yearbook of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, 2004.
United Nations, Demographic Yearbook 2004.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Municipal financing and urban
development, Nairobi, 2008.
230
United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2003, The challenge of slums
United Nations, World urbanisation prospects: The 1992 revision, UN, New York,
1993.
Urban air pollution in India: Perceptions of stakeholders, South Asia Urban Air Quality
Management Briefing Note Number 15, World Bank 2004.
Urban Settlement, United Nations University, World Institute for Development
Economic Research, February 2010.
US Census Bureau, Finances of municipal and township governments: 1997 census
of governments.
US Census Bureau, 2006 government finance and employment classification
manual.
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995 American travel survey: New York summary
travel characteristics, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2007.
Vel, A. Senthil, Second inter-governmental review meeting of the global programme
of action for the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities,
Beijing, October 1620, 2006.
Venkatachalam, Pritha, Innovative approaches to municipal infrastructure financing:
A case study on Tamil Nadu, India, Development Studies Institute, London School of
Economics, Working Paper Series Number 05-68, 2005.
Vera, Roberto de and Yun Hwan Kim, Local government finance, private resources,
and local credit markets in Asia, Asian Development Bank, Economic and Research
Department, October 2003.
Villarreal, Gustavo Garza, Bernardo Navarro Bentez, et al., Mexico City: Growth at
the limit, Urban Age Conference, Mexico City, February 2006.
Wallin, Bruce A., Budgeting for basics: The changing landscape of city finances,
Discussion Paper with The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program,
August 2005.
Wang, Ya Ping and Alan Murie, The process of commercialisation of urban housing
in China, Urban Studies, 1996, Volume 33, Number 6, pp. 97189.
Wang, Ya Ping, Urban housing reform and finance in China: A case study of Beijing,
Urban Affairs Review, 2001, Volume 36, Number 5, pp. 62045.
Whitehead, Christine, and Kathleen Scanlon, Social housing in Europe, London
School of Economics and Political Science, July 2007.
Wilber Smith Associates and Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India,
Study on traffic and transportation policies and strategies in urban areas in India,
2008.
Wong, Aline K., and Stephen H. K. Yeh, Housing a nation: 25 years of public housing
in Singapore, Maruzen Asia for Housing and Development Board, 1985.
Wong, Francis K. W., Eddie C. M. Hui, and De Tong, The roles of local government on
affordable housing development in Beijing, Research Centre for Construction and
Real Estate Economics, Hong Kong.
World Bank, Brazil financing municipal investment: Issues and options, April 2001.
World Bank, China Urban Development Quarterly, Issue 5, 2008.
World Bank, Demographic Yearbook 2005.
World Bank, Economic Development Institute, Infrastructure strategies in East Asia:
The untold story, August 1997.
World Bank, Energy and Infrastructure Unit, South Asia Region, Towards a discussion
of Support to Urban Transport Development in India, March 2005.
World Bank, Energy and Infrastructure Operations Division South Asia Regional
Office, India: Road transport service efficiency study, November 2005.
World BankFinance, Private Sector and Infrastructure Management Unit,
Latin America and the Caribbean Region, Brazil: How to revitalize infrastructure
investments in Brazil public policies for better private participation, January 2007.
World Bank, Indias Transport Sector: Challenges Ahead, May 2002.
World Bank, India: Water supply and sanitationBridging the gap between
infrastructure and services, January 2006.
World Bank Infrastructure Group Urban Development, Cities in transition: World
Bank urban and local government strategy, International Bank of Reconstruction and
Development, The World Bank, 2000.
World Bank, The Light Green Data Book, 2008.
World Bank, The Light Green Data Book, 2009.
World Bank, Raising finance for a ULB, ASCI/WBI Workshop: Strengthening Urban
Management, January 21, 2003.
World Bank, Secondary education in India: Universalizing opportunity, 2009.
World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2008.
World Bank, World development report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
World Bank, World development report 2009: Reshaping economic geography .
World Health Organization, World health statistics, 2009.
World population prospects, 2008, United Nations Population Division.
Yamakawa, Tetsufumi, Swarnali Ahmed, and Alex L. Kelston, Current cyclical
pressure unlikely to impede long-term growth potential of BRICs, BRICs Monthly,
Issue Number: 09/02, Goldman Sachs Global Economics, Commodities and
Strategy Research (https://360.gs.com).
232
Youzhi Gu, A study on environmental sector in greater Shanghai area 20072010,
Consulate General of Sweden in Shanghai, February 2007.
Yuen, Belinda, Squatters no more: Singapore social housing, Third Urban Research
Symposium: Land Development, Urban Policy and Poverty Reduction, Brazil, April
2005.
Zhang, Xing Quan, Housing and urban upgrading in Yantai, China, United Nations
Human Settlements Programme, 2008.
Zhang, Xing Quan, and Renu Karnad, Housing finance mechanisms in India, United
Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2008.
Recent McKinsey Global Institute publications
www.mckinsey.com/mgi
Download and listen to MGI podcasts on iTunes or
at: http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/multimedia/
March 2009
Preparing for Chinas urbanbillion
By pursuing a more concentrated urbanization path guided by action to boost urban
productivity, Chinas local and national policy leaders would minimize the pressures
of urbanization and maximize the economic benefits of urban expansion.
Preparing for
Chinas urban billion
March2009
January 2010
Debt and deleveraging: The global credit bubble and its economic
consequences
The recent bursting of the great global credit bubble has left a large burden of
debt weighing on many households, businesses, and governments, as well as
on the broader prospects for economic recovery in countries around the world.
Leverage levels are still very high in ten sectors of five major economies. If history
is a guide, one would expect many years of debt reduction in these sectors,
which would exert a significant drag on GDP growth.
January 2010
Debt and deleveraging:
The global credit bubble and
its economic consequences
March 2010
How to compete and grow: A sector guide to policy
Drawing on industry case studies from around the world, MGI analyzes policies
and regulations that have succeeded and those that have failed in fostering
economic growth and competitiveness at the sector level. What emerges are
some surprising findings that run counter to the way many policy makers are
thinking about the task at hand.
How to compete and grow:
A sector guide to policy
March 2010
March 2010
The Internet of Things
More objects are becoming embedded with sensors and gaining the ability to
communicate. The resulting new information networks promise to create new
business models, improve business processes, and reduce costs and risks.
Artwork by Harry Campbell
April 2010
Copyright McKinsey & Company
www.mckinsey.com/mgi

MGI Indias Urban Awakening Full Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MGI Indias Urban Awakening Full Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MGI Indias Urban Awakening Full Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McKinsey Global Institute

Indias urban awakening:

You might also like