Case Study

Spatial Disparities, Transport Infrastructure, and

Decentralization Policy in the Delhi Region
Manisha Jain 1 and Artem Korzhenevych 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Spatial-development policies in India have aimed to achieve balanced regional development. However, these attempts have had
limited success, as development is still concentrated in certain large urban areas. For that reason, sustainably accommodating the country’s
projected population increase remains a challenge. Taking the Delhi National Capital Region (NCR) as a case study and utilizing digitized
tehsil boundaries and transport networks from regional plans, along with the recently released 2011 census enumeration, this paper inves-
tigates both recent settlement developments and the influence of the transport infrastructure on balanced regional development. The results
reveal that population growth is concentrated in and around Delhi. A positive relationship has been established between the provision of major
road infrastructure and employment growth in the peripheral areas. According to current trends, reducing disparities will require a mix of
top-down and bottom-up approaches to enforce infrastructure-integrated spatial development and to strengthen the regional and local author-
ities to facilitate plan formulation and implementation. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000379. © 2017 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: India; Spatial decentralization; Disparities; Transport; Balanced regional development.

Introduction and citizens (Mookherjee et al. 2014). Compared to the growth of

The concentration of economic activities in and around certain
regions, such as Jakarta in Indonesia, Bangkok in Thailand, and
Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia (Annez and Buckley 2009; Ali and
Varshney 2012), has been a common feature of Asian urbanization.
Similarly, population and economic growth in India is skewed to-
wards metropolitan cities (WB 2008, 2013; Markandey and Anant
2011; Kundu 2011; Saitluanga 2013). The common trend is toward
spatial disparity, meaning the uneven distribution of infrastructure,
the economy, and other activities across geographical units within a
country or region (Kanbur and Venables 2007). The experience of
Asian countries suggests that spatial disparities are further rein-
forced by the concentration of public investments in favored cores
and desolation in less-favored regions (Kennedy et al. 2011; Barca
et al. 2012; WB 2013).
In India, this tendency is usually described as top-heavy or
lopsided urbanization (Datta 2006). However, the high growth of
metropolitan cities in India exceeds the capacity of the available
infrastructure, leading to overstressed natural resources and insuf-
ficient institutional capacity to deliver adequate housing, basic
amenities, transport, etc. (Maiti and Agrawal 2005; Vaidya 2009;
Sankhe et al. 2010; WB 2013).
The Delhi National Capital Region (NCR) is considered a
laboratory for future development to reduce the spatial disparities
endemic to India’s development process. For that reason, the
NCR’s relative success or failure is of interest to both professionals
1
Postdoctoral Researcher, Resource Efficiency of Settlement Structures,
Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Weberplatz
1, 01217 Dresden, Germany (corresponding author). E-mail: m.jain@ioer.de
2
Professor, Strategic Issues and Perspectives, Leibniz Institute of
Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217
Dresden, Germany. E-mail: a.korzhenevych@ioer.de
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 15, 2016; approved on
November 7, 2016; published online on February 10, 2017. Discussion per-
iod open until July 10, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488.
other large urban agglomerations (UAs) such as Mumbai UA (12%)
and Kolkata UA (7%), the population of Delhi UA grew at the fast-
est rate (27%) over the last census period, 2001–2011 (GoI 2011b).
However, inside the NCR, there has been a disparity in the rate of
growth between the areas in close proximity to Delhi [the so-called
Central National Capital Region (CNCR)] and areas that are more
peripheral. The urban population in the CNCR (excluding Delhi)
grew at an average rate of 90% per decade, compared to 40% in the
peripheral areas (Table 4). In terms of absolute population numbers,
the increase was also roughly twice larger in the CNCR (5 million
versus 2.5 million in the 1981–2011 period). The core city of Delhi
(National Capital Territory or NCT) gained 10 million new inhab-
itants during this period.
To avoid the problems of concentration in certain urban regions,
India’s national policy has focused on promoting spatially balanced
development by reviving lagging areas with subsidized finance, in-
vestment subsidies, industrial infrastructure, and preferential indus-
trial licensing. Recently, the focus has also been on the integration
and promotion of better health and education in lagging areas (GoI
2006). At the regional level, balanced development aims to achieve
“judicious distribution of population” in the region, revitalize the
economy of stagnating urban centers, and integrate those centers
into the settlement hierarchy (NCRPB 1987, 1988).
This paper examines the NCR’s spatial development in the
2001–2011 period, particularly in terms of population and employ-
ment trends but also considering the relation of these trends to the
official decentralization policies. The paper aims to provide policy-
makers, planners, and researchers with an insight into the regional
disparities underway in rapidly growing regions in India. The key
questions addressed are as follows:
• How have population and employment distribution in the region
evolved in recent decades?
• How have urban centers developed?
• How does this dynamic compare to the expectations embodied
in the official plans? and
• Is economic development influenced by the provision of major
transport infrastructure?

