Study on Urbanization Trends in BRICS

A detailed Study of Urbanization Trends in BRICS countries

DEBARTHA MANDAL

AcknowledgementI would like to thank National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) for giving me the opportunity to work here. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my mentor, Dr. Debolina Kundu, Associate Professor, NIUA, for establishing and encouraging me to complete the research paper.

I wish to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to my guide, Ms. Pragya Sharma for guiding me throughout the research paper and providing me all the supports I needed, her immense interest in the topic resulted in its successful completion.

I would like to thank Dr. Arpita Banerjee for providing me all the help with data processing and analysis.

I would also like to place on record my special thanks and gratitude to Mr. T.C.Sharma, Mrs. Indu Senan and Mrs. Sangeeta Vijh, The Computer & Technical unit for providing me all the technical support from the beginning of the research paper.

Lastly, I would like to thank my parents for always standing by my side and providing all the moral support.

Contents Page no

1. Introduction .......................................................................................4-5

2. Urban Transition among BRICS Countries

2.1. Brazil .........................................................................................5-12

2.2. Russia .......................................................................................12-20

2.3. India .........................................................................................21-24

2.4. China ........................................................................................25-33

2.5. South Africa .............................................................................34-42

3. Common Challenges in BRICS ......................................................42-53

4. Conclusion ........................................................................................54-55

5. References ........................................................................................56-57

BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The grouping was originally known as "BRIC" before the inclusion of South Africa in 2010. The BRICS members are all developing or newly industrialised countries, but they are distinguished by their large, fast-growing economies and significant influence on regional and global affairs. The five BRICS countries represent almost 3 billion people, or approximately 40% of the world population; as all five members are in the top 25 of the world by population, and four are in the top 10. The five nations have a combined nominal GDP of US$16.039 trillion, equivalent to approximately 20% of the gross world product, and an estimated US$4 trillion in combined foreign reservesThe BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India and China] idea was first conceived in 2001 by Goldman Sachs as part of an economic modelling exercise to forecast global economic trends over the next half century; the acronym BRIC was first used in 2001 by Goldman Sachs in their Global Economics Paper No. 66, “The World Needs Better Economic BRICs”

Study on Urbanisation Trends in BRICS

AbstractThis paper focuses on the Urbanisation trends in Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa over the period of time: from the Pre-Urbanisation Period to Post-Urbanisation Period. It also speaks about the then Socio-Economic and Administration Scenario and their effect on Population Trends, Divisions, and Urbanization Policies which affected the Urbanisation. The paper also analyses the common challenges these countries are facing.

1. IntroductionUrbanisation and Urban growth are complexly twisted with economic growth and the BRICS countries are no exception. The BRICS countries accounted for about 47 per cent of real growth in the gross world product between 2000 and 2010. As a result, their combined share of gross world product (GWP) increased from 17 to 26 per cent (World Bank Development Data Group 2011). Their economic importance is expected to increase further in the coming years. Four of the BRICS - Brazil, India, China, and Russia were listed in the planet’s ten biggest economies in 2010 and they are all expected to raise their ranking by 2020, as we can see from the given table.

Table 1: Top 10 largest economies by GDP in PPP terms: 2010 and 2020

Country-2010 GDP($Million) Country- 2020 GDP ($Million)USA 148,02,081 China 281,24,970China 97,11,244 USA 226,44,910Japan 42,67,492 India 102,25,943India 39,12,911 Japan 61,96,979Germany 28,61,117 Russia 43,26,987Russia 22,21,755 Germany 39,81,033United Kingdom 21,83,277 Brazil 38,68,813France 21,54,399 United Kingdom 33,60,442Brazil 21,38,888 France 32,14,921Italy 17,67,120 Mexico 28,38,722

Source: Euro monitor International from IMF: International Financial Statistics & World Economic Outlook/UN/national statistics.

There are historical evidences that economic activities grows and concentrate in certain areas and as the level of income increases it induces population from other areas. The BRICS vastly differ their individual experiences of 'Urban Transition' and offer inspiring examples on how to optimise urbanisation's opportunities and speaks about how the pitfalls and

problems, inappropriate policies can bring. Policymakers in other countries facing similar challenges might be able to deal more successfully with their own urban transitions by reflecting on this narrative, which considers both failed policies of the past and innovative but partly proven policies of the present. The intention of this study is to provide the basis for such reflection.

2. Urban Transition among BRICS

2.1. Brazil

In Brazil the urbanization is surpassing than most of the European countries. Despite historical differences in timing and context, the trajectory of urbanization in this country holds many parallels and key lessons for other countries currently undergoing rapid urban growth.

Over the last 80 years, Brazil has reached an advanced stage of urban transition in terms of the number and size of its cities and the integration of its urban system. But the road to a high level of urbanization has been exhausting and socially disruptive. Brazilian cities and their inhabitants still face stiff economic, social and environmental challenges. These difficulties originate from two principal factors: a historically rooted and enduring structure of social inequality, and the persistent failure to foresee, accept and plan for massive urban growth. Inequality came over on the boats with the highly stratified social system of the Portuguese colonizers. Over the centuries it has been reproduced through the social structures and cultural patterns underlying the various colonial, imperial, republican, military and democratic regimes that have succeeded each other since the arrival of the first explorers.

Trends in urbanisation for Brazil has four distinct periods.First period was settlement under Portuguese Colonisation Era that have persisted to current days.Second period centres on the origins of rapid urban growth in the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of 20th century.Third period looks at the Brazilian urban explosion between 1930 and 1980.Fourth period examines the trends in urban growth during the 'late transitional period' from 1980 to present day.

The Federative Republic of Brazil is South America's largest country in terms of both population- 202,656,788 and geographical size- 8,515,770 sq km). It is filled to the brim with intriguing people, history, religion, culture and sporting greatness. Characterized by large and developed agricultural, mining, manufacturing and service sectors, Brazil's economy outweighs all other South American countries. Since 2003, Brazil has steadily improved its macroeconomic stability, built up foreign reserves and reduced its debt. After the continuous growth till the end of 2007, the onset of global financial crisis hit Brazil in September 2008. Brazil experienced two quarters of recession, as global demand for its commodity based exports

First period (15th-mid 19th century)From the 15th to 19th century, Portuguese colonisers of Brazil were less interested in settlements than in exploiting the occupied territories' riches. When the Portuguese and Spanish explorers arrived in the New World they set up an urban system designed to fit their own mercantile aspirations, restructuring the systems already existed. The gamut of cities then established, later served as the nucleus of an urban network and the springboard for subsequent urban growth.

The Portuguese took over the vast area called 'Brazil', It was outward oriented. With the motive of extracting riches for their crowned masters from the new world, they established an agricultural-extract economy in which urban areas(mainly ports) were mainly 'launch pads' for exploiting the hinterland, as well as ports to channel New World produce back to motherland and serve as defensive strongholds against other colonizing powers Brazil had lots of towns and cities along the coast line but regional trade and economies remained undeveloped because maritime transport focused on maintaining contacts beyond Brazil's borders instead of maintaining it inside country.

With the Portuguese, the Spanish colonizers moved into regions where the indigenous populations had created many big cities, Data on size, indigenous population at that time estimates ranging 1 million to 10 million. With the end of The Restoration War between the Portuguese and Spanish in 1668, Spanish era ended in Brazil and the cities built by them were then overridden, destroyed or adopted by the Portuguese colonizer's model.

Second period (last of 19th- mid 20th century)In 1851, the main concern was about the occupation of the interior which prompted the construction of the first planned capital in Teresina, Piaui, which was to remain the only state capital of the 13 north-eastern states not located on the coastline. By 1872, Brazil had ten municipalities with 20,000 or more inhabitants, all located on the coastline, apart from São Paulo. Even now, maps of Brazil still reflect the coastal density of the colonial period. Another planned city, Belo Horizonte, was built in 1897 in the former heart of the diamond and gold extracting region, which soon became one of the then four largest cities in the country. Nevertheless, such initiatives had little impact on the coastal character of the urban network.

A population survey carried in the year 1940 showed that just 8 percent of the population lived in municipalities with a total (urban and rural) population of 20,000 or more. Only three municipalities (Salvador, Rio de Janeiro and Recife) had more than 100,000 inhabitants in total (Martine and McGranahan, August 2010). The nation’s capital started getting transferred from Salvador to Rio de Janeiro at the end of the 18th century in order to better control the flow of minerals from the interior states of Minas Gerais and Goias. Modernisation of the European economy coupled with the escalation of International Commercial Relations and movement towards the elimination of slavery, had various effects in the New World. Till this point, all different cycles of economic activities primarily depended on slave and quasi-servile labour, and so was the delay in the formation of an internal market. The dominant social class, formed during the agricultural cycles, was composed of anti-urban landowners who occupied large tracts of land grants and depended on coastal towns for markets and supplies. The only economic activities able to attract significant population contingents towards the interior were the extractive cycles. When in the last great economic cycle of the colonial period, the locus of production eventually shifted to coffee to the state of São Paulo in the latter half of the 19th century, it marked a significant

turning point in Brazil’s economic history. This would determine its demographic and urban trajectory, and can be said as the starting point of country’s precocious process of urbanization.

One of the main reasons for this up rise was its ability to shift away from slave labour and attracting a large number of immigrant labourers to its coffee plantations. Some 4 million immigrants (estimated) entered the country between 1880 and 1930, with 1 million arriving in the period between 1880 and 1890 alone. About 70 per cent of the new arrivals settled in the state of Sao Paulo. The introduction of salaried labour then attracted more internal and international migrants, and later helped in encouraging the formation of an internal market. It was also in Sao Paulo that food production was first commercialized, coffee processing mechanized, and railway transport and other urban infrastructure and services promoted. The Brazilian State also began to assume a more direct role in economic affairs around this time, helping draw immigrants from the Old World and subsidizing the construction of private railroads. The alliance between the political power of Rio de Janeiro and the economic power of Sao Paulo laid the foundations for the dominance of the Rio–Sao Paulo axis.

