Urbanisation and Socio-Economic

Development in EAG States, India—A

Study from 2011 Census Data
MANOJ SAHU*
SNIGDHA BANERJEE**
SUYASH MISHRA***

ABSTRACT
The concentration of urban settlement in India is very unequal
due to the level of development. This article has emphasised on
the process of urbanisation and development in the Empowered
Action Group (EAG) states of India. Primary Census Abstract
(2011) has been for this study. This study focuses the district
wise accessibility of basic amenities of urban people in EAG
states of India to draw the relationship between urbanisation and
development. The access to basic amenities like electricity, drinking
water, toilet facility, drainage are critical determinants of quality
of urban life. Lorenz curve and the Gini-coefficient index have been
used to show the unequal distribution of urban population. The
UNDP methodology has been used for the construction of the Basic
Amenities Index by incorporating the most critical indicators of
accessibility of urban amenities. Results show the pace of urban
population growth has increased in all the EAG states. But the
accessibility of basic amenities is not simultaneously increasing
with the growing urban population. The Bijapur district of
Chhattisgarh (0.273) has scored low, and Tehri Garhwal district
of Uttarakhand has scored the highest value (0.910) among all the
districts of EAG states regarding Basic Amenities Index (BAI).

Keywords: Urbanisation, Basic amenities, Accessibility, EAG

States, Development.

*M.Phil., Student, International Institution for Population Sciences.

Email: sahumanoj40@gmail.com
**Ph.D. Scholar, International Institution for Population Sciences, Deoner.
Email:92snigdhabanerjee@gmail.com
***Ph.D. Scholar, International Institution for Population Sciences, Deoner.
Email: suyashmishra1592@gmail.com
2 / NAGARLOK
VOL. L, Part 4, Oct-Dec 2018

INTRODUCTION

U rbanisation is the process by which the concentration of the urban

population to total population is increased in the urban settlements
(Davis, 1965). The process of urbanisation has been prolonged in
developed countries but steady in developing countries because of
the modernisation and growth of service sectors in the economics
(Macbeth and Collinson, 2002). The pattern of urbanisation is very
uneven between the more developed and less developed countries in
the world. In 1900, only 13 per cent of the global population dwelt in
urban areas, which increased to 29 per cent in 1950 and 50.1 per cent
in 2009 (United Nations, 2010). At present, 75 per cent of people in the
developed world live in urban areas compared to 45 per cent in less
developed nations. The definition of urban varies from time-to-time
and nation-to-nation. The definition of ‘urban’ in India, from the 1981
census, is as follows: (a) All places with a municipality, corporation,
cantonment board, notified town area committee which is known as
Statutory towns. (b) All other places that satisfy the following criteria
are known as Census Towns: (i) A minimum population of 5,000; (ii)
at least 75 per cent of the male main working population engaged in
non-agricultural activities; (iii) A population density of at least 400
persons per square kilometre (Census of India, 1991). The towns and
cities are usually divided into six folds: Class I cities with the population
above 100,000; Class II towns with population 50,000-100,000; Class III
towns with population 20,000-50,000; Class IV towns with population
10,000-20,000, Class V towns with population 5000-10,000 and Class VI
towns with less than 5000 population. It should be noted that India’s
level of urbanisation is much lower than many other countries. The
urban population grew from 286 million to 377 million from 2001 to
2011 census respectively. Data from the recent census shows that the
actual urban population was 19 million more than predicted (Bhagat,
2011a). With declining natural increases in urban areas since 1970, the
contribution of urban reclassification and net rural to urban migration
(rural to urban migration less urban to rural migration) are decisive in
the process of urbanisation (Bhagat and Mohanty, 2008). Migration plays
an important role in rapid urbanisation. Employment opportunities,
better educational system, health facility, the higher standard of living
in urban areas are considered as pull factors for the place of destination
(Lal and Nair, 2017).
Urbanisation and development are intricately related and
complimentary for each other. Development regarding the accessibility
of basic amenities in cities is the most important aspect of the quality
of urbanisation. The amenities like electricity, water, sanitation and
 URBANISATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EAG STATES /3
MANOJ SAHU, SNIGDHA BANERJEE AND SUYASH MISHRA