© ASCE 05017003-1 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1

 The two main strands upon which spatial decentralization policy
in India rests are (1) the development of settlement patterns, i.e., the
metropolitan centers, regional centers, and other lower-order cen-
ters in the hinterland; and (2) a focus on rail and road transport
provision to create links between metropolitan and regional centers.
The NCR’s spatial plans emphasize the hierarchy of settlements
to attain balanced development (NCRPB 1988, 2005, 2013) in line
with the central place theory (Camagni and Salone 1993; Batten
1995; Meijers 2007), which remains relevant in developing coun-
tries. This theory predicts that a system of independent urban cen-
ters at different levels, which are hierarchically interlocked (Berry
1967), leads to a deconcentrated integrated system of cities that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
constitutes a balanced pattern of urbanization. Recent empirical re-
search provides evidence of the relevance of the hierarchy of central
places in developing countries (Chen and Zhou 2006; Hsu 2012).
The policy emphasis on transport provision is also well-
grounded. According to spatial economic theory, areas with better
access to both the factors of production and to markets for input
materials and final products will generally be more productive,
more competitive, and thus more successful than isolated regions.
Therefore, transport infrastructure plays an important role in the
regional economy, and major improvements in the transport system
have a strong impact on regional development (Dodgson 1973;
Grant-Muller et al. 2001; Laird et al. 2005; Cantos et al. 2005;
Bröcker et al. 2010). As such, providing an efficient and affordable
rail and road transportation network that is well-integrated with
the identified settlement hierarchy has been an important focus
of the NCR spatial plans (NCRPB 1988, 2005, 2013).
Empirical research on decentralization and deconcentration in
the NCR is rare because of the lack of data (Sridhar 2007, 2010;
Mookherjee et al. 2014). The study by Banerjee (1996) used census
data to examine urban growth, decentralization, and deconcen-
tration in the NCR. It stressed the importance of increasing the
manufacturing job ratio in the NCR to effect decentralization.
Mookherjee and Geyer (2011) used a cyclical model of urban de-
velopment stages, the differential urbanization model, in the NCR,
and they identified deconcentration or a polarization reversal in the
region. Mookherjee et al. (2014) limited their study to observing
the spatial pattern of urban settlements in the NCR and recom-
mended further research on spatial disparities as data become avail-
able. Jain et al. (2013), using the Klaassen-van den Berg cyclical
model of urban growth, identified suburbanization (decentraliza-
tion) as sprawl in the region. More specifically, Jain and Siedentop
(2014) investigated three aspects of spatial decentralization in the
NCR: (1) population decentralization, (2) urban containment, and
(3) regional integration through public transport. The results reveal
that not all centers have achieved their envisioned growth targets;
sprawl exists in the CNCR and the region is not well integrated with
public transport. Due to the lack of recently released 2011 census
data, all the studies mentioned are limited to 2001 census data.
Several studies have captured the positive influence of the trans-
port network, especially highways and railroads, on decentraliza-
tion. In Korea, massive intercity infrastructure investments are
partly responsible for the successful deconcentration of manufac-
turing employment in the Seoul–Pusan region (Henderson 2002).
Recently, a study by Baum-Snow et al. (2015) identified the decen-
tralization of manufacturing jobs and residential locations in China
as an effect of highways and railroads. More specifically, radial
highways have supported service-sector decentralization, radial
railroads have supported industrial decentralization, and ring roads
have supported both. In India, some decentralization trends have
also been noted. For instance, Khanna (2014) studied the influence
of upgrading transit networks along the Golden Quadrilateral,
which connects the four main cities of Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata,
© ASCE 05017003-2
J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1
and Chennai. This transit upgrade allowed distant districts to
develop by spreading the economic activities that had initially
been concentrated along the network. Hence, the initially signifi-
cant spatial inequalities gradually began to diminish. In another
study, Ghani et al. (2015) identified the impact of the Golden
Quadrilateral on the organization of manufacturing activities. Their
work established that the highway upgrade boosted manufactur-
ing growth in middle-order cities; moreover, districts along the
highway experienced increases in land-intensive and building-
intensive industries. Thus, providing a transport network can affect
decentralization.
Adding to the previous research of Jain et al. (2013) and Jain
and Siedentop (2014), this paper aims to investigate both the recent
spatial development in the NCR and the influence of the transport
infrastructure on the envisioned balanced regional development. To
achieve this objective, the study utilizes digitized tehsil (the nation
of India consists of states; the state consists of districts; a district
consists of tehsils; and a tehsil consists of towns and villages) boun-
daries from the Census of India, digitized transport networks from
regional plans, census data on population and employment from
the Primary census abstract from 2001 (GoI 2001a) and 2011
(GoI 2011a), and information on urban amenities from the Town
directory 2001 (GoI 2001b). The paper is divided into four sec-
tions. This introduction is followed by a description of the study
area. The next section presents the results of the empirical analysis,
followed by the discussion, policy implications, and conclusions.
Study Area
The NCR is one of the largest rural-urban regions in the world with
an urbanization level of 62.5% in 2011. From 2005 to 2010, India’s
gross domestic product (GDP) increased by 52%, whereas the
NCR’s GDP increased by 67% (NCRPB 2013). The NCR contrib-
uted 7.1% to India’s GDP from 2009 to 2010, whereas its share of
the population and share of the land area were 3.8 and 1%, respec-
tively (NCRPB 2013). The NCR is an attractive destination for
migrants because it offers diverse employment opportunities.
The NCR fully or partly includes four states, with the NCT at the
center. The NCT has dual status as a city and a state. It is located
between the states of Haryana to the west and Uttar Pradesh to
the east (Fig. 1). A small portion of Rajasthan forms the southwest
corner of the NCR. The respective areas and populations of the
participating states are listed in Table 1. In 2015, the Karnal and
Jind districts in the Haryana state and the Muzaffarnagar district
in Uttar Pradesh were added to the NCR. In line with the goal
of balanced regional development, this extension aimed to relieve
the infrastructure burden in Delhi, to distribute economic activities
more evenly, and to make additional land available for develop-
ment, especially given the increasing housing needs.
According to the recently revised regional plan, the Delhi
Metropolitan Area (DMA) has been extended and is composed
of the contiguous towns of Ghaziabad-Loni, Noida, Gurgaon-
Manesar, Faridabad-Ballabhgarh, Bahadurgarh, Sonepat-Kundli,
and the extension of the Ridge in Haryana. The area is now termed
the CNCR (NCRPB 2013).
The attempts to formulate a development plan for the NCR be-
gan in the late 1960s, and the draft plan was published in 1971. The
plan aimed to control the growth of the core city and directed future
urban growth in the region to a selection of second-tier cities. The
envisioned regional centers, connected by existing highways and
railways to Delhi, were meant to accommodate future growth
(Banerjee 1996). The subcenters (i.e., satellites and countermagnet
centers) were chosen for even distribution throughout the region.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 The objective was to facilitate the decentralization of economic
activity and housing development in these centers in neighboring
states. As additional measures, regional tax structures were to be
unified; a greenbelt was envisioned to limit growth; and zoning
was implemented to limit traffic and to prevent ribbon development
along the roads. The recent plans for the NCR, i.e., the National
Capital Region Plans (NCRPs) 2001 and 2021, have also reiterated
the strengthening of spatial decentralization to reduce the popula-
tion influx in Delhi (TPO 1956; NCRPB 1988, 2005, 2013).
As policy documents, the NCRPs contain development pro-
posals or targets for different sectors (such as transport, settle-
ment patterns, power, water, and shelter) to be achieved within a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

certain period. The targets in different sectors are set to correspond

with the main goal of balanced regional development. The NCRP
(1988) contained, inter alia, transport and settlement pattern tar-
gets to be achieved by 2001. Similarly, the NCRP (2005) contained
targets for 2021, and the revised NCRP (2013) contains targets
for 2031.