Third Period (1930-1980): Brazilian Urban ExplosionThe global crisis forced by the US stock market crash of 1929 caused a sudden drop in world prices for Brazil’s agricultural products, and was particularly disrupted its coffee-based economy, centred in the rich lands of São Paulo state. As a result of the sudden abandonment of labour-intensive coffee production, substantial levels of out-migration by the rural labour force accumulated over various economic cycles in previous centuries, especially the most recent cycle centred on coffee production in Sao Paulo.

Intense migration and Declining mortality rate, The two broad trends in population redistribution and the creation of SUDENE (Superintendence for the development of the North-east) initiated at this point were to last for the next 50 years. These two simultaneous but contradictory movements involved the progressive occupation of the interior, and the concentration of populations in ever-larger cities.

Intense Migration:The first significant migrations to urban centres began after the 1929 market crash and the sudden dismissal of international ties following Brazil’s balance of payment problems. Population inflows towards the interior began in the 1930s and 1940s, with the occupation of new agricultural lands in the states of Sao Paulo, Parana and Santa Catarina. Rural populations streamed into the centre-west region in the 1950s and 1960s, and the Amazon region in the 1970s.This provided the motivation for Import-Substituting Industrialization and the Modernization of the productive process and labour relations. Many immigrants in Sao Paulo who had come to Brazil as agricultural labourers turned their attention to the industrial and services sectors. Success in these new endeavours would later transform several of these immigrant families into some of the country’s most powerful economic leaders. Intense migration to the cities created housing shortages, public sanitation problems and the first signs of political mobilization. These conditions later helped in encouraging the first government attempts at economic involvement, as well as investments in public health, social welfare, basic education and regulation of the labour market. Although the absorption into cities was chaotic, the migrants helped in generating a new economic dynamism, particularly in the São Paulo area.

The State also played a more active role in the economy and in improving social conditions, particularly in urban areas. By the time the first comprehensive demographic census was taken in 1940, the urban population had jumped to 31 per cent of the total population. More than half of these city-dwellers lived in the 50 localities in Brazil that had at least 20,000 inhabitants, among them, 16 localities were located in the state of Sao Paulo. The rural–urban movements of the 1930s increased in the 1940s as a result of the Second World War. Domestic demand for industrial products was boosted by a growing international market, and with immigration curtailed by the war, rural–urban migrants became the main source of labour for industries that were operating double shifts in order to keep up with demand. At this time the government also began to make a more concentrated effort to improve the social conditions of urban workers. Altogether, some 41 million net migrants moved from rural to urban areas between 1940 and 1980. Despite a dramatic drop in rural–urban migration after 1980, rural–urban migrants still equated to about one-quarter of the respective rural populations enumerated at the beginning of each decade.

Figure 2: Estimates of net rural–urban migration (in millions) by gender, Brazil (1940–2000)

1950-1955

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

1970-1975

1975-1980

1980-1985

1985-1990

1990-1995

1995-2000

2000-2005

2005-2010

2010-2015

-150-100-50

050

100150 Net Rural–Urban Migration

Year

No

of M

igra

nts

(in m

il-lio

n)

* Source: World Urbanisation Prospects Database, 2012

One of the defining characteristics of Brazilian urbanization between 1930 and 1980 was the progressive concentration of populations in larger cities. The urban growth rates in different-sized settlements shown in Table 5 (based on localities with over 20,000 inhabitants) are consistent with roughly equal growth rates in localities of all sizes. This is partly due to the fact that dynamic cities quickly move from one size class to another between one decade and the next. Efforts to identify such cities and the factors underlying their rapid growth are considered later in this study.

Decline in Mortality Rate:Another crucial factor at this point was higher rates of natural population increaseas mortality levels declined due to improved sanitation and imported technologies to control infectious diseases. It helped to accelerate demographic growth. The increased demand for labour and higher demographic growth rates initiated further migration and rapid urban growth.

In the period between 1940 and 1950, an estimated 3 million migrants moved to towns and cities from rural areas, which is equivalent to 10 per cent of the rural

population in 1940. The number of cities with at least 20,000 population rose from 51 to 80, while the level of urbanization rose to 36 per cent in 1950 according to the official definition, and to 21 per cent according to the urban localities’ definition. The fundamental factors driving urban growth were reinforced in the post-war period. The continuing decline in mortality rates and constant high levels of fertility (see Table crude annual birth and death rates per thousand head of population below)

Table2: Crude Birth Rate (CBR) and Crude Death Rate (CDR) between 1940-1990Period CBR CDR1940-50 43.5 19.71950-60 44 14.61960-70 39.5 11.51970-80 33.1 9.51980-90 28.5 7.8

*Source: World Population Prospects, 2012led to record new demographic growth rates, which hovered just below 3 per cent per annum from 1950 to 1965. High rates of natural increase caused a dramatic upsurge in Brazil’s total population, which grew from 33 million in 1930 to 70 million in 1960. The rural population continued to grow steadily during this period despite a substantial rural exodus, generating a larger pool of potential migrants to the cities. The agrarian structure inherited from colonial times was marked by a strong concentration at both extremes of the land tenure scale, called latifundios and minifundios1, both of which were conducive to out-migration in a context of high natural population increase.

Creation of SUDENE: The desire to integrate the national market also prompted the creation of 'SUDENE' ( Superintendence for the Development of the North-east) , a Brazilian governmental agency created in 1959, during the govt. of president Juscelino Kubitschek to stimulate the growth as well as the relocation of the nation's capital from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia of the north-east region of Brazil, one of the poorest of the country that faces chronic droughts and semiarid climate. It also stimulated the construction of a network of highways linking Brasilia to the centre south later the northern region. The city of Sao Paulo and its surrounding regions assumed a dominant role in the national economy as urbanization and import-substituting industrialization progressed, deriving locational advantages from its external economies, the size and power of its hinterland market, and the dynamism of its entrepreneurial class. Conversely, the Rio de Janeiro region showed a relative decline as economic conditions stagnated with the transfer of the capital city to Brasilia.The 1960s were marked by important political and social transformations, most notably the military takeover of 1964. A combination of strong demographic growth and rural–urban migration saw the number of cities with at least 20,000 inhabitants rise from 85 to 154, and the level of urbanization increase significantly between 1950 and 1960.

1 The land tenure structure of Latin America is called as the 'Latifundio–minifundio' land tenure structure. This dualistic tenure system is characterized by relatively few large commercial estates known as latifundios, which are over 500 hectares and numerous small properties known as minifundios, which are under 5 hectares. Minifundios are mainly subsistence-oriented smallholdings and are generally farmed by indigenous and peasant households

Fourth period (1980-present day)After half a century, the pattern of constantly rising urban growth rates and increasing population concentration in large cities was getting place in Brazilian landscape. Urban growth rates were declining largely, especially in the large cities. One side federal funds for municipalities were assigned to population size, on the other side, local Politicians were expecting another downfall on the facts of previous trends showing continuous growth and concentration. Mainly focusing on rapidly declining fertility, the impacts of the profound economic crisis that began in late 1970's and the broader process of deconcentration of economic activity from dominant Sao Paolo, this abrupt change in urbanisation happened.

Now considering these 3 factors:

Declining Fertility: Table 3: Total Fertility Rate from 1975-2015

Source: World Population Prospects, 2012

The table depicts that the TFR has gradually declined from 1975 till 2015 and this rapid decline in fertility affected urban growth in 2 ways, firstly, despite remaining higher in rural areas, fertility rates fell in all regions and parts of the country to help in reducing its pool of rural-urban migrants and secondly, it also helped in reducing the rate of natural population increase in urban areas. Government-induced modernization which began in the 1950's and accelerated in 1960, had a significant impact on people's motivation and ability to control their fertility. So, natural population increase due to declining fertility in cities has became increasingly important in the last few decades.

Economic Crisis in late 1980's:

Year TFR Value1975-1980 4.31

1980-1985 3.81985-1990 3.11990-1995 2.61995-2000 2.452000-2005 2.252005-2010 1.92010-2015 1.82

In the 1980s with the foreign debt crisis, the drop in economic growth rates and the explosion of inflation, Brazil’s urbanisation pattern began to present changes. The 1980s, the “lost decade” showed an increasing impracticality of life in the metropolises, and growing poverty. It was the period when the spiralling growth of shantytowns, known as “favelas”, in São Paulo, occurred with the disappearance of prospects for social ascent and decent housing for a growing portion of the population. During this same period, medium-sized cities with 100,000-500,000 inhabitants, grew at rates much higher than shift in migration toward cities with lower costs of living and housing. However, in large metropolises, an internal population shift was being observed: while the central nucleus reduced its rate of growth, or lost population, occupation of the peripheral areas or regions with physical restrictions continued to grow at an accelerated rate. In the 1980s, adjustments to the Brazilian economy took place; the market opened up, privatisations occurred, the state was reformed, financial deregulation and labour flexibility took place. The economy’s globalisation, de-industrialisation and the resulting “financialisation” and increase in drug trafficking produced evident social and urban mal-adjustments. The significant and simultaneous increases in unemployment and violence in large cities reproduced this situation in part. These economic changes were associated with a new form of social production of space in large Brazilian cities: the concentration of wealth and investments in the areas of the city, that progressively equipped according to “global standards” and the disposal of growing portions of the population (Fix, 2001), assisted, if at all, by public complementary income programmes and charity organisations, and forming the emerging “tertiary sector”.

De-concentration of Economic Activity from Sao Paulo:The ascendancy of São Paulo state and its capital is clearly reflected in the demographic concentration between 1940 and 1970. During this period, urban growth in the state outstripped that in the rest of the country (Martine.G & McGrahanan.G,2010). From the table, we see the de-concentration of urbanisation began from 1980 from Sao Paulo to other cities in Sao Paulo with the gradual decrease of annual growth rate (2.6% to 2.2% over the period 1980-2000). Table 4: Absolute and relative growth in urban population, Brazil and Sao Paulo 1940–2000

Annual growth rate (%)

Absolute increase (in thousands)

Categories 1980-1991 1991-2000 1980-1991 1991-2000

Brazil, urban population

2.6 2.2 27518 20265

Sao Paulo state, urban population

2.2 1.9 5506 4872

Sao Paulo MR 1.9 1.7 2856 2526

Other cities in Sao Paulo

2.8 2.2 2650 2346

*Source: IBGE 2009 Database

Thus, the perimeter of the dominant pole was extended in regions within the state of Sao Paulo with cities such as Campinas, Sorocaba, Sao Jose Dos Campos and Santos which made a huge economic and demographic steps and Sao Paulo became the country's economic centre availing modern administrative, financial, educational and cultural services. So, decentralization of urbanization and economic activities from Sao Paulo played a crucial but beautiful role in controlling the urbanization pace in Brazil.