clean fuel are the critical determinants of living conditions and health
of the urban people (Clegg and Garlick, 1979; Ali and Rahman, 2004).
However, it is not clear whether the bigger cities are better off than small
cities and towns. Although bigger states are known for air pollution,
slum and crowding, it would be interesting to know how these states
differ regarding the provision of clean water, sanitation, and electricity,
etc. (Bhagat, 2005). In India, the eight Socio-Economically backward
states namely Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha,
Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, together are termed as
Empowered Action Group (EAG) states. These states lag behind in the
process of urbanisation as well as socio-economic development. These
states are categorised as the bigger states in India and also cover over
45 per cent of India’s population (Census of India, 2011). However, it is
a major concern to look at whether urban dwellers can get easy access
to the basic urban amenities or are deprived since it is a basic right of
all urban dwellers and one of the main aspects of “Right to the City”
concept (Harvey, 2008). Availability and accessibility of basic amenities
are more important for the growing size of the urban population. It is
a challenge to get proper access to those resources which can fulfill
the Sustainable Development Goals 2015, (clean water and sanitation,
affordable and clean energy and reduces the inequality in urban areas).
In this context, the paper tries to find the relation between urbanisation
and development process among the eight socio-economically backward
states of India, by examining the level and concentration of urbanisation
and access to basic amenities to urban people.
The paper has been divided into two sections. Firstly, the paper
analyses the unequal distribution of the urban population in the EAG
states of India. Secondly, the paper tries to examine the access to basic
amenities (shelter, bathroom, drainage, drinking water) in the EAG
states of India.

Data Source
Secondary data from the Census of India (1961-2011) has been
used to fulfill the objectives. Mainly the Town directory, Household
amenities series, and Primary Census Abstracts are used in the study.
The access to basic amenities like electricity, drinking water, toilet
facility, drainage facility data has been extracted for constructing the
Basic Amenities Index.

Methodology
Gini coefficient index is a measure of the inequality of a distribution.
Here, the Gini coefficient and Lorenz Curve are used for the first
4 / NAGARLOK
VOL. L, Part 4, Oct-Dec 2018

objective to examine the inequality in the distribution of the urban

population in the EAG state of India. In this case, urban population and
area of all EAG states have been used to calculate the inequality index.
Through the Lorenz curve, we can graphically represent the cumulative
distribution function of the probability distribution.

Where Gi is the Gini coefficient index, Xi and Yi are the respective

cumulative proportion of the urban population and urban localities
and n is the number of class interval or units. This index varies from
zero when the population is evenly distributed to almost one when the
population is concentrated in one unit. Higher the value of the index
shows the greater level of concentration.
For fulfilling the second objective, Basic Amenity Index has been
constructed using four basic indicators namely shelter, sanitation and
hygiene, electricity and safe drinking water. Sanitation and hygiene are
further split into a latrine, bathroom and drainage facility (Mahajan,
2016). In this paper, we have considered only good housing condition
as decent shelter. Flush /pour flush latrine or pit latrine or other forms
of improved latrines in household premises are included in access
to improved toilet facilities. The indicator of ‘access to the improved
bathroom’ is measured by the proportion of households having a
bathroom with roof within the premises. The proportion of households
having a connection to closed drainage has been used for measuring
the ‘access to improved drainage’ facility. The proportion of household
having access to electric facilities has been used for measuring the
‘access to electricity’ indicator, and the proportion of household having
access to the safe source of drinking water has been taken for measuring
the access to safe drinking water indicators (Census of India, Basic
Household Amenities, 2011).
Based on the selected dimensions and their indicators, Basic
Amenity Index (BAI) is constructed by using the Dimension Index
technique of UNDP. The dimension index (attainment perspective) of
each variable/indicator can be written as:

Where Xij is the actual value of the ith indicator Xi for the state j.
Max (Xij) and min (Xij), respectively, are highest and lowest goalpost
values that ith indicator can be allotted. Dij is the attainment index of
 URBANISATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EAG STATES /5
MANOJ SAHU, SNIGDHA BANERJEE AND SUYASH MISHRA

the ith indicator (i = 1, 2, 3, …, n ) that lies between 0 and 1 for state j.