Analysis of the Spatial Development of the NCR

Fig. 1. NCR and its participating states; DMA = Delhi Metropolitan
Area; NCT = National Capital Territory
In this section, the following aspects are analyzed: (1) the distribu-
tion of the population and employment, (2) development of the
settlement and population structure, (3) status of the transport infra-
structure provision, and (4) links between employment growth
and the expansion of the main transport network. Data on the
transport infrastructure and the growth targets from three NCRPs
(1988, 2005, 2013) are used in this analysis. In addition, the data
obtained from the Census of India’s Primary Abstract on tehsil-
level population and employment for 2001 and 2011 are used in
the analysis.

Population and Employment Distribution in the Region

According to the space-neutral approach (WB 2008; Gill 2010),
Table 1. Population and Area of the Participating States in the NCR (Data
from NCRPB 2013)
economic activity is not evenly spread at any given geographic
scale—global, national, or regional—but is often spiky. Fig. 2
Area Population illustrates this phenomenon in the NCR. The observed topology
Participating state (km2 ) (millions) in 2011 is uneven, with employment (and population, as the two are highly
Haryana subregion 13,428 11.03 correlated) being highly concentrated in and around Delhi and
NCT 1,483 16.75 in certain distant tehsils, such as Muzaffarnagar, Rewari, Mawana,
Rajasthan subregion 8,380 3.67 and Alwar.
Uttar Pradesh subregion 10,853 14.58 The observed reduction in spikes in Delhi between 2001 and
NCR (total) 34,144 46.03 2011 is an outcome of several factors. For one, Delhi’s master plans
Note: NCR = National Capital Region; NCT = National Capital Territory. attempted to limit growth by adopting a restrictive policy on

Fig. 2. Uneven topology-employment density (main workers per km2 ) in the NCR in 2001 and 2011; according to Census of India, workers who had
worked for most of the reference period (i.e., 6 months or more) are termed main workers

© ASCE 05017003-3 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1

 residential space and 580% for commercial space) (Mathur 2005),
which pushed development outside of Delhi.
Following a general overview, the next step involves a detailed
examination of the spatial distribution of population and employ-
ment in the NCR. For the analysis, constructing a set of zones
(labeled rings) in and around Delhi is helpful. The form of the re-
gion and the homogenous spatial distribution of the urban centers
enables demarcation of the rings in an intuitive way, defining the
rings with the simple criteria of proximity and common borders.
Ring 1 contains the 27 tehsils inside the NCT. Ring 2 contains
all the urban centers belonging to the CNCR. Rings 3, 4, and 5
contain more-distant tehsils. The results are depicted in Fig. 3.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In what follows, the special features of the developments in the core

Fig. 3. Indexing of tehsils in the NCR; NCT Delhi Ring 1 consists of
27 teshils
employment generation. Some of the recommendations included
relocating hazardous and noxious industrial units and heavy,
large-scale industries from Delhi, only permitting government of-
fices that directly serve ministries to be located in Delhi, and hier-
archically distributing the wholesale trade centers concentrated in
congested old Delhi at the local and regional levels (DDA 2010).
Unfortunately, the exact progress of these measures has not been
reported by the Delhi authorities; however, some figures on indus-
trial relocation can be traced. For instance, the Supreme Court
ordered the relocation of 168 and closure of 323 factories in 1996
(Kathuria 2001). The industrial relocation was also confirmed by
Chand (2012).
In addition, the 2010 Commonwealth Games led to the con-
struction of high-end infrastructure, such as the Delhi Metro, and
forced slum evacuation around central Delhi (Ghertner 2011).
Additionally, economic reforms since 1991 have led to a sharp
increase in Delhi’s real-estate prices (approximately 270% for
(Rings 1–2) and in the periphery (Rings 3–5) are analyzed.
Table 2 contains descriptive statistics on the population and em-
ployment distribution in the demarcated rings. The NCT is home to
as many residents as the next two rings, which together have an area
that is nine times that of the NCT. An important feature is the rapid
growth in Ring 2 compared to that in other rings. Ring 5, with
newly added tehsils, has the largest area and 10 million residents.
Thus, developments in this ring can influence the entire region.
A well-known measure of inequality, namely, the Gini coeffi-
cient, was used to further compare the development of the core
and the periphery. Table 3 lists the coefficients for the distribution
of tehsil-level employment density within the defined rings. For
the peripheral rings, the inequality measure is much higher because
they include only a few regional centers with high employment
densities. The remaining tehsils in these rings are relatively
sparsely populated. Between 2001 and 2011, the employment
inequality in Ring 1 (Delhi) decreased, whereas it increased in
all other rings.
The increase in the inequality of employment distribution in the
rings outside Delhi corresponds with the rapid growth of employ-
ment density (number of main workers per square kilometer), par-
ticularly in urban centers. In Delhi, the move towards more-equal
distribution of employment seems to be the result of factors that
contribute to a reduction in spikes, as described earlier.
Development of Urban Settlements
Despite the clearly stated decentralization objectives of the NCR,
the observed trends show that both population and economic
activity remain concentrated in Delhi’s immediate surroundings
(Table 2). Tables 4 and 5 show not only the dynamics of population
distribution in the NCR’s urban centers but also the targets set by
the regional plans. The 2011 data clearly reveal that the aggregate
target values were not reached and that the developments were (in
part) very different from those envisioned by the policy, particularly
for the share of population in the peripheral urban centers. The
growth targets (reflecting the decentralization goal) were very

Table 2. Population and Employment in the Defined Rings

Index Number of Area Population 2001 Population 2011 Main employment 2001 Main employment 2011
ring tehsils (km2 ) (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions)
1 27 1,455 13.8 16.8 4.3 5.3
2 10 3,873 5.7 8.1 1.6 2.3
3 19 8,835 7.3 8.8 1.9 2.2
4 19 8,051 6.3 7.7 1.7 2.0
5* 25 12,147 8.2 9.6 2.3 2.8
Note: Ring 5 includes tehsils that were added in 2015; according to Census of India, workers who had worked for most of the reference period (i.e., 6 months
or more) are termed main workers.