Table5: Brazil's Urban and Total Growth Rate and % of Urbanisation

Period% urban Urban Growth

Rate Total Growth Rate1950-1955 36.2 5.60 3.061955-1960 41.1 5.25 2.921960-1965 46.1 4.98 2.961965-1970 51.0 4.42 2.591970-1975 55.9 4.06 2.381975-1980 60.8 3.84 2.351980-1985 65.5 3.55 2.251985-1990 69.9 3.01 1.881990-1995 73.9 2.55 1.571995-2000 77.6 2.40 1.502000-2005 81.2 1.69 1.292005-2010 82.8 1.31 0.952010-2015 84.3 1.17 0.85

* Source: World Urbanisation Prospects, 2012

It is clear from the above analyses that Brazil has yet to transform all the theoretical advantages of an early urban transition into reality. In the last 15 years Brazilian cities showed low productivity growth due to low income growth, especially the larger ones (World Bank 2006, Vol. 1: 2). It can be attributed to increased levels and types of informality, crime and violence, and poor basic infrastructure. The locus of demographic growth has shifted now from urban centers to the peripheries of larger cities, and since this expansion is largely composed of poor people, infrastructures and services for new settlements are inadequate. Significant ‘policy failures’ have increased the gap between 'expectation' and 'reality' in Brazil’s urban transition. Local management and good governance are critical to a city’s performance, and while there have been isolated instances of good practices in Brazilian cities, practically all of them are affected by extensive ‘policy failures’. Those that have occurred in the land and housing sphere are particularly important, not only cascading into various social and environmental ills that impact most on low-income urban dwellers, but also affecting the ability of cities to compete more effectively on the global stage.(World Bank, 2006, Vol. 1: 23).

2.2. Russia:

While Russia’s history in the past century has been cataclysmic, it urbanised nonetheless. During the course of the 20th century, Russia went through a number of traumatic events: revolution, involvement in world wars, rural collectivisation, the adoption of a central planning system, and finally the collapse of this system. These traumatic events all had important consequences for Russia’s demographic and urban change. Still, in terms of the broad trends of population growth and urbanization, only the last of the events (the collapse of the Soviet system) actually seems to have halted population growth and urbanization for over a decade.The end of the Soviet Union left many cities exposed to unfamiliar market forces. Despite recent recovery in several vibrant cities, Russia is still dealing with the spatial restructuring — and considerable dislocation — brought on when the Soviet central planning system was dismantled.Russia’s accompanied a consolidation of central planning between the World Wars, creating very different dynamics as against China where urban transition went hand in hand with its shift away from central planning. Russia’s history shows how long-term economic growth from urbanization needs people and economic enterprises not just in cities, but in productive places. Given the complex interdependencies involved in urban transitions, this is difficult to direct without relying on markets to a greater degree than did the Soviet Authorities. Delayed and largely ineffective industrialisation efforts, begun only during the last decades of the Tsarist regime (which saw rural exodus as a threat), had brought urban population to higher levels than in most of Asia or Africa by the early 20th century. But Russia’s urbanization level remained low by comparison to Europe or even Latin America. Yet Russia’s urbanization, which accelerated from the mid-1920s as the Soviet Union was being consolidated, was still relatively early compared with China. By the time the Soviet Union began to be dismantled, Russia was already more urban than China is today. In effect, Russia urbanized through its planned economy whereas China urbanized as its commitments to a planned economy declined. And in Russia, the dissolution of the Soviet Union brought on demographic and economic collapse, with per capita incomes dropping by more than a third, and urban populations actually declining for over a decade. More recent years have brought dramatic, but uneven, recovery.

Rural Russia peaks then declines

The Russian Federation is Central Asia's one of the largest country holding geographical size of 17,098,242 sq km and total population of 142,470,272. It is the largest country in the world in terms of area but unfavourably located in relation to major sea lanes of the world; despite its size, it lacks proper soils and climates for agriculture. This is why Russia's economy is industry based. Russia was ruled by communism for a very long time, starting from 1917 Russian Revolution till the end of the Gorbachev era, 1991. Following economic and political turmoil during President Boris Yeltsin's period (1991-99), finally it shifted toward centralized semi-authoritarian state. Since 1991, Russia has undergone many significant changes, mainly, moving from globally isolated, centrally planned economy to a market based and globally integrated economy. Economic reforms in the 1990's privatized most industry with notable exceptions in the energy and defence related sectors. In 2011, Russia became the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, eighth largest crude oil reserves. It is the third largest exporter of steel and

The early years of the Revolution failed to generate a large influx to the cities. The First World War (1914–17) and the Civil War (1918–21) had produced sharp declines in fertility and had increased mortality, depleting the pool of potential migrants to cities as well as the rate of natural increase in the cities themselves. These calamities also delayed clear economic action centred on industrialisation, keeping growth slow in Russia’s cities in the first quarter of the 20th century.

In 1926, Russia’s rural population peaked at 76.3 million and there were still no large regions where even 25 per cent of the population lived in urban areas. After 1926, rural areas started to depopulate as high rates of natural increase in rural areas were more than offset by larger urban-bound migration and later — in the post-war era up to the mid-1980s — also by reclassification of some rural areas as urban.

Historically, Russia always had many small scattered outpost cities in difficult climates or geographic areas without densely populated rural hinterlands. Western Russia around Moscow and St. Petersburg urbanized more rapidly than the remainder of the country during the Tsarist and early Soviet eras, but the differences in urbanization levels were never large. Russia’s stagnated urban growth revived dramatically between 1926 and the 1939 census, with the USSR’s urban population rising by 119 per cent. In the years before the Second World War, when the USA and other advanced capitalist countries were mired in depression, Soviet urban population grew at an annual pace of 6.2 per cent and the proportion of the population living in cities nearly doubled. By 1939, urbanization levels above 40 per cent were recorded in the northwest and Russian Far East, while most other regions were between 25 per cent and 40 per cent urban. Urban populations continued to grow through the Second World War period despite the enormous destruction and mortality. The shift to a wartime economy more than offset the decline the war caused in urban populations. By the first post- World War Two census, Russia had urbanized substantially, especially in the Urals, Western Siberia, and other areas less affected by the war. And after the war, Russia took just 20 years to achieve urbanization levels comparable to those that had taken France 80 years. Such rapid urbanization was accomplished despite the conflict’s loss of life and the country’s persistently high mortality, which had immediate as well as long-term effects. This meant that its cities required far more replenishment from in-migration than their European, North American or Japanese counterparts. Russia as a whole, and its cities in particular, actually grew far more slowly than would have been the case had mortality levels been closer to world norms. Figure 3, based on census data, records the steady urbanization throughout the 1926–79 period, with the urban share ultimately rising to 66 per cent of the population in 1989 and subsequently staying level. Russia’s cities thus have consistently had a very high proportion of immigrants (generally from rural areas). Research has estimated that this proportion was high even before the industrialisation push (52.5 per cent in 1897 and 49.5 per cent in 1926) mainly because the base urban population was so small, and that rural-urban migration accounted for 62.8 per cent of urban growth during 1926-39 and 62.4 per cent during 1939-59. Like other central and eastern European countries that industrialised, Russia experienced high fertility through the 1950s, and then went through a long-term decline (despite efforts by the government to maintain birth rates). As in Brazil, fertility decline slowed both natural population growth and, to some extent, rural in-migration. It also led to a ‘greying’ of Russia’s cities, which eventually had an effect on the vigour of urban economies.

Trends in urbanisation in Russia is divided into 3 periods

First period (1914-39) : urban households in the inter-war Soviet Union eraSecond period (1941-80): urban households in the USSR- as a demographic entityThird period (1980-present days): post-soviet era

First period: Inter war soviet union era:(1914-39)At this time the Russian Empire was mainly a rural country. Only the two capitals, St. Petersburg and Moscow, had over a million citizens. Warsaw was the next largest city, with over 600,000 people, while Odessa, Kiev, Kharkov, Saratov and Kazan' had fewer than 400,000 each, and all other cities were significantly smaller. According to the 1897 census, only 13.4% of the total Russian population lived in towns and cities. Although the rural sector was predominant, the period was characterised by high rates of industrial growth and urbanisation and the sustained migration of peasants into the towns and cities.

Urbanisation in Russia only really started after the 1860s-1870s, with the Great Reforms of Alexander II, which dramatically changed the economic life of the entire population and made possible further industrial growth. These reforms simultaneously created both the conditions for industrial and financial development and also a vast labour market consisting of thousands of destitute peasants. In 1897, the population centre of the empire was in the area around Moscow, with significant population centres to the south (Vorenezh), west (St Petersburg) and east (Nizhny Novgorod). To some extent, the population gradient also emanates outward from St Petersburg in a south-easterly direction. The patterns reflect the historic dominance of Russia by the northwest, and the empire’s orientation toward its European regions (Poland and Finland) as well as toward the Ukrainian breadbasket. Although northwest Russia was not well-suited for agriculture compared with regions to the southeast and south, poor road infrastructure almost certainly limited population dispersal. Over the next quarter-century, Russia experienced major population growth in the areas adjacent to Moscow, as well as massive growth around Novosibirsk. While St Petersburg also grew during this time, the explosive growth around Moscow firmly shifted the centre ofpopulation closer to Moscow, reflecting the consequences of the Civil War and the movement of the capital to Moscow. Initial industrialisation was concentrated in or near thetwo dominant central cities. By 1939 a region of high population density was beginning to connect the two, and was on the verge of adding Volgograd (Stalingrad) to the nascent conuburation – though, given Russia’s vastness, large sparsely populated areas between the cities existed, and in fact still exist.The Factors affected the urbanisation trends were:

natural population growth: change in fertility rate famine , war: change in infant mortality rate low life expectancy excessive in-out migration

Natural population growth: Change in fertility rateRussia underwent a fairly early fertility transition than in many central and eastern European comparators , though the decline was more continuous till the end of the Soviet era. There had been a strong fertility gradient: births were higher in south and east than in north and west and this pattern still continues today; this is partly related to religious differences as, non-Russian-ethnicity households have higher fertility.The pattern is counteract to some extent by higher mortality in the east, and by a higher proportion of adults of child-bearing age in the northwest, but all these effects are considered

as minor. Fertility was also lower in urban than rural areas. Within the North Caucasus, TFRs ranged from 1.43 in predominately ethnic Russian Rostov oblast to 2.62 in the mainly non-Russian Daghestan Republic. almost no oblasts dominated by ethnic Russians had replacement-level fertility rates. Russia’s fertility was very high – though so, too, was its infant mortality. Because high mortality largely balanced high fertility, rural–urban migration was the dominant source of city growth before the GPW.