The threshold maximum for each basic amenity indicator is fixed at 100
per cent which is the target value for the highest level of achievements.
The minimum threshold value for each indicator is set at subsistence
value (i.e., ‘natural zeros’) to measure progress against minimum level
needed by society to survive over time. All the dimensions are allotted
equal weight, not because of simplicity but because that they are equally
important for righteous human life. Finally, the Basic Amenity Index is
constructed by taking a geometric mean of the indices of the respective
indicators. Thus, Basic Amenity Index (Bj) for the state j is obtained by
taking the simple geometric mean of the n-dimension.

Like the dimensional indices, the BAI (Bj) is also a unit free value,
which ranges between 0 and 1 and provides a normalised measure of
achievement. Higher BAI values indicate the higher level of achievement
concerning basic amenities. Level of achievement of the states is
classified into four categories such as low level of achievement (less
than 0.5), medium level of achievement (0.500–0.799 score), high level
of achievement (0.800–0.899 score), very high level of achievement (0.90
or above).
GeoDa software has been used to generate district level map of all
EAG states, for showing the Basic Amenities Index.

Fig. 1: Total Population and Urban Population, India (1961-2011)

Source: Census of India, 1961-2011.

6 / NAGARLOK
VOL. L, Part 4, Oct-Dec 2018

Result
Figure1 shows the percentage of urban population to total
population from 1961 to 2011 census year. The population had increased
from 439.2 million in 1961 to 1210.1 million in 2011. The size of the
country’s urban population has increased from 18 per cent in 1961 to
31 per cent in 2011. From the figure, it is observed that from 1981 the
rate of urbanisation is rising very sharply. In India, there are three main
channels through which urbanisation can arise. The first is the natural
increase; second is net migration and third is the reclassification of
urban areas. Urban expansion observed between 2001 and 2011 can be
explained by two phenomena. First, due to a reclassification of rural
areas to urban areas and the second is the shift in the rural population
towards urban areas through migration (Colmer, 2016).
Figure 2 shows the trends of urbanisation rate in EAG states in
two consecutive decades, from this figure it is observed that the rate of
urbanisation in those EAG states is increasing from 2001 to 2011. But
in the case of Madhya Pradesh, it has declined by ten percentages due
to the reason of some reclassification of urban areas. In 2001 Madhya
Pradesh had the highest percentage of urban population (37.4 per cent).
The rate of urbanisation rate is highest in Uttarakhand (30.6 per cent),
and lowest is in Bihar (11.3 per cent) among all EAG states in 2011.
From Table 1, it is evident that in 2011, the number of cities
increased to 7948. In the Indian context, the volume of the concentration
of urban population is high in small and medium towns, because of
the high migration rate from villages to cities especially in cities of IV,
V and VI. It has been observed that in 2011 the number of class I cities
increased to 511. Class I cities alone account for 60.4 per cent of the total
urban population in 2011. Thus Class I cities are growing at the cost of

Fig. 2: Trend of Urbanisation in EAG States, 2001-2011



TABLE 1: CLASS-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION OF EAG STATES, 2011 CENSUS