© ASCE 05017003-4 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1

 Table 3. Gini Coefficients for the Distribution of Main Employment in
the NCR
Index ring 2001 2011
1 0.37 0.33
2 0.29 0.33
3 0.22 0.28
4 0.50 0.52
5 0.55 0.55
optimistic, whereas actual development has generally followed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
previous trends.
Delhi’s population growth has recently slowed because of the
factors described previously, whereas the population in neighbor-
ing cities (within the CNCR) doubled in the last decade. This out-
ward movement of people to the suburbs has been partly attributed
to an improved commuter network (UN-Habitat 2008). In addition,
the special economic zone (SEZ) policy from 2000 might have
played a role in this migration pattern. SEZs are preferred by for-
eign companies, which require large spaces and world-class infra-
structure. Most SEZs in the NCR are located in the CNCR,
specifically in cities that neighbor Delhi, in Ring 2 (Table 6).
On the one hand, the location of the SEZs in the immediate
vicinity of Delhi actually contradicts the goals of the balanced
regional development (the growth of the peripheral centers). On the
other hand, given historical trends, the policy target of 80% growth
in the periphery seems to be unrealistic.
Table 7 provides more details about the planned and actual
population in the metropolitan and regional centers of the NCR.
It shows that the envisioned growth centers, including Delhi, did
not reach their population growth target by 2011. The only centers
that outperformed the plan were Gurgaon-Manesar complex,
Ghaziabad-Loni complex, Hapur-Pilkhuwa complex, and Noida.
This table identifies two main outliers: Gurgaon-Manesar and
greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).
The former attained more than double its planned growth, whereas
the latter could not attain its envisioned targets.
The growth in Gurgaon between 2001 and 2011 resulted from
the lifting of restrictions on the land-acquisition process and devel-
opment led by private builders. These factors, coupled with the
proximity to Delhi and the limited supply of land for business and
housing in Delhi, led to Gurgaon’s rampant growth during this
period (Rajagopalan and Tabarrok 2014). The factors responsible
for greater NOIDA’s failure to attain the envisioned growth include
the lack of direct connectivity with Delhi, the difficult law and order
Table 4. Cumulative Population Growth in the Urban Centers of the NCR in 10-Year Increments (Data from NCRPB 2005, 2013)
Location of urban centers 1981–1991 (%)
NCT Delhi 51.4
Metro and regional centers within the CNCR 87.4
Metro and regional centers outside the CNCR 46.1
Note: CNCR = central NCR; NCR = National Capital Region; NCT = National Capital Territory.
Table 5. Distribution of Population in the Urban Centers in the NCR (Data from NCRPB 2005, 2013)
Location of urban centers 1981 (%)
NCT Delhi 74.8
Metro and regional centers within CNCR 9.7
Metro and regional centers outside CNCR 15.6
Note: Columns add up to 100%, up to a rounding error; CNCR = central NCR; NCR = National Capital Region; NCT = National Capital Territory.
© ASCE 05017003-5
J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1
situation, and the scrapping of the international airport at Jewar
(ICICI 2013). Both cases are worthy of dedicated study.
Transport Infrastructure Provision
As described previously, road and rail infrastructure provision is a
key element of the decentralization policies included in the regional
plans. The available data from the regional plans (NCRPB 1988,
2005, 2013) allow an assessment of the progress toward the pro-
posed infrastructure targets for 2021. Unfortunately, no intermedi-
ate targets have been defined in these plans.
This assessment is limited to the primary rail and road infra-
structure projects that are described in the regional plans. The
regional plans contain maps of the existing transport network for
2002 and 2007 and maps of the planned network for 2021. For
other years, no maps that document the progress are available.
The geographical information system software ArcMap was used
to digitize the existing and planned road and rail transport net-
works from the regional plans (NCRPB 1988, 2005, 2013).
Although open-source databases such as MapCruzin, DIVA-GIS,
and Geofabrik were accessed to obtain transport shapefiles for
the NCR, the data’s lack of accuracy limited their use in the analy-
sis. The tehsil boundaries were superimposed on the transport
network in ArcMap to obtain the lengths of roads and railways
for each tehsil.
The calculations in Table 8 reveal that the road infrastructure
investments in the current plan are actually focused in the periph-
eral areas. In Delhi (Ring 1) and in the regional periphery (Rings 4
and 5), almost all the planned roads had been constructed by 2007,
whereas the implementation of the road transport proposals in the
tehsils neighboring Delhi (Rings 2 and 3) lagged behind. However,
Rings 2 and 3 experienced rapid growth in the last decade, indicat-
ing that factors other than the transport network influenced the
growth in these rings.
By contrast, the planned rail infrastructure investments are fo-
cused in areas in Rings 2 and 3, which contain most of the regional
centers. However, the rail infrastructure plan has not been imple-
mented in a long time. For instance, the Regional Rapid Transport
System, connecting Delhi with the interiors of surrounding states,
and the Orbital Rail Corridor, connecting the neighboring satellite
towns, have not been implemented (NCRPB 2013). Construction
work on a single rail line (Rewari–Jhajjar–Rohtak) commenced in
2011. The previous NCR rail infrastructure plan for 2001 was not
fulfilled either (proposed total railway length for 2001: 1,600 km;
actual length: 1,210 km).
1991–2001 (%) 2001–2011 (%) Plan for 2001–2011 (%)
47.0 21.2 39.3
86.7 99.5 81.4
42.8 39.7 80.0
1991 (%) 2001 (%) 2011 (%) Plan for 2011 (%)
73.5 71.5 64.2 66.0
11.7 14.5 21.4 17.4
14.8 13.9 14.4 16.6
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Table 6. Special Economic Zones in NCR in 2010 (Data from analysis focuses on the effects of the transport infrastructure pro-
Dupont 2011) vision on the peripheral areas of the NCR. Given a certain time
State City SEZ gap between the data on infrastructure availability in 2007 and the
census data on employment in 2011, estimating a link between
Delhi Delhi 3
Haryana Gurgaon 38 these variables might be possible. Specifically, a regression analy-
Faridabad 3 sis of the relationship between the change in the employment den-
Outside CNCR 4 sity between 2001 and 2011 and the increase in the density of
Uttar Pradesh Noida and Greater Noida 27 main roads between 2002 and 2007 has been conducted for
Ghaziabad 1 the peripheral areas. Rings 1 and 2 have not been included in this
Outside CNCR 6 analysis because very few new roads were added there during the
Note: CNCR = central NCR; NCR = National Capital Region. period in question. An analysis with more time points cannot be
conducted, as tehsil-level census data are only available every
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The metro lines in Delhi were constructed in different phases,
and the first phase started operating in 2001. Some metro lines are
still under construction. However, the metro has not been consid-
ered in further analysis because it only operates in Delhi and con-
nects to some of the surrounding towns; it does not integrate the
region.
An often-confirmed hypothesis in transportation research pos-
its that the increased accessibility of a given location drives the
creation of new economic activity and new jobs. The current
10 years.
An ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression has been used to
test this relationship. As further explanatory variables, indicators
related to the initial (2001) share of the urban population and to the
provision of basic infrastructure in urban settlements (due to a lack
of data on all the settlements inside the tehsils) have been used.
Urban road density is a ratio of the length of all permanent and
temporary urban roads to the urban area in 2001. Electricity pro-
vision is measured by the number of electricity connections per
urban household in 2001. These variables are related to the eco-
nomic potential of the studied areas, and they can have an impact