Table 5: Total fertility rate between 1900-1940) Figure 3: TFR of Russia in the 1st era

1900-1910 1910-1920 1920-1930 1930-1940012345678

year

TFR

* World Population Prospects, 2012

Demographic history of Russia is striking in two respects: first important feature is the Impact of the cataclysmic events which include the first world war(1914-18), the civil war(1918-21), and the post-collectivisation famine(1932-33) ; second feature is Low life expectancy.

Famine and war- Change in Infant mortality rate:Russia had also been characterised by high mortality which was accentuated by the losses of WW1 (1914-18), Russian Civil War (1918-21) and to a lesser degree, by famines and imprisonments associated with 1930's. Population growth was reduced by high levels of infant mortality. As evidenced by the available data in Rosstat website, for Moscow and Petrograd, no decline of infant mortality occurred between 1916 and 1919. In contrast, it was raised to 284 for Petrograd and 332 for Moscow by outbreak of influenza in 1919. The famine of 1921 delivered another severe blow. Unsurprisingly, by the mid-1920s associated with the implementation of New Economic Policy (NEP) the infant mortality failed to become lower that the level observed at the turn of the twentieth century.NEP brought some improvements in economic and social life that in turn increased well-being of the population. In the middle of the 1920s the conditions for a rapid and steady mortality decline emerged..

year TFR

1900-1910 7.3

1910-1920 6.1

1920-1930 5

1930-1940 3.8

All these successful efforts, however, were brought to zero by a following social crisis. An unprecedented demographic catastrophe broke out. The famine breaking out in 1933 struck not only the Ukraine, it involved many Russian territories including the Volga region as had been in 1921, the North Caucasus and some areas of the Urals, North, Central Black Earth regions and several Siberian provinces. As a result, for the 1930s, infant mortality decline was arrested. According to the estimates of scholars from Russian Goskomstat Research Institute, in the severest year 1933, the infant mortality rate soared to 317 per 1,000 live births and thereby repeated the average level observed in the middle of the past century.Only by 1941 had the Russian infant mortality rate returned to the level of the late 1920s (207 in 1926-1927, and 210 in 1940 for the European part of Russia without the North Caucasus) (source: The Rosstat website)The consequence of exceptionally high mortality is that Russia’s cities needed far more replenishment than their European, North American or Japanese counterparts. The distinguished Russian demographer Vishnevskii has estimated the Russian population ‘gap’ due to catastrophes as reaching nearly 50 million by 1961 (source: 'Russian urbanisation in the soviet and post-soviet eras' by C. Becker, S.J. Mendelsohn and K. Benderskaya).

Decline in Life ExpectancySince basic medical care and public health measures were low standard in the world war 1 era, and were generally better in urban than rural areas, high urban mortality is generally ascribed to poor individual health-related behaviours and diet. This mortality is important in assessing urbanization, since it meant that very high birth rates and rural–urban in-migration rates were associated with much lower city-growth rates than would have been the case in the absence of high background mortality and a series of cataclysmic events. Russian life expectancies at birth are astonishingly low by the standards of all but extremely poor countries, and especially given that infant and child mortality is not particularly high. In 1994, one of the very worst years, life expectancy fell to 57.6 years for men and 71.2 years for women. Nationally, for urban (rural) men, life expectancy at birth peaked at 65.4 (63.2) years in 1986–87, declining to 57.7 (56.7) in 1994, and remaining below 60 years until 2006 in urban areas and 2008 in rural areas. (source: The Rosstat Website).

Excessive In-Out Migration

Migration in this era was largely a by-product of Crash industrialisation and it was determined by economic planning objectives. This was vast especially between 1910's and 1940's and remarkably this were less than total numbers of people who sought to move to the cities. At this point, one basic question comes to everyone's mind that is it very difficult to determine whether urban-rural migration was more rapid under Soviet Socialism than it would have been in a non-socialist counterfactual world? History says, housing markets barely functioned at that time, land markets were distorted, and rural real incomes were depressed by the impact of collectivisation. Taking all these factors together, it seems that Urban-rural migration were rapid under soviet socialism and so Russia urbanised more rapidly.

Second period (1941-80): The USSR Era

Urbanisation in the Soviet era is largely a story of industrialisation and industrial policy. Cities were created to serve industry and grew as industrial enterprises (and mines and power plants) expanded. There were cities that developed as administrative centres, but planners made sure that industry followed. Cities based solely as transport or shipping hubs remained small; unlike in capitalist economies, there were no financial centres or major cities based on tourism. In the post-war era after the huge industrialisation push, cities at hydroelectric sites were among those that grew most rapidly.(Table below) (source- Harris, Chuncey D. 1971. Urbanization and population growth in the Soviet Union, 1959–1970. Geographical Review) identifies the Russian cities with the highest 1959–70 growth rates.

Table6: Russian cities with the highest 1959-70 growth rateCity Region 1959Population

(thousand)1970Population(thousand)

Increase (%) Characteristic

Bratsk E siberia 43 159 259 Hydroelectric siteTol'yatti Volga 72 251 247 Hydroelectric siteBalakovo Volga 36 103 181 Hydroelectric siteVolzhskiy Volga 67 142 113 Hydroelectric siteNovgorod Northwest 61 128 111 ChemicalsBelgorod Chernozem 72 151 109 Diversified admin

centreSaransk Volga-vyatsk 91 190 109 Diversified admin

centreCheboksary Volga-vyatsk 104 216 108 Diversified admin

centreCherepovets Northwest 92 189 104 Iron& steel worksSalavat Volga 61 114 88 ChemicalsYoshkar-ola Volga-vyatsk 89 166 87 Diversified admin

centreLipetsk Chernozem 157 290 85 Iron& steel worksSeverodvinsk Northwest 79 145 84 Other industriesSyktyvkar Northwest 69 125 82 Diversified admin

centrePetropavlovsk-kamchatskiy

Far east 86 154 80 Diversified admin centre

*(Source- Harris, Chuncey D. 1971, Geographical Review)

During this period, while industrial growth served as an impetus for the development of some cities, the impetus of hydropower caused the most spectacular developments. The second most important feature was the development of secondary oblast capital cities, especially in republics, autonomous regions and oblasts dominated by ethnic minorities.

In this phase Russia has shown an unusually high proportion of large cities than small ones. And also we find the definition of largest(primate) cities which says these are those cities which has a population above intermediate size (250,000 today), Intermediate sized cities with populations of 5000-20000 (19th century), 10000-50000 (1897-1926), 20000-100000 (1926-1959), 40000-200,000 (1959-1970), 50000-250000 ( 1970-present), small sized cities as cities and settlements with urban characteristics with less than intermediate levels. (source: Population and housing censuses - UNECE website).

Third period (1980-present days) : The Post Soviet EraAccording to Szelenyi (1996)(source: Szelenyi, I. 1996. Cities under socialism and Andrusz, G. Harloe, M., Szelenyi, I. Cities after Socialism: Urban and regional change and conflict in post-socialist societies) , under socialist regimes , cities were under-urbanized as opposed to the over-urbanization that was occurring in Third World Countries. Here under-urbanization is meant the growth of jobs outstripped the growth of population and over-urbanization is vice-versa. He says, the experience of urbanity was qualitatively different in socialist cities than capital cities: less diversity, less inner-city density and less marginality. The revolution that ended the soviet union was much less violent than the one that began it. Perestroika (reform) & Glasnost(openness) were the incubator for the progressive revolution which culminated in a failed coup attempt by hard-line Communists in august 1991 and the soviet union's official dissolution in December 26, 1991. As a blessing, Russian urbanization became very systematic and well managed; socialist economy turned into market based economy. Moscow which was left apart from the rest of Russia for centuries, became the headquarters for nearly all major companies; it was the centre of Russia's highly centralised government structure. Like Moscow, St. Petersburg expressed himself as a major manufacturing centre (military oriented production transitioned into consumer and industrial based production). it is called 'northern capital' with important government functions and the nation's major external trade hub. Cities like Lipetsk, Cherepovets, and Staryi Oskol became metallurgical centres, west Siberia became the oil and gas centres and Novokuibyshevsk and Sosnovyi Bor became energy centre.Science cities and formerly closed cities were created in the 1940s and 1950s with the aim of accelerating technological development for industry and military purposes; this number includes 22 closed cities which was neither on Soviet maps nor in official statistics. One side some cities had stable institutions, a favourable investment climate and locational advantages to attract foreign direct investment other side, there were cities and towns that have fared poorly; this cities used to depend on government subsidies, government contracts or government boundaries separating the domestic market from international competitors. Of note, they are the following:

Industrial centres: it was dependent on a sector especially hit by the post-Soviet economic crisis, especially if defence related, or in coal mining regions – which have not done as well as other extractive areas – such as the Kuzbass.

Single firm or ‘company towns’: these were those with weak structural links to suppliers or buyers, or that produced uncompetitive products like textiles in Ivanovo or Yuzha, or machine construction (Yartsevo in Smolensk)

Small cities far from regional centres, and facing high transportation costs or poor transportation links. It was located in the north and east, these towns tend to depend on forest products, but poor infrastructure made their products uncompetitive.

