Author
Listed:
- A. I. Salitskii
- I. G. Chubarov
Abstract
The course of urbanization in India and China is notable not only for the scale, but also for the different role of the state. Despite the abundance of materials, comparative studies are scarce: local urbanists only passionate about national processes, while foreigners could lack a deep knowledge of the context. The pace of urbanization of the two countries, which was on a par for a long time, diverged drastically after the beginning of market reforms. According to official data, the share of citizens in China is almost twice as high as in India, though due to the differences in the criteria, the real gap could be less. Each country possesses six megacities larger than 10 million people, but the Indian urban system as a whole is less structurally balanced. The standards of living, infrastructure development and global integration of the Chinese urban centers are higher than those of the Indian counterparts. In accordance with international practice, both countries have adopted guidelines for the cities development. The Indian “Ten Urban Sutras† (2018) are advisory recommendation, mainly devoted to urban planning and management. Their implementation depends fully on the state governments. The coverage of China’s “newtype urbanization†(2014) is much wider. Its main goal is to increase the number of urban residents while limiting the size of the largest cities. The main tool is the reform of the registration system (hukou). This is a comprehensive national program: implementation is coordinated by the high-level interministerial working group, the goals are mandatory for local authorities. The differences in the regulation of urbanization correspond to differences in political systems, and their analysis is important in the context of studying the modernization pathways of developing countries.
Suggested Citation
A. I. Salitskii & I. G. Chubarov, 2023.
"Urbanization and National Urban Policy in India and China: a Comparative Analysis,"
Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law, Center for Crisis Society Studies, vol. 15(5).
Handle:
RePEc:ccs:journl:y:2023:id:1158
DOI: 10.31249/kgt/2022.05.06
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ccs:journl:y:2023:id:1158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Кривопалов Ð Ð»ÐµÐºÑ ÐµÐ¹ Ð Ð»ÐµÐºÑ ÐµÐµÐ²Ð¸Ñ‡ (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.