Class-wise distribution of towns 2011 census

% % % % % %
States popu- Class popu- Class popu- Class popu- Class popu- Class popu-
Class I lation II lation III lation IV lation V lation VI lation
All India 511 60.43 605 10.93 1906 15.42 2234 8.48 2190 4.21 502 0.52
Bihar 26 57.45 28 15.56 76 21.59 22 2.8 38 2.2 9 0.29
Chhattisgarh 10 55.84 5 6.5 32 15.77 50 11.84 72 8.96 13 0.98
Jharkhand 10 54.53 12 11.12 39 16.16 48 8.49 90 7.99 29 1.65
Madhya
Pradesh 32 55.59 31 10.63 113 16.64 177 12.39 113 4.47 11 0.22
Odisha 10 45.17 16 16.02 41 18.94 49 10.46 77 7.68 28 1.7
Rajasthan 29 61.47 26 10.48 105 18.96 80 6.75 47 2.07 10 0.24
Uttar
Pradesh 64 61.03 62 9.68 237 15.72 301 9.59 225 3.72 26 0.24
Uttarakhand 6 45.97 6 11.06 19 17.7 33 14.88 37 9.22 15 1.14
Source: Primary Census Abstract, Town Directory, 2011.
MANOJ SAHU, SNIGDHA BANERJEE AND SUYASH MISHRA
URBANISATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EAG STATES /7
8 / NAGARLOK
VOL. L, Part 4, Oct-Dec 2018

other size classes and their growth is much faster than other cities and
towns in the country. The growing economic facilities attracted a number
of populations to Class I cities, but on the other hand, many labour
class people prefer to live in class II, III, IV cities, the primary reason
being low living cost. However, Central and state governments need
to decentralise economic policies to build up economic infrastructure
in smaller order cities. The table shows the class-wise distribution of
census town and percentage of census town population in the of EAG
states. Among the EAG states, Uttar Pradesh has the highest number
of Class I census town (64), followed by Madhya Pradesh (32) and also
the higher concentration of population can be found in Class I cities
in every EAG states. A remarkable feature was found in the states of
Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand. More than 50 per cent of the
urban population in these states is concentrated only in less than 10
Class I cities.
TABLE 2: GINI CONCENTRATION INDEX

GINI CONCENTRATION INDEX OF THE URBAN TOWN POPULATION

OF INDIA AND STATES 1991 – 2011.
States 1991 2001 2011
Bihar 0.55 0.51 0.58
Chhattisgarh - 0.63 0.66
Jharkhand - 0.62 0.70
Madhya Pradesh 0.59 0.63 0.64
Odisha 0.55 0.59 0.65
Rajasthan 0.58 0.61 0.64
Uttar Pradesh 0.65 0.65 0.68
Uttarakhand - 0.63 0.62
India 0.66 0.67 0.69

Table 2 The Gini concentration Index shows the urban town

population of India and EAG states between 1991-2011. The main
dimension of the urbanisation process is the concentration of urban
population in few urban areas. It refers to the unevenness in the
distribution of the urban population. Gini Concentration Index
and Lorenz curve (Fig. 3) are used to measure the inequality in the
distribution of the urban population of EAG states. The higher value of
Gini shows the level of concentration is more in the bigger cities than
the smaller cities.
Table 3 shows the Basic Amenity Index (BAI) is obtained by
incorporating the six indicators of basic amenities, i.e., decent shelter,
 URBANISATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EAG STATES /9
MANOJ SAHU, SNIGDHA BANERJEE AND SUYASH MISHRA

FIG 3: LORENZ CURVE OF INDIA AND EAG STATES, 2011

FIG. 4: CORRELATION BETWEEN PERCENTAGE URBAN POPULATION AND

AVAILABILITY OF BASIC FACILITIES, EAG STATES OF INDIA

improved latrine, improved bathroom, improved drainage, electricity,

safe drinking water indices. Urban sector of EAG states in India portrays
the average level of achievement in access to decent shelter. Uttarakhand
(0.74) tops the list for decent shelter indicator followed by Rajasthan
(0.69), Madhya Pradesh (0.68). Bihar (0.53) and Odisha (0.52) are at the
bottom of the list. For accessibility of improved latrine in the urban
 TABLE 3: THE SCORE OF EAG STATES (URBAN) OF INDIA: ACCESS TO BASIC AMENITIES, 2011
10 / NAGARLOK

Safe
Decent Improved Improved Improved Basic Ame-
States Electricity Drinking
House Latrine Bathroom Drainage nities Index
Water
VOL. L, Part 4, Oct-Dec 2018