Table 7. Planned and Actual Population Distribution in the NCR

Index ring Name Total population in 2011 Proposed population in 2011
1 NCT Delhi 16,787,941 19,300,000
Metropolitan and regional center within the CNCR
2 Bahadurgarh (M Cl) 170,767 200,000
2 Faridabad (M Corp.) 1,414,050 1,600,000
2–3 Gurgaon-Manesar 909,967 450,000
2 Ghaziabad–Loni 2,164,725 1,900,000
2 Noida (CT) 637,272 600,000
2 Sonipat–Kundli 310,966 350,000
Metropolitan and regional center outside the CNCR
5 Alwar (M Cl + OG) 322,568 340,000
3 Baghpat–Baraut 154,074 160,000
4 Bhiwadi (M) 104,921 100,000
4 Bulandshahr–Khurja 351,231 370,000
2 Greater Noida (CT) 102,054 700,000
3 Hapur–Pilkhuwa 346,719 300,000
3 Meerut 1,398,741 1,500,000
3 Palwal (M Cl + OG) 131,926 170,000
4 Panipat (M Cl + OG) 295,970 500,000
4 Rewari (M Cl) 143,021 200,000
3 Rohtak (M Cl) 374,292 420,000
5 Shahjahanpur–Neemrana-Behror complex 46,511 100,000
Note: CT = census town; CNCR = central NCR; M CI = municipal corporation; M = municipality; NCR = National Capital Region; NCT Delhi = National
Capital Territory Delhi; OG = outgrowth.

Table 8. Transport Infrastructure Development (Data from NCRPPB 1988, 2005, 2013)
Index Planned increase in road Actual increase in road Percent of plan fulfilment Planned increase in rail Actual increase in rail
ring length 2002–2021 (km) length 2002–2007 (km) by 2007 (road) (%) length 2002–2021 (km) length 2002–2007 (km)
1 23.66 19.87 84 79.04 0.00
2 171.23 14.00 8 289.76 0.00
3 170.46 55.34 32 327.44 0.00
4 162.17 161.56 99 105.93 0.00
5a 397.51 397.51 100 0.00 0.00
Note: Roads include national and state highways for 2002, whereas these data include some of the major roads for 2007, which have been declassified from the
State Highway class; rail refers to the national railway.
a
In the analysis of infrastructure provision, the tehsils added in 2015 were not considered, as they were not yet covered by the regional infrastructure plans.