Secondary tourist resorts: it was for domestic holidaymakers in the Soviet era. These regions tended to lack effective marketing plans, while upper-middle-class residents of large cities now head to Turkey, Black Sea resorts and Europe for holidays. Many of these small towns are located near major cities (like the ancient towns of the

‘Golden Ring’ around Moscow) and are no longer attractive relative to foreign alternatives.

Small cities: whose major industries were parts suppliers to larger firms that are located in extreme climatic conditions. These regions and firms in them received supplemental state benefits in the Soviet era. Today, they suffer from higher costs in the absence of subsidies, along with often dreadful living conditions.

2.3. India: Right from the ancient times till independence, India has been ruled by different communities under different reigns. As a consequence, several factors like political, social, economic, religious and cultural etc., has influenced the growth and pattern of the urbanization of the country in varying degrees in different time periods. Of them, mainly, religious and cultural factors were the basis of the urban growth in the early and medieval era. Although from the history, we can see, among the economic factors, trade was the major one to affect the early urbanization. However, clear definitions of trade and urbanization came to India during colonial period. Trade and urbanization went hand in hand in that period. Currently, India is a developing country, urbanizing at a rapid pace. Though the current level of urbanization in our country is lowest compared to the other developing countries. The absolute size of urban population is huge. By the turn of the millennium about 440 million Indians lived in nearly 3700 towns and cities (urban areas) spread across the length and breadth of the country. During the last 50 years the population has grown two and a half times more and the urban India has grown as almost second largest in the world, only next to China. 21st century is set to become India’s urban century with more people living in cities and towns than in the country side (rural areas) (Goldman Sachs, 2007). India has 10 of the fastest growing cities in the world and is witnessing massive urbanization. The urban growth is happening not only in large cities but also in small and medium size cities. But it's happening very slowly than in other developing countries . The next section gives the overall scenario of India's urbanization started after 1950 till present days. The genesis of the hierarchy of urban settlements and spatial structure in contemporary India can be traced to the development dynamics that prevailed during the colonial period, essentially in response to the requirements of an imperialist regime. Colonial period: The colonial economy generated a strong commodity and population flows towards its key ports and administrative towns. It weakened the regional centripetal forces established during the medieval period through the Inter-settlement linkages and Bi-directional movement of goods and services between the core and periphery. Calcutta,

India is South Asia's one of the greatest country with a geographical area of 3, 287, 263 sq km and population of 1,236,344, 631, Asia's second largest population. India is developing from an Agrarian economy into mixed economy. Its diverse economy encompasses traditional village farming, modern agriculture, handicrafts, a wide range of modern industries and a multitude of services. India's more than half of the workforce is in agriculture but services are the major source of economic growth. Capitalizing on its large educated English speaking population to become a major exporter of information technology services and software workers. In 2010, India's economy stood back robustly from the 2008 global financial crisis in large part because of its strong domestic demand and a high savings rate; growth exceeded 8% year-on-year in real terms. However, in 2011, economic growth slowed down because of persistently high inflation

Madras, Bombay and Karachi (presently in Pakistan) was the four major Urban Agglomerations, served as a mechanism for generating and extracting economic surplus. The pre-existing rural–urban interactions were gradually replaced by export–import oriented commodity flows. Movement of population from rural to urban and from lower developed places to higher developed or developing , became necessary to sustain the new urban centres and the plantation fields further disrupted the core–periphery relationship and strengthened the centrifugal forces. Unlike the counterparts in developed countries, the Indian agglomerations were not a product of economic development. The interaction that previously evolved through the centuries was between a large number of handicraft, service and commerce-based towns and their hinterland of primary production, as well as between large cities and smaller towns in the hierarchy, was the major casualty of this process of urbanization. A few of these towns were also inducted into surplus expropriation and became centres of collection and processing of primary goods while the others were allowed to fade away. The new urban centres, endowed primarily with instincts for trade, failed to disseminate impulses for balanced regional development. Instead, they acted as satellites of the port towns that were themselves satellitic to the global metropolis. Even the former were largely alien to the internal economic system because the productive activities and commerce transacted more with the world market than with the indigenous people.The colonial policy of industrialisation was resulted in the concentration of units producing goods mostly for consumption within the few large cities. These exerted powerful backwash effects, resulting in the liquidation of secondary activities in the rural hinterland. The substitution of an interactive and generally symbiotic relationship with an abusive one resulted in an overall weakening of the economic base. The displacement of the workforce from primary and secondary sectors in rural areas specially from agriculture (the base of Indian Economy), and their difficulties in absorbing in the formal urban economy, led to serious problems of unemployment, informal employment and poverty.As rural–urban migration was not taking place in response to the increased demand for labour in productive sectors of the economy, the urban centres did not have the capacity to absorb the migrants who shuttled like refugees between places of origin and destination, and also between various informal activities. Consequently, the obstacle in functionality of the cities in the context of the regional economy increased and in turn, generated serious socio-economic distortions, affecting their internal organisation. The cities were basically planned with a view to providing high-quality civic amenities to the elites linked to the ruling class or those who could afford high prices. This segmented structure of the cities ensured that the service class lived nearby but did not overburden the infrastructure of the core areas. As India was gradually drawn into the orbit of the capitalistic system during two centuries of colonial rule, its political economy became the major impediment to technological development in agriculture and industry. This adversely affected productivity in both sectors. In many developed countries, the high level of agricultural production, and the surpluses generated as a consequence, had facilitated the growth of cities. In British India, however, it was not the level of agricultural or industrial surplus but the socio-political organisation that enabled the cities, directly or indirectly, to appropriate an increasing share of total production from their hinterland. Surpluses extracted through rents and the taxation system were either transmitted across national frontiers or used to meet the increasing demand of the tertiary sectors with a high incidence of non-productive activities. Imports entering the market in small towns and rural areas through the trading networks assisted in strong forces of de-industrialisation. Most small local producers could not survive in global competition, the goods produced inside country was not of a good value and quality and the productive capacity of home industries were very poorer than the imported ones. Particularly when the government policies directly or indirectly helped imports, the importance for the home

machineries and industries were turned to ashes. All the industrialists and manufacturer who had a good understanding with the government and had sufficient amount of capital, succeeded in continuing the production.This twin processes were hitting hard at the economic base of the rural industries and creating enclaves of apparent affluence in select urban centres struck at the very root of the existing inter-settlement linkages and synergies across different sizes of urban centres. Public facilities became concentrated in the towns and cities and were available to only a few privileged sections of the urban community, with access of the rural population being negligible. Further, the cultural superstructure imposed on the urban areas was not rooted in indigenous institutions, and this led to the fragmentation of tradition along the rural–urban interface. Proper Urbanisation, cut off from the basic source of its strength, became rootless and imitative while rural was stuck within the confines of petty production and burdened by superstition, obscurantism and parochialism. Figure 4: Percentage of urban population

1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 201105

101520253035

10.8510.2911.1811.9913.8617.2917.9719.91

23.3425.7227.8631.16

Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f U

rban

po

pula

tion

toto

tal p

opul

atio

n

*Source: Census of India 2011.Post Independence period (after 1947 till present days): When the British left India, all the native states came together to sign a treaties of accession to the newly independent nation. This period brought political as well as economic structural change. Massive public-sector investment in selected sectors, especially during the Second and Third Five Year Plans (1955–65), helped in restructuring the urban hierarchy. But However, regional disparities persisted, despite the public sector playing a major role in directing concentrated investments towards backward areas. This was because the apex centres did not create a viable system of urban settlements – as in many developed capitalist economies – and left their hinterland virtually untouched. Percolation and diffusion of growth impulses from the centre to the periphery – characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon regional development theories proved to be invalid as the multiplier effects got impounded within the large agglomerations. The transformation of large cities from colonial to national capitals meant only an increasing concentration of low productive manufacturing and service activities that could find a foothold more easily due to the changed political economy. The pace of urban growth was rapid during the first three decades after Independence which in turn led to informalize the urban economy and to growing deprivation in terms of basic services.

Table7: Trends in Urbanization in India (1961-2011):

Census Year Urban population

(millions)

Percentage Urban Annual exponential urban growth rate

1961 78.94 17.97 -

1971 109.11 19.91 3.23

1981 159.46 23.34 3.79

1991 217.18 25.72 3.09

2001 286.12 27.86 2.75

2011 377.10 31.16 2.76

*Source: Census of India 2001

The table shows India had an urban population of about 79 million in 1961 which constituted about 18% of the total population. The average growth rate of the urban population was 2.32% during 1951-61 which accelerated up to 3.79% during 1971-81. This was the highest urban growth since independence. After 1981, the urban growth rate decelerated to 3.09% during 1981-91 and further declined to 2.75 during 1991-2001. However, the declining growth rate was slightly reversed during 2001-2011. It is worthwhile to note that urban population growth alone cannot speed up urbanization. More importantly, if urbanization has to occur, the urban population growth rate needs to be higher than the rural population growth rate. Thus, it is the urban-rural population growth differential that is critical to the process of urbanization.

Magnitude and characteristics of urban growth during recent decades: The urban scenario in the post-Independence period was characterised by dualism. The developed states attracted population in urban areas due to industrialisation and infrastructural investment but this was largely in and around large cities and upcoming industrial centres. Interestingly, the backward states too – particularly their backward districts and small and medium towns – experienced more rapid urban growth which can be attributed to government investment in the district and taluka headquarters, programmes of urban industrial dispersal, and transfer of funds from the states to urban local bodies through a needs-based or what is popularly known as „gap-filling‟ approach. A large part of rural–urban migration into smaller towns from their rural hinterland in backward states can, however, be explained in terms of push factors, owing to the lack of diversification in the agrarian economy.

The rate of urban growth went down significantly between 1991 and 2001. During the decades after Independence until 1991, urban growth was generally high in relatively backward states. A few of the developed states also attracted reasonable numbers of

migrants to their urban centres but the overall relationship between urban growth and economic development across states was slightly negative. The 1990s, however, made a significant departure from this. Most of the developed states like Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra and Gujarat have registered urban growth above the national average (source: Kundu, A. (2006), Trends and pattern of urbanisation and their economic implications, India Infrastructure Report 2006). Karnataka has remained slightly below the national average and West Bengal is an exception whose growth rate is low due to the rural-oriented strategy followed by the state government. The backward states, on the other hand, have experienced growth either below the national average or, at most, equal to that. Making a comparison over the past two decades, the growth rates for developed states have either gone up or remained the same as in the 1980s. The backward states, however, have recorded either a decline or stability in their urban growth.