Urban-India 0.685 0.797 0.775 0.445 0.927 0.846 0.727

Bihar 0.532 0.680 0.457 0.300 0.667 0.907 )6( 0.557
Chhattisgarh 0.643 0.598 0.544 0.175 0.937 0.767 )7( 0.545
Jharkhand 0.600 0.665 0.553 0.249 0.880 0.743 )5( 0.574
Madhya Pradesh 0.676 0.732 0.699 0.319 0.927 0.818 )3( 0.662
Odisha 0.516 0.630 0.545 0.199 0.831 0.794 )8( 0.534
Rajasthan 0.689 0.791 0.793 0.344 0.939 0.877 )2( 0.705
Uttar Pradesh 0.571 0.801 0.697 0.322 0.814 0.914 )4( 0.651
Uttarakhand 0.744 0.925 0.877 0.423 0.965 0.932 )1( 0.782
 URBANISATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EAG STATES /11
MANOJ SAHU, SNIGDHA BANERJEE AND SUYASH MISHRA

areas among the EAG states, Uttarakhand (0.92) followed by Uttar

Pradesh (0.81) and Rajasthan (0.79) attained a high score. Concerning
accessibility to the improved bathroom is concerned, Uttarakhand (0.88)
has achieved a high score among the EAG states followed by Rajasthan
(0.79). Remaining states except for Bihar (0.46) were the average level
achiever. The indicator of closed-drainage facilities showed a poor
picture. Chhattisgarh (0.18) and Odisha (0.20) remained at the bottom
in the list. Urban-India score (0.45) concerning improved drainage
remained below average. Regarding access to safe drinking water in
urban areas of EAG states, all states show decent performance with
scores ranging between 0.74 and 0.93. High score of 0.85 was observed
in urban areas of EAG states in safe drinking water. Concerning access
to electricity in urban areas, Bihar (0.67) ranked lowest among the EAG
states with the medium level of achievement. Urban-India (0.93) too
portrays a very high score in the electricity index.
Map 1: District-Wise Basic Amenities Index
Map of EAG State, India 2011
12 / NAGARLOK
VOL. L, Part 4, Oct-Dec 2018

The Bijapur district (0.273) followed by Narayanpur (0.33) of

Chhattisgarh has score low BAI among all the districts of EAG states.
On the other hand, Tehri Garhwal, the district of Uttarakhand has scored
the highest value (0.910) (ref-Map-1).
The association between the growth in the urban population of
EAG states and the availability of Basic Amenities are examined by
applying correlation technique (Fig. 4). The correlation graph shows
the positive relation between the growth of urban population and
the availability of basic amenities. All EAG states except Uttarakhand
(0.78) have scored medium level (5.00-7.00) of development regarding
accessibility of Basic Amenities. There is no doubt that urbanisation is a
thrust to development. It opens better economic opportunities, improves
public services, and living conditions.

Conclusion
Urbanisation is closely linked with the process of modernisation
and industrialisation. The history of urbanisation in the Indian
subcontinent is very long. The growth of urbanisation (31 per cent)
is unexpected in the year 2011, due to the formation of new Census
Towns (Pradhan, 2013). The sole reason behind this alarming increase
of Census Towns is the improvement of transport facilities and shifting
of economic activities of the male workers from agricultural activities
to tertiary sector (Kuruvilla, 2014; Karmakar, 2015). EAG states have
been formed with eight low socio-economic status states to improve
the socio-economic condition of these backward states of India. Lack
of access to basic amenities is a fundamental concern for developing
 URBANISATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EAG STATES /13
MANOJ SAHU, SNIGDHA BANERJEE AND SUYASH MISHRA