© ASCE 05017003-6 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1

 Table 9. Estimation Results: Absolute Change in Employment Density
2001–2011
Standard
Explanatory variable Coefficient error
Absolute change in main roads 533.9a 135.0
density 2002–2007
Share of urban population in 2001 106.8b 63.4
Electricity provision for urban 29.5c 13.6
households in 2001
Urban road density in 2001 33.6d 7.4
(all roads)
Constant −32.3b 16.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Note: N ¼ 50 (tehsils); R2 ¼ 0.65; Moran’s I for residuals (weighting
based on 10 nearest neighbors): z-score ¼ 1.31, p-value ¼ 0.19. Main
roads include national highways, state highways and major roads, whereas
urban roads include temporary and permanent roads inside urban areas.
a
p < 0.001.
b
p < 0.1.
c
p < 0.05.
d
p < 0.01.
on the employment growth. Additional available infrastructure
variables, such as the number of schools and water provision, have
been considered, but they have been excluded from the analysis due
to multicollinearity concerns.
The results presented in Table 9 suggest a positive relationship
between an increase in the density of the main road network and an
increase in employment density (number of main workers per
square kilometer) in the peripheral area. Additionally, the results
suggest that new jobs were more rapidly created in the areas with
initially larger urban populations. According to this estimation,
higher values for both infrastructure provision indicators also have
a positive effect on employment growth.
Because of the nature of the main road infrastructure construc-
tion, there is spatial autocorrelation in this explanatory variable
(positive values of road density change are clustered along the
transport corridors). However, this autocorrelation does not create
a serious problem for the presented statistical analysis. The value of
the Moran’s I statistic for the model residuals suggests that their
pattern is not significantly different from random. Given the small
size of the sample and the lack of possibly relevant variables, such
as private and public investment, there is also little room to conduct
a comprehensive spatial analysis. Nevertheless, the omission of
such variables directly linked to job creation probably leads to
an upward bias in estimating the effect of main road density
change.
Discussion
Some of the factors responsible for the resulting development in the
NCR have been explained in the previous sections. This section
discusses further planning and implementation problems, which
seem to have led to the limited success of the envisioned plans for
balanced regional development.
Lack of Integration in Economic and Spatial Planning
The investigations identify a spatial disparity in the NCR and a re-
lationship between employment growth and transport infrastructure
provision. Therefore, reducing disparities and achieving balanced
regional development will require the integration of spatial plans
and infrastructure investments. However, in India, major policy
interventions take the form of economic planning at the national
© ASCE 05017003-7
J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1
level. The five-year economic plans center on top-down decision
making by the central government. These plans provide spending
for different infrastructure sectors, and they are supposed to be
implemented from the state level down to the district and tehsil
levels, even at the local level (i.e., in villages and towns). These
investments then influence spatial development. By contrast, spa-
tial planning starts at the regional or city level and is limited to
certain regions and cities, which results in a lack of infrastructure-
integrated spatial development.
At the state level, Town and Country Planning Departments
prepare these spatial plans, which emphasize the decentralization
of the population and employment to achieve balanced regional
growth (NCRPB 1988; MMRDA 1999; KMDA 2006) and include
land-use and transportation aspects. However, the implementation
of these plans is not mandatory. Additionally, the national gov-
ernment created the National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP),
and the cities’ comprehensive mobility and transportation plans
are recommended to be in alignment with this policy. Hence, de-
spite the formulation of plans, the envisioned balanced develop-
ment has not been achieved because these recommendations are
not enforced.
Fragmented Governance and Multiple Authorities
The examination of the NCR reveals high growth rates in the tehsils
surrounding the Delhi state, which are located in Haryana and Uttar
Pradesh states. These tehsils have grown by taking advantage of
their close proximity to Delhi rather than the proposed plans, which
has hindered transport-integrated spatial development in the NCR.
The fragmented composition of the region, which is composed of
different states with different political parties and self-interests, has
contributed to this outcome. According to the Indian Constitution,
land and urban transport are handled by state governments. If the
region is composed of three to four states, as in the NCR, imple-
menting cross-border infrastructure, e.g., a transportation network,
is complicated because of the lack of cooperation among the
participating states.
Additionally, the fragmentation of relevant government respon-
sibilities makes integration difficult. For instance, the construction
of a national highway was limited to Delhi and did not extend to the
neighboring state of Uttar Pradesh because the two states had dif-
ferent ruling parties. Furthermore, Delhi Transport Corporation
buses were seized by Uttar Pradesh’s state government for covering
extra mileage (Dutt 1999).
The presence of multiple authorities with overlapping functions
hampers transport-integrated spatial development. For instance,
national, state, and municipal authorities are involved with various
aspects of transportation decisions (Tiwari 2011). On the one hand,
the main railway lines and highways are subject to the authority
of state and national governments; on the other hand, buses are
subject to the authority of state governments, and feeder roads are
the responsibility of municipalities or development authorities. In
addition, several transport agencies are responsible for planning,
designing, and managing transport services, which operate inde-
pendently (NCRPB 2013). The lack of a single unified regional
authority that is responsible for NCR transportation planning and
implementation makes the process of regional transport integration
rather problematic.
Unrealistic Long-Term Plans and the Broken Hierarchy
of Urban Governance
The analysis reveals that rail infrastructure provision in the NCR
is lagging behind the plans’ targets. This lag is due to the region’s
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 unduly long plan-making process; in addition, the region has paid
inadequate attention to the provision of trunk infrastructure and
financing issues (ADB 2010; Meshram 2006). For instance, the
regional and master plans are long-term plans that are prepared
for 20-year to 25-year periods. Due to a lack of resources (such
as workers and finance), monitoring or interim evaluations of
the plans are not conducted. As a result, despite adopting scientific
methods to obtain land and infrastructure requirement projections
in order to accommodate growth, these infrastructure proposals
do not meet their targets, thus making them unrealistic proposals
without budgets.
In addition, the broken hierarchy of urban governance in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
NCR has deterred the integration of transport and spatial develop-
ment, thereby accelerating spatial disparities. For example, the