Volume and Trend of Urbanisation in IndiaIndia shares most characteristic features of urbanisation in the developing countries. Number of urban agglomeration /town has grown from 1827 in 1901 to 5161 in 2001. Number of total population has increased from 23.84 crores in 1901 to 102.7 crores in 2001 whereas number. of population residing in urban areas has increased from 2.58 crores in 1901 to 28.53 crore in 2001. (table 2) This process of urbanization in India is shown in Table 7 (below) . It reflects a gradual increasing trend of urbanization. India is at acceleration stage of the process of urbanization.Table7: Population of India by Residence

Census years

Number of towns

Total population Urban Population

Rural

1901 1827 238396327 25851873 2125444541911 1825 252093390 25941633 2261517571921 1949 251321213 28086167 2232350461931 2072 278977238 33455989 2455212491941 2250 218660580 44153297 2745072831951 2843 361088090 62443709 2986443811961 2363 439234771 78936603 3602981681971 2590 598159652 109113977 4890456751981 3378 683329097 159462547 5238665501991 3768 844324222 217177625 6271465972001 5161 1027015247 285354954 741660293

*Source: Census of India

Given the urbanisation process, thus, became concentrated in developed regions and larger cities in recent years, with backward areas and smaller towns tending to stagnate. This could, at least partly, be attributed to the measures of decentralisation rooted in the neoliberal policy paradigm whereby the responsibilities of resource mobilisation and launching infrastructural projects had been given to state agencies, Para-state bodies and local governments. Large municipal bodies, particularly those located in developed states, tended to have a strong economic base, an advantage which clearly manifest in their high economic and demographic growth. The smaller towns in the backward states, on the other hand, had languished economically and reported low or negative demographic growth, many of them even failing to meet the criteria for classification as urban centres.

2.4. China:

Throughout the long recorded history of China, It has been an agrarian society. For thousands of years, Chinese people lived in the countryside and engaged in agriculture, a good societal context that valued self-sufficiency. As the need for the exchange of goods were minimal within this economic structure, cities and towns were either administrative centres or military hubs, and sometimes both, but these functions were insufficient to stimulate the development of large prosperous cities as in many other countries. The role of cities and towns as marketplaces never became well established under the firmly entrenched *Physiocratic Ideology that encouraged farming and restrained trade and commerce in Feudal China. But as the time passed by, like other BRICS countries, foreign incursions began with the first Opium War (1839-42), Chinese cities became repositories of alien corruption and vice .The city lifestyle were idle and parasitic, within a strong anti-urban ideology. Much later, but still reflecting this outlook, Mao Zedong promoted several anti-urban and anti-migration policies and even sent young people from cities to work on farms in the countryside during the 1960s in order to endure hardship and learn about hard work. As a result of this heritage, China was still a predominantly rural society as late as the 1970s. Beginning with the economic reforms of the late 1970s, the last three decades have witnessed an extraordinary turnaround in China's perspective on urbanization, as well as massive urban growth. Given changing policies and varying definitions of what constitutes an urban area, observers have not always agreed on the exact dimensions of recent urban growth, but all concur that it has been enormous. Given that the central government is currently directing and supporting further urbanization, the recent pace of China's urbanization will undoubtedly continue. Various projections anticipate China's “urban billion” era. According to the table, we can see that after 1979, the urban population is increased at a increasing rate, taking a jump from 179.95 million to 721.69 million, with a increase in urbanization level from 19% of total population to 53%, near to 34% increase over 3 decades (approx.) and its continued..

China is the biggest country in Eastern Asia which hold 9,596,960 sq km area and 1,355,692,576 population. Since late 1970's, China has moved from a closed centrally planned system to a more market oriented system that plays the global role. Reform began with the phasing out of collectivized agriculture and expanded to include the gradual liberalization of prices, fiscal decentralization, increased autonomy for state enterprises, growth of the private sector, development of stock markets and a modern banking system and opening to foreign trade and investment. The restructuring of the economy and resulting efficiency gains have contributed to a more than tenfold increase in GDP since 1978. Measured on a PPP basis which adjusts the price differences, China in 2010 stood the second largest economy in the world after the US, having surpassed Japan in 2001. China is second to US in the value of services it produces. Still, per capita income is below the world average. The government's 12th Five year plan, adopted in March, 2011 emphasized continued economic reforms and the need to increase domestic consumption in order to make the economy less dependent on exports. The China government faces numerous economic challenges including reducing its

* Physiocratic Ideology is an economic theory developed by a group of 18th century French economists who believed that the wealth of nations was derived solely from the value of 'land agriculture' or 'land development' and that agricultural products should be highly priced; it is perhaps the first well developed theory of economics.

Table8: Urban Population and Urbanization Level- 1979-2015

*Source: World Urbanisation Prospects, 2012

This result is quite unexpected for a agrarian economy like China where agriculture was the primary means for subsistence.

Definitions and measurement in china:Although simple in concept, Defining 'Urban Area' and Proportion of population in 'urban' is particularly complicated in the case of China. The country's urban population “enigma” concerns the definition of these two elements, and is further complicated by the national system of household registration. Before 1999, when the first set of criteria for counting urban populations was established in China, the administrative boundaries of cities and towns were used for urban population statistics. In addition to the lack of coincidence between 'actual urban areas' and the 'administratively bounded areas', administrative boundaries of cities and towns have frequently changed, often due to expansion. So, there has been considerable inaccuracy in measuring the urban population. And the second concern is the proportion of the population within the defined urban areas that should be counted as urban population. The normal practice is to count those people who stay for a minimum period, such as six months in the year before the Census but the situation in China had got complicated by the application of the household registration or hukou status as the basic criterion for enumerating urban population for some Census years.

Stages of Chinese urbanisation: trends of urbanisation in china's can be divided into 3 stages:Urbanization driven by Industrialization (1978-87)Urbanization driven by land reform (1988-2000)Urbanization driven by the service industry (2001-present)

Urbanization driven by Industrialization (1978-87) The hukou system was introduced in the early 1950s, originally for population registration and later also for migration control. But there are actually two classifications of hukou: hukou type and residential location. Both were adopted as categories for the enumeration of urban population in China's Census in a rather inconsistent manner. Based on the hukou type,

YEAR

Urban Population (million)

Urbanization Level(% of total)

1980- 189.95 191985- 240.41 231990- 300.16 261995- 373.04 312000- 452.99 362005- 554.37 432010- 658.49 492011- 679.76 512012- 700.86 522013- 721.69 53

the country's population was divided into two groups: agricultural hukou population and non-agricultural hukou population. The key differentiation was the source of a person's grain supply, rather than economic occupation. Holders of a non-agricultural hukou received grain and other goods and services allocated by the state. Those holding an agricultural hukou were assumed by the state to practice farming and so received no allocated goods or services. In the pre-reform period, the categorization of hukou type was an effective way of controlling the movement of population into cities. As most goods and services were controlled by the state, people could not live in the cities without state-provided resources. The other classification of hukou was based on residential location. Individuals used to register their hukou to an administrative unit (normally their place of origin). A hukou in each location can be either agricultural or non-agricultural. To complicate matters further, the administrative boundaries have varied as the criteria defining “city” and “town” changed. In general, the main criteria for establishing a city are the settlement's administrative status, economic functions, size of population and the percentage of non-agricultural hukou population. In 1963, strict criteria were adopted to restrict the number of localities defined as cities and towns due to concern about the rapid growth of the urban population and the possible lack of agricultural capacity to sustain it and later the criteria were revised in 1984 and 1986 respectively. The latter's criteria for town establishment remain valid still now, while those for cities were again revised by the State Council in 1993. Such changing criteria greatly inflated the statistics on urban population, when the administrative boundary was used in counting it.

(From ‘China’s post-reform urbanisation’ by Anthony g.o. Yeh, Jiang) The methodology taken by the country people to pace the urbanisation which is as follows:

Figure5: Rural Industrialization and urbanization of countryside

Hukou

Reform

Rural Reform

Surplus Labour

Abundant Product

Land and

TVEs Local

Initiatives Entrepreneurs

hip Technical

Knowhow

RuralIndustrialization

and Urbanization ofCountryside

The flowchart implies: Initially, Rural Reform generated surplus rural labour and supplied sufficient farm produce to sustain non-agricultural activities in towns and cities.

Source: China's post reform urbanization by Anthony g.o. Yeh, Jiang Xu

Further, change in the Hukou System facilitated rural migration to small towns. Then, local initiatives together with local endowments (such as the entrepreneurship of local leaders and technical knowledge) and the foreign capital, all helped rural industries to flourish. The sector not only absorbed surplus labour but also contributed to the country's economy significantly throughout the 1980's. Moreover, the growth of rural industries spurred the development of small towns and cities and made those previously rural settlements increasingly urbanized. Thus, the urbanization process in this stage can be summarized as an endogenous and spontaneous growth of rural industries in small towns, leading to the urbanization of the countryside.

let's look at the history now, It says Before the development of national economic reform policies, 18 farmers in Xiaogang village (in eastern Anhui Province) inadvertently ignited China's rural reform. They signed a secret agreement to divide communally owned farmland into individual plots which triggered the collapse of the People's Commune System (PCS) and the establishment of the Household Responsibility System (HRS). The HRS allowed individual households to take full charge of production on their allocated land plots. Essentially, households were allowed to retain grain surpluses instead of turning in the entire farm product to the collectives under the PCS. Peasants' initiatives galvanized rural productivity and generated a huge surplus of farm labourers that had been veiled under the PCS. In the early 1980s, holders of an agricultural hukou were allowed to migrate to nearby market towns and other small towns, as long as they could provide for their own livelihood. This loosened the main constraint on migration. Subsequent industrialization in these towns absorbed the labour surplus released from the countryside. The process of rural industrialization was realized through the promotion of township and village enterprises (TVEs). TVEs were set up in rural areas where the administrative levels are township and village. The initiative of the local government for promoting tax revenue; the central government's aspiration to modernize national agriculture; the absorption of surplus labour; the alleviation of rural poverty by improving the living standards of the peasants; and the desire of those without adequate agricultural work to seek new opportunities for moving out of poverty and underemployment in the countryside, all these factors paced the growth of TVE's.