societies, particularly for populations that are economically and

socially underprivileged. Thus this study has emphasised the process
of urbanisation and socio-economic development in the EAG states
of India. This situation of urban- India, draws considerable attention
from the perspective of the policy makers, planners (Kundu, 2011). The
amenities like electricity, clean water, hygiene, and sanitation, are crucial
determinants of quality of life of the urban population. The study finds
that the EAG states of India have to go a long way in concerning the
rate of urbanisation. Some EAG states have been placed in the good
position like Uttarakhand and Rajasthan regarding access to decent
shelter, improved sanitation for their urban population.
The pace of urban population growth has increased in the
EAG states, but the accessibility of basic amenities is not increasing
simultaneously with the growing urban population. This situation
is quite average and, is a big challenge to fulfill the sustainable
development goal. It needs urgent attention of Government and policy
makers for urban management and fund allocation for the amenities
such as water supply, waste management, urban sanitation for the
urban development.
REFERENCES
1. Ali, Osman, Z.M. and Rahman, M.R.A. (2004). “The Effect of Urbanization on
the Health of Urban Residents,” Akademika, 65, 111-124.

2. Bhagat, R. B. (2011 ). “Urbanization and Access to Basic Amenities in India.”

Urban India. 31(1), 1-13, January-June

3. Bhagat, R.B. (2005). “Rural-urban classification and municipal governance in

India. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 26(1), 61-73.

4. Bhagat, R.B. (2011a). “Emerging pattern of urbanization in India.” Economic

and Political Weekly, 46(34), 10-12.

5. Bhagat, R.B. (2011b). “Urbanization and access to basic amenities.” Urban

India, 31(1), 1-14.

6. Bhagat, R.B., and S. Mohanty (2008). “Trend and pattern of urbanization in

India: a demographic assessment.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Population Association of America, New Orleans, 16-19.

7. Census of India (1991). “Emerging trends of urbanization in India.” Occasional

Paper, No. 1 of 1993. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General and Census
Commissioner.
8. Census of India 2011. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner.
Houses, Household Amenities and Assets-Retrieved from.

9. Clegg, E.J., and J. P. Garlick (1979) “The Ecology of Disease in Urban Societies,”
Current Anthropology, 20(4),798-799.
14 / NAGARLOK
VOL. L, Part 4, Oct-Dec 2018

10. Colmer, J. (2016). “Urbanization, Growth, and Development: Evidence from

India.” Unpublished Review Paper.

11. Davis, Kingsley (1965). “Urbanization in India: past and future. In India’s
Urban Future”, Roy Turner, (ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press, 3-26.

12. Harvey, D. (2008). “The right to the city.” http://www.censusindia.gov.

in/2011census/hlo/hlo_table/hlo_india.html

13. Karmakar, J. (2015). “The emergence of Census Towns and its Socio-Economic
Condition: Case of West Bengal.” International Journal of Humanities & Social
Science, 5264(22), 22–35.

14. Kundu, A. (2011). Trends and Processes of Urbanization in India. Human

Settlements Group.
15. Kundu, A., S. Bagchi and D. Kundu (1999). “Regional Distribution of
Infrastructure and Basic Amenities in Urban India,” Economic and Political
Weekly, 34, 1893-l906.

16. Kuruvilla, Y. Z. (2014). “Census Towns in Kerala: Challenges of Urban

Transformation,” 1-12.

17. Lal, P. and Nair, S. B. (2017). “Urbanization in Kerala—What Does the Census
Data Reveal?”.  Indian Journal of Human Development, 11(3), 356-386.

18. Macbeth, H. and Collinson, P. (Eds.). (2002). Human Population Dynamics: Cross-

disciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 14. Cambridge University Press.

19. Mahajan S.K. (2016). “Status of Basic Amenities across the Major States of
Urban,” India North Eastern Economic Review.1 (1), 17-20.

20. Planning Commission (2011). Mid-term Appraisal: Eleventh Five-Year Plan

2007-2012. OUP Catalogue.

21. Pradhan, K. C. (2013). “Unacknowledged Urbanization.” Economic and Political

Weekly, 48(36), 43–51.

22. United Nations (2006). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision.
New York: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
ESA/P/WP/200.

23. 2010 World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision. New York: Population
Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.