74th Constitution Amendment Act (CAA) of 1992 favored decen-
tralization and recommended the formation of both Metropolitan
Planning Committee’s (MPC) and a District Planning Committee’s
(DPC) (PC 2013). For spatial planning in large areas that encom-
pass both rural and urban areas, plans from the rural and urban gov-
erning bodies must be coordinated at the district level by the DPCs
and at the metropolitan level by the MPCs. However, in most states,
the MPC and the DPC are dysfunctional (GoI 2007).
Policy Implications
Achieving spatial decentralization in the NCR and similar regions
will require a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches. First, as
a top-down approach, the lacking integration of economic and spa-
tial planning will require the introduction of spatial planning at the
national level, which should be followed by lower-tier planning,
similar to economic plans. The economic plans specify spending
for different infrastructure sectors, which need to be integrated with
spatial plans. This infrastructure-integrated spatial planning at the
national level has to be enforced in lower-tier planning.
Second, as a bottom-up approach, overcoming fragmented
governance and multiple authorities in the NCR will require a uni-
fied regional authority that is empowered to plan and implement
regional plans. A political willingness among the states in the re-
gion is needed to rise above vested interests in favor of regional
development. Under the current institutional set-up, the Indian
Constitution specifies a hierarchy to achieve coordinated growth
in the region; however, due to the state government’s lack of
willingness, this hierarchy (such as the MPCs and the DPCs) is
broken. Budget allocation from the central government to state
governments could be made dependent on the state government’s
willingness to coordinate and cooperate with regard to regional
infrastructure projects.
As such, the formulation of long-term plans under the prevailing
growth trend is unrealistic; these plans must be monitored and re-
formed at shorter intervals to better respond to growth pressures.
Additionally, the local authorities are highly reliant on the state
and central governments for urban infrastructure funding. To re-
duce this reliance, local governments have to be able to generate
revenue to fund their own urban infrastructures, which can be
achieved by specifying fiscal instruments, such as user fees and
property taxes, in the spatial plans.
Conclusions
This study has investigated tehsil-level patterns of regional devel-
opment in the NCR and has discussed their relationship with the
official decentralization policy. The study’s major empirical find-
ings are as follows:
© ASCE 05017003-8
J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1
• Population growth is concentrated in and around Delhi, and
most of the envisioned regional growth centers have not met
the population targets set by the decentralization policy;
• Aggregate population growth rates in urban centers re-
semble historical trends rather than the envisioned policy
targets;
• Population and employment are unequally distributed in the
region. Employment inequality has decreased in Delhi, whereas
it has increased in peripheral areas;
• Major road-infrastructure provision is positively related to
employment growth in the affected tehsils. Overall, growth
seems to be higher in areas with better basic infrastructure
provision. Rail infrastructure provision in the NCR lags be-
hind the planned target; therefore, its impact could not be
analyzed; and
• The location of the SEZs in the CNCR contradicts the spatial
decentralization policy.
The Delhi NCR is considered a laboratory for future develop-
ment to reduce the spatial disparities endemic to India’s develop-
ment process. As the analysis in this paper shows, the goals of
balanced regional development in the NCR are far from being
realized. Reducing disparities will require a mix of top-down and
bottom-up approaches to enforce infrastructure-integrated spatial
development and to strengthen regional and local authorities to
facilitate plan formulation and implementation.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Marcel Thum, Clemens Deilmann, and
Namperumal Sridharan for their comments on an earlier draft of
this paper.
References
ADB (Asian Development Bank). (2010). “Proposed multitranche
financing facility India: National Capital Region urban infrastructure
financing facility.” Project No. 4159, Asian Development Bank,
Mandaluyong, Philippines.
Ali, M., and Varshney, D. (2012). “Spatial modelling of urban growth and
urban influence: Approach of regional development in developing
economy.” J. Urban Reg. Anal., 4(2), 129–148.
Annez, P., and Buckley, R. (2009). “Urbanization and growth: Setting
the context.” Urbanization and growth, M. Spence, P. Annez, and
R. Buckley, eds., World Bank, Washington, D.C.
ArcMap 10.4.1 [Computer software]. Geographic Information System
Environment, Redlands, CA.
Banerjee, T. (1996). “Role of indicators in monitoring growing urban
regions: The case of planning in India’s national capital region.” J. Am.
Plann. Assoc., 62(2), 222–235.
Barca, F., McCann, P., and Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2012). “The case for
regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral
approaches.” J. Reg. Sci., 52(1), 134–152.
Batten, D. (1995). “Network cities: Creative urban agglomeration for the
21st century.” Urban Studies, 32(2), 313–327.
Baum-Snow, N., Brandt, L., Henderson, J., Turner, M., and Zhangd, Q.
(2015). “Roads, railroads and decentralization of Chinese cities.”
Working Paper, International Growth Center, London.
Berry, B. (1967). Geography of market centers and retail distribution,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bröcker, J., Korzhenevych, A., and Schürmann, C. (2010). “Assessing
spatial equity and efficiency impacts of transport infrastructure
projects.” Transp. Res. Part B, 44(7), 795–811.
Camagni, R., and Salone, C. (1993). “Network urban structures in northern
Italy: Elements for a theoretical framework.” Urban Studies, 30(6),
1053–1064.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Cantos, P., Gumbau-Albert, M., and Maudos, J. (2005). “Transport
infrastructures, spillover effects and regional growth: Evidence of the
Spanish case.” Transp. Rev., 25(1), 25–50.
Chand, P. (2012). “Implications of industrial relocation on workers in
Delhi.” Social Change, 42(1), 49–68.
Chen, Y., and Zhou, Y. (2006). “Reprinting central place networks using
ideas from fractals and self-organized critically.” Environ. Plann. B,
33(3), 345–364.
Datta, P. (2006). “Urbanisation in India.” European Population Conf.,
Bratislava, Slovak Republic.
DDA (Delhi Development Authority). (2010). “Master plan for
Delhi-2021.” Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi, India.
DIVA-GIS [Computer software]. LizardTech, Inc., Seattle.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Dodgson, J. (1973). “External effects and secondary benefits in road invest-
ment appraisal.” J. Transp. Econ. Policy, 7(2), 169–185.
Dupont, V. (2011). “The dream of Delhi as a global city.” Int. J. Urban Reg.
Res., 35(3), 533–554.
Dutt, A. (1999). “Organisations and approaches for the development and
provision of infrastructure in the NCT of Delhi.” Urban growth and
development in Asia—Volume 1: Making the cities, G. P. Chapman,
A. K. Dutt, and R. W. Bradnock, eds., Ashgate, Sydney, Australia,
455–480.
Geofabrik [Computer software]. Geofabrik GmbH, Karlsruhe,
Germany.
Ghani, E., Goswami, A., and Kerr, W. (2015). “Highway to success:
The impact of the golden quadrilateral project for the location
and performance of Indian manufacturing.” Econ. J., 126(591),
317–357.
Ghertner, D. (2011). “Gentrifying the state, gentrifying participation:
Elite governance programs in Delhi.” Int. J. Urban Reg. Res., 35(3),
504–532.
Gill, I. (2010). “Regional development policies: Place-based or people-
centred?” 〈http://www.voxeu.org/article/regional-development-policies
-place-based-or-people-centred〉 (Sep. 19, 2015).
GoI (Government of India). (2001a). “Primary census abstract: Open
Government Data (OGD) platform India.” The Registrar General and
Census Commissioner. New Delhi.
GoI (Government of India). (2001b). “Towns Directory-2001: Delhi,
Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan. Ministry of home affairs.”
The Registrar General and Census Commissioner, New Delhi,
India.
GoI (Government of India). (2006). “Towards faster and more inclusive
growth. An Approach to the 11th Five Year Plan (2007-2012).”
Planning Commission, New Delhi, India.
GoI (Government of India). (2007). “Local governance: An inspiring
journey into the future.” Sixth Rep., Second Administrative Reform
Commission, New Delhi, India.
GoI (Government of India). (2011a). “Primary census abstract: Ministry of
home affairs.” The Registrar General and Census Commissioner,
New Delhi, India.
GoI (Government of India). (2011b). “Provisional population totals: Urban
agglomerations and cities.” Ministry of Home Affairs, The Registrar
General and Census Commissioner, New Delhi, India.
Grant-Muller, S., Mackie, P., Nellthorp, J., and Pearman, A. (2001). “Eco-
nomic appraisal of European transport projects: The state of the art
revisited.” Transp. Rev., 21(2), 237–261.
Henderson, V. (2002). “Urbanization in developing countries.” World Bank
Res. Obs., 17(1), 89–112.
Hsu, W.-T. (2012). “Central place theory and city size distribution.” Econ.
J., 122(563), 903–932.
ICICI (Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India). (2013).
“Greater Noida and Noida extension: Micro-market analysis.” ICICI
Property Services, ICICI PSG Research and Consultancy, Mumbai,
India.
Jain, M., and Siedentop, S. (2014). “Is spatial decentralization in national
capital region Delhi, India effective? An intervention-based evaluation.”
Habitat Int., 42, 30–38.
Jain, M., Siedentop, S., Taubenböck, H., and Sridharan, N. (2013). “Sub-
urbanisation to counterurbanisation? Investigating dynamics of urban
© ASCE 05017003-9
J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1
development in national capital region Delhi.” Environ. Urbanization
ASIA, 4(2), 247–266.
Kanbur, R., and Venables, A. (2007). “Spatial inequality and development:
Overview of UNU-WIDER Project.” Global inequality, D. Held and
A. Kaya, eds., Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Kathuria, V. (2001). “Relocating polluting units: Parochialism versus right
to live?” Econ. Political Weekly, 36(3), 191–195.
Kennedy, L., et al. (2011). “The politics of large-scale economic and infra-
structure projects in fast-growing cities of the south: Literature review.”
Chance 2 Sustain, Bonn, Germany.
Khanna, G. (2014). “The road oft taken: The route to spatial development.”
〈http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2426835〉 (Nov.
27, 2015).
KMDA (Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority). (2006). “City de-
velopment plan for Kolkata metropolitan area: An appraisal.” 〈http://
jnnurm.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Kolkata_rep1.pdf〉 (Jun. 15,
2016).
Kundu, A. (2011). “Trends and processes of urbanization in India.”
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED),
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), London.
Laird, J., Nellthorp, J., and Mackie, P. (2005). “Network effects and
total economic impact in transport appraisal.” Transp. Policy, 12(6),
537–544.
Maiti, S., and Agrawal, P. (2005). “Environmental degradation in the
context of growing urbanization: A focus on the metropolitan cities
of India.” J. Human Ecol., 17(4), 277–287.
MapCruzin [Computer software]. HostGIS, Arcata, CA.
Markandey, K., and Anant, G. (2011). “National settlement system of
India.” Urban growth theories and settlement systems of India,
K. Markandey and G. Anant, eds., Concept Publishing Company,
New Delhi, India.
Mathur, O. (2005). “Impact of globalisation on cities and city-related pol-
icies in India.” Globalisation and urban development, H. Richardson
and C.-H. C. Bae, eds., Springer, Germany.
Meijers, E. (2007). “From central place to network model: Theory and evi-
dence of a paradigm-change.” Tijdschriftvoor Economischeen Sociale
Geografie, 98(2), 245–259.
Meshram, D. (2006). “Master planning approach: Constraints and
prospects.” Urban governance and management: Indian initiatives,
P. Rao, ed., Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi, India.
MMRDA (Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority). (1999).
“Summary.” Mumbai, India.
Mookherjee, D., and Geyer, M. (2011). “Urban growth in the national
capital region of India: Testing the differential urbanization model.”
Tijdschriftvoor Econ. Sociale Geografie, 102(1), 88–99.
Mookherjee, D., Geyer, M., and Hoerauf, E. (2014). “Delhi and its periph-
eral region: Perspectives on settlement growth.” Urban transforma-
tions: Centers, peripheries and systems, D. Donoghue, ed., Canterbury
Christ Church Univ., Ashgate, U.K.
NCRPB (National Capital Region Planning Board). (1987). “Draft regional
plan 2001-National capital region.” Planning Dept., Ministry of Urban
Development, Government of India, India.
NCRPB (National Capital Region Planning Board). (1988). “Regional plan
2001-National capital region.” Planning Dept., Ministry of Urban
Development, Government of India, India.
NCRPB (National Capital Region Planning Board). (2005). “Regional plan
2021-National capital region.” Planning Dept., Ministry of Urban
Development, Government of India, India.
NCRPB (National Capital Region Planning Board). (2013). “Draft revised
regional plan 2021: National capital region.” Ministry of Urban Devel-
opment, Government of India, India.
PC (Planning Commission). (2013). “Twelfth five year plan (2012–2017):
Economic sectors.” Government of India, Vol. II, SAGE Publications
India, New Delhi, India.
Rajagopalan, S., and Tabarrok, A. (2014). “Lessons from Gurgaon, India’s
private city.” Working Paper No. 14–32, Dept. of Economics, George
Mason Univ., Fairfax, VA.
Saitluanga, B. (2013). “Globalisation, urbanisation and spatial inequality
in India with special reference to North East India.” Space Culture
India, 1(2), 21–34.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Sankhe, S., et al. (2010). “India’s urban awakening: Building inclusive
cities, sustaining economic growth.” Mckinsey Global Institute, London.
Sridhar, K. (2007). “Density gradients and their determinants: Evidence
from India.” Reg. Sci. Urban Econ., 37(3), 314–344.
Sridhar, K. (2010). “Impact of land use regulations: Evidence from India’s
cities.” Urban Studies, 47(7), 1541–1569.
Tiwari, G. (2011). “Key mobility challenges in Indian cities.” ernational
Transport Forum, Leipzig, Germany.
TPO (Town Planning Organization). (1956). “Interim general plan for
greater Delhi.” Ministry of Health, Government of India, Delhi, India.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
UN-Habitat (United Nation Habitat). (2008). State of the world’s cities
2008/2009: Harmonious cities, Earthscan, London.
Vaidya, C. (2009). “Urban issues, reforms and way forward in India.”
Working Paper No. 4/2009-DEA, DEA, Springfield, VA.
WB (World Bank). (2008). “India: Accelerating growth and development in
the lagging regions of India.” Rep. No. 41101-IN, Poverty Reduction
and Economic Management, Washington, DC.
WB (World Bank). (2013). “Urbanization beyond municipal boundaries:
Nurturing metropolitan economies and connecting peri-urban areas
in India.” Washington, D.C.

© ASCE 05017003-10 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., -1--1