In comparison to the stagnant situation in state- and collectively owned enterprises during the same period, TVEs contributed significantly to employment creation. The TVE sector thus became one of the main pillars of China's economy. In 1990, rural industries accounted for a quarter of China's total GNP and 60 per cent of its rural production. Ninety million people were registered as rural-industry employees, and the actual number may have been much higher. Rural industries employed 87 per cent as many people as state sectors, although three years later, in 1993, these two sectors provided equal numbers of jobs.

Thus, the development of rural industries enabled millions of former farmers to continue living close to their home villages. Despite their non-agricultural jobs, these workers maintained ties with farming and could provide support in the busiest farming seasons

(normally sowing and harvesting), when mass farm labour was needed for short periods. In addition, the partially reformed hukou system continued to put restrictions on migration, and was another reason for people working in the towns close to their villages.

The in fluxing of rural workers for the development of rural industries -this process was later described by Zhu (2000) as in situ urbanization. From Friedmann (2004)(source: Friedmann, J. (2004),China’s Urban Transition), we see evaluation of such urbanization in five dimensions: administrative, economic, physical, socio-cultural and political.

Administratively , the rapid increase in the number of towns in the early 1980s and the momentum maintained in the 1990s resulted in most towns being upgraded from townships.

Economically , the trend was for people to retreat from underemployment in the primary sector, by leaving farmland to engage in the secondary (manufacturing industry, construction), and tertiary sectors (trades and services).

Physically, the villages and townships acquired an “urban look” as streets were paved, public spaces were renovated and multi-storey buildings appeared.

Socially and culturally, everyday life was transformed, with large numbers of newcomers working in local factories, and the simple peasant life giving way to new and more complex livelihoods.

Politically, there emerged a strong linkage between local officials and business elites.

According to Ma and Lin (1993) and Ma and Fan (1994) the urbanization brought on by rural industrialization can be described as “urbanization from below” after investigating the development of towns in the Pearl River Delta in Southern China and Jiangsu Province in Eastern China. They argued that the central government had not played an active role in the growth of towns. Rather, local endowments – such as geographical location, resources, history and business culture – and linkage with foreign capitals had played key roles. Such varied local endowments led to the emergence of different models of rural–urban development:The Southern Jiangsu Model which played prominent role for collectives in organizing and facilitating local industrial development (Ma and Fan, 1994; Wei, 2002). The Wenzhou Model, it was famous for its dynamic private sector (Liu, 1992; Parris 1993; Ye and Wei, 2005), and The Pearl River Delta Model emphasized the advantages of overseas capital (Ma and Lin, 1993; Eng, 1997; Sit and Yang, 1997). Such random industrial development in rural areas generated “multi-centric” urban spatial forms and the rampant growth of peri-urban areas around medium-sized and large cities which constrained mass migration to big cities, and avoided the pattern common to many other developing countries where rural migrants settled in deprived area in large cities, having very limited formal employment opportunities.Later, The pace of rural industrialization slowed in the mid-1990s due to competition from the enterprises in cities, limited technological and human resources, vanishing tax and loans incentives, and other drawbacks to rural enterprise management. The situation worsened after China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001, bringing competition from large-scale and better-managed foreign firms. Employment in the TVEs dropped by 17 million in 1998 and then remained stagnant. The following decade saw a total growth of only 15.8 million people working in TVEs, less than the annual growth in the 1980s. Facing such intensive competition, mostly from privatization, TVEs have been experiencing a process of transformation (Chang, McCall et al. 2003; Shen and Ma, 2005). However, TVEs have

undoubtedly contributed significantly to China's rural transformation to urbanization. As noted by Friedmann (2004), China is the only country (with the possible exception of communist Vietnam) in which rural industrialization has shaped new urban configurations, and the only country in which rural industrialization has been truly transformative. It helped to save Chinese cities from the severe problems widely experienced in developing countries elsewhere.

Urbanization driven by land reform (1988-2000):Land and housing reforms The success of rural reform since the late 1970s encouraged the central government to promote further reforms in the urban sector through a series of policies that have been adopted since 1984 like 1984 Urban Planning Regulation Act, 1989 Urban Planning Act, and later, 2007 new Urban and Rural Planning Act promoted by National People's Congress. In line with the country's transformation from a planned economy towards a market economy, cities were directed towards commercialization and privatization. The globalizing world, specifically in the forms of foreign trade and foreign capital, also fuelled the transformation. The key factor was land reform, which led to the commodification (A Marxist understanding of commodity) of the built environment. Since the economic reform, labour had been commoditized through certain migration rights, and attracted to towns and cities. Favourable policies facilitated foreign capital investment in selected regions and industries. Thus, of the three factors of production – labour, capital and land – it was only land that remained intact in the state's domain. In the classic Marxist view, land was not considered a main factor of production, having no value without the addition of labour. Therefore an increase of land value was perceived as an indirect exploitation of labour engaged in production. Avoiding the exploitation of labour thus required elimination of the private ownership of land, regarded as a means of exploitation, and the reduction of the land costs to zero (Source: Zhang, 1997). That's why, in the pre-reform era, there was virtually no privately owned land. Land in China was either state-owned or collectively owned, and land transactions were banned. The state allocated land to users without any charges. But Following economic reform and the introduction of privately owned enterprises, including foreign enterprises and joint ventures, the free allocation of land was no longer appropriate. Besides, it was perceived that the system of free land use resulted in serious economic inefficiency, contributing to the demand for reform of the land allocation system. In a prelude to official land reform, a national experiment in charging land-use fees was then introduced in 1984. Shenzhen, one of the Special Economic Zones established in the early 1980s, was the first to levy an annual land-use fee to overseas. Such trials triggered the establishment of the State Land Administration Bureau and the enactment of Land Administration Law in 1986 and the paid transfer of land-use rights became official in the First Section of the Seventh People's Congress in 1988. The Bureau was “responsible for, and in charge of land policy reform, land allocation and acquisition, monitoring of land development, comprehensive land-use plans, and implementation of land laws” (source: Ding, 2003). The law shifted power in land management from various ministries and other units to the local government. Both the establishment of the bureau and the enactment of the law marked the end of free land use and opened a new era of lawful transactions of urban land.

There were three key features of China's urban land-use reform (source: Zhang, X.Q. (1997), Urban land reform in China, Land Use Policy, Vol. 14): 1. land taxation, requiring all urban land users, including both work units and individuals, to pay a land-use tax; 2. the separation of land-use rights from ownership, so that the state retains ownership of the land and only the use-right is leased; 3. a dual-track land system, in which the administrative land allocation of the pre-reform era and the newly established land-leasing system co-exist. Through these arrangements, land-use efficiency has improved and government revenues increased.

The then taxation criteria: Local governments were permitted to retain certain revenues, the so-called “extra-budgetary revenue”, for local disposal. Land revenue was included in the category of extra-budgetary revenue. Together with the disposal rights of land granted by Land Administrative Law, the role of local government started to change, gaining autonomy and initiative. Walder (1995) referred to local governments as “industrial firms” and Duckett (1996) & Friedmann (2004) described them as entrepreneurial states (or cities). Land was the essential instrument in developing the local state. According to Ho and Lin (2001), land-related revenues accounted for 30–70 per cent of the total revenue of local governments in the 1990s. Ding (2003) came up with a more conservative estimate of 25–50 per cent. With the introduction of housing reform, the significance of land was emphasized once again. The gradual reform of the housing sector started in the late 1980s when the state faced a severe housing shortage and an insufficient budget to construct more housing stock (Wu, 1996; Zhou and Logan, 1996). With the announcement of gradual reform (State Council, 1988), the work-units started to sell existing housing stock, which triggered the process of housing commercialization. Later, state employees were subsidized by their work-units to buy newly developed housing. It was not until 1998 that the allocation of housing based on the state work-units was abolished.

Land and housing reforms are manifestations of commercialization, decentralization, privatization and globalization in the post-reform era. The role of local states has been transformed under these processes, as have urbanization and urban development.

Urbanization and urban development The policies and processes summarized in figure below significantly changed the regional and urban landscapes, especially through the development of the land and housing market and the rapid expansion of urban land and construction.

Figure6: Urbanization and urban development driven by Land Reform

Commercialization

Decentralization

Privatization

Globalization

Source: China's post reform urbanization by Anthony g.o. Yeh, Jiang Xu

Urbanization driven by service industry: (2001-present)The growth of the tertiary-sector (service sector) industries in China had been constrained for decades, especially before economic reform when services were considered unproductive and consumptive. In the early stages of economic reform, manufacturing and other secondary industries were still the focus of efforts aimed at boosting the country's economy. The role of the tertiary sector was not taken seriously until 1992, when the central government proposed a strategy to facilitate its development. This shift was based on the awareness that the service industry can give cities a competitive edge and impetus for new growth. Specifically, it was hoped that it would help to diversify the employment structure, open up new opportunities for low-threshold entrepreneurship, and generate employment. In addition, the growth of per capita income of urban residents since the early 1990s required a dynamic service sector. Per capita income had grown more than ten-fold in less than two decades. In this period, the service sector consisted mainly of consumer-related services, such as wholesale and retail trade, hotels and catering. In urban China, the service sector grew rapidly. The contribution of the tertiary industry to employment increased from 30 to 50 per cent from 1995 to 2000, and tertiary-generated GDP maintained around 40 per cent of all GDP in this period. Since 2000, in terms of both GDP and employment, the service industry has been catching up with industry (Figure 15). However, compared with service development in other countries, the proportion of service industry in China is still low.

Urban Reform

Land Reform Fiscal Reform Housing Reform .............

Local Developmental State

Local Initiatives

Entrepreneurial Cities

Place Making

Land Reform driven Urbanization and Urban

Development

commercialization, decentralization, privatization, globalization made land reform driven urbanization and urban development.

According to World Bank statistics, the tertiary industry accounted for 72 per cent of national GDP in high-income economies, and 59 per cent in middle-income economies. Moreover, the proportion of advanced producer services within the Chinese service sector remained small. The producer service sector has developed only recently in China since the privatization of the public ownership enterprises. Before this, China's enterprises, both state-owned and collective-owned, tended to be “all in one” – providing all the services for their employees by the enterprises themselves. Thus, there was little demand for externalizing separate functions to outside service providers. Furthermore, human resources with high levels of education and specialized talents were not yet ready for producer services. Only since the 10th Five-Year Plan (2001–2005) was the producer service sector, often known as the modern service sector in China, designated to play a significant part in enhancing the global competitiveness of the Chinese urban economy. The advanced producer service sector in China normally refers to services for businesses, such as computer services, legal consulting, accounting, marketing, advertising, scientific and research services. The finance and real-estate sectors had the greatest growth momentum, although not the highest value (Figure 16). These sectors roughly fall into the category of advanced producer services. Producer services are predicted to grow in the coming decades. Premier Wen Jiabao has emphasized the role of the service sector in the national economy. He has further pinpointed the role of producer service industries, such as finance, logistics and information, in supporting the growth of modern manufacturing industry and facilitating the upgrading of economic structure (source: Xie, 2010). Such policy emphases have been reflected in the development of almost all major cities. The development outlines of China's two major city regions endorsed recently by the National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC) reflected the determination of both central and local governments to promote the producer service sector. According to the Outline of the Reform and Development in Pearl River Delta Region, this region strives to develop an advanced producer service industry, advanced manufacturing and high-tech industry (NDRC, 2008). Key industries within the producer service sector have been identified. Ways of promoting these industries, and goals for them, have been formulated (Table 4). The overall goal of the development of the producer service industry is to account for more that 60 per cent of service output by 2020.

2.5. South Africa:South Africa is the largest and most industrialised economy in Africa, and the 28th-largest economy in the world. Nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) of its total population of 50 million live in urban areas. This makes it one of the most urbanised countries in sub-Saharan Africa, after the small states of Reunion, Gabon and Djibouti. The main source of national population growth at present is international migration. A bulky immigration system makes it difficult for foreign nationals to enter the country legally, whether skilled or unskilled. Consequently, there are estimated to be about five million illegal immigrants, including three million Zimbabweans. Meanwhile, the natural growth rate of the domestic population is one of the lowest in sub- Saharan Africa. The high incidence of HIV/AIDS and associated illnesses such as tuberculosis has increased mortality substantially and reduced natural growth over the last two decades. The fertility rate has also been declining and is now one of the lowest in sub-Saharan Africa.

South Africa has experienced an unusual urbanisation like Brazil. Both the countries witnessed a typical urbanisation trends till the establishment of democracy, as both were ruled by different foreign ruler with a strong quench of monopoly in trade and manufacturing and the cruel intention of being the economic superpower of that time. Like Brazil, the history of South Africa is characterised by racial violence, territorial conflict, wars of conquest and inter-ethnic rivalry. Supposedly, after the exploration of South Africa by the Portuguese mariner Bartolommeo Dias in 1488, colonisation spread its tentacles through the society of aboriginal San and Khoikhoi tribes. First the Dutch, then the British exploited South Africa. The colonisation of South Africa took place in the early 1800's; and imperialised very soon than we can think of because the natives here had limited governmental rights, apartheid policies taken by the ruler and mainly racial discrimination was on its peak. A wide range of policy instruments, laws and institutions was used to influence the household mobility including racially discriminatory government controls on:

people's ability to own land their ability to settle where they wished the regulation of employment The education and training system.

South Africa is a country at the southern tip of the continent of Africa with total area of 1,219,090 sq km and population of 48,375,645. It is a middle-income, emerging market with abundant supply of natural resources, well developed financial, legal, communications, energy and transport sectors; a stock exchange which ranks 18th largest in the world and modern infrastructure supporting a relatively efficient distribution of goods to major urban centres throughout the region. South Africa's growth was robust from 2004 to 2007 as it reaped the benefits of macroeconomic stability and a global commodities boom but began to slow in the second half of 2007 due to an electricity crisis and the subsequent global financial crisis impact on commodity prices and demand; GDP fell nearly 2% in 2009 but recovered in 2010 but yet unemployment remained high and growth was constrained due to outdated infrastructure. Daunting economic problems remains here from the apartheid era- specially poverty, lack of economic empowerment among the disadvantaged groups and a shortage of public transportation. South Africa's economic policy is fiscally conservative, focusing on controlling inflation and attaining a budget surplus. This country is

Now the following discussion explains the urbanisation trends.

Trends in Urbanisation in South Africa is divided into 3 periods:First Period: Urbanisation in the late 19th and early 20th CenturySecond Period: Urbanisation during world war IIThird Period: Urbanisation after 1994First Period: Urbanisation in The Late 19th and Early 20th CenturyIn late 19th century:The process of urbanisation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was closely associated with industrialisation and involved the exploitation of both natural resources (minerals) and human resources (rural migrants). It was stimulated by the discovery of diamonds on the southern banks of the Orange river, interior of the country in 1867, and more importantly gold on the Witwatersrand in 1884. The resulting ‘Mineral Revolution’ stimulated rapid industrialisation and large-scale national and indeed international migration, particularly to the Witwatersrand (now known as Gauteng, and centred on the country’s largest city, Johannesburg). The mining boom required the rapid creation of an extremely large workforce. Mining output grew rapidly, but was repeatedly held back by a shortage of labour. The need to assemble a bigger labour force through in-migration had profound social and geo-political consequences, including the transformation of South Africa from a patchwork of agrarian states to a unified industrial nation with a strong political centre in the early 20th century. Until then, the country was divided between provinces of the British Empire, states formed by Afrikaner settlers, and various native African states. All of these territories were dominated by farming cattle or cash crops such as sugar, coffee and wine. During the 19th century, urban areas were few in number and small in size.

In this era, 'Mining Boom', specifically 'The Mineral Revolution' was the only and the important driver of urbanisation in various ways.

Mining boom stimulated industrialisation: Once the surface deposits of the minerals were removed by small diggers, the excavation of deep deposits required machineries, credit and a large workforce. Consequently the mines were taken over by foreign companies with access to these resources such as De Beers, Anglo-American and Consolidated gold fields. This large scale mining also provoked the development of a wide range of supporting industries and services such as chemicals, civil and mechanical engineering. in this way it stimulated the urbanisation.

Mining boom initiated demographic shifts and created a stable growing workforce: Early on most labour came from the African states and Mozambique on a temporary basis, establishing an 'oscillating migration'. But this voluntary system was not reliable enough to provide the expanding labour force required by the mining companies. Extracting minerals from rocks and processing low quality ore were very labour intensive and required growing armies of cheap unskilled workers. The companies invested in various schemes to attract workers for longer periods and from further afield. Corporate agents travelled throughout the region offering fixed contracts and pre-arranged wages to attract young men to the mines. With constrained supplies from within South Africa (partly because of the low wages), increasing numbers of workers were recruited from neighbouring countries such as Mozambique, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana. Companies also introduced large residential compounds or hostels to keep male migrant workers on site – a development that was to prove highly significant in later years. These closed

complexes offered food, accommodation and cheap beer, but were also notorious for disease, malnutrition and cramped, squalid conditions. By 1900 there were 100,000 black workers living in mining compounds and by 1910 their number actually exceeded the entire white population of the Witwatersrand.

Mining boom prompted investment in the country's transportation and communication system: Three railway lines were built in the 1890s to connect the Witwatersrand with commercial ports in Maputo, Durban and Cape Town, based largely on public finance. Other towns were also linked together and to the countryside, and ports such as Durban and Cape Town were expanded to cope with increasing immigration and commercial activity. One wave of immigration involved thousands of indentured workers from China who were needed to alleviate the labour shortage in the gold mines during the first decade of the 1900s. Another wave consisted of thousands of indentured Indian workers required for the sugar-cane plantations established by British settlers around Durban from the 1860s. This time, Durban was the largest trans-shipment point for exports and imports to the interior, and developed related manufacturing and ship manufacturer industries. As the largest port by far, it was also a logical place to establish industries that depended on imported inputs, such as chemicals, food and drink, paper, printing and engineering. Cape Town developed as the economic and administrative hub of the Cape Colony, and later the legislative capital of the Union and Republic of South Africa, with a diverse range of associated logistics, manufacturing, cultural, media, educational, property, financial and tourism activities which is prospered vigorously as the home of head offices of important companies in retailing, financial services, business services and oil refining.

So, as per as the whole discussion, we can conclude that 'The Mineral Revolution' was truly a revolution to accelerate the urbanisation at that time. But as everything has a pros and cons, it also carried some cons which can't be kept further from discussion, namely its impact on political developments and social relations.

Impact on political developments: To secure a regular flow of workers to the mines, colonisers began to annex neighbouring African states such as Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Pediland. Britain wanted to control the entire region in order to remove potential threats to the mines and encourage industrial expansion. It tended to replace the slow and inexperienced Afrikaner bureaucracy with British laws and regulations, which led to increasing tension between the British colonies and Afrikaner states, resulted in the Anglo-Boer war I in 1877-1880 and the Anglo-Boer War II in 1899-1902. This united South Africa as a single state under British control. The country was granted independence in 1910.

Impact on social relations: It formed the basis of the Draconian apartheid system of legalised racial discrimination and subjugation. One of its features was the 'pass' system, a means of registration which required black people to carry a permit when moving around the country; it was mainly designed to discourage labourers from breaking their employment contracts. It was extended to control the movement of 'unskilled black workers' to urban areas and to regulate many other aspects of the social relationships and interaction between races.

In early 20th century:During the first half of the 20th century, a series of laws were passed that affected spatial development pattern and denied land and citizenship rights to blacks in urban areas which are as follows:The 1913 Native Land Act, to prevent blacks from owning land outside rural ‘reserves’ in the former native African states. This punitive Act set aside just 13 per cent of the country’s surface area for the black majority of the population and was designed to force people off the land, partly to expand the supply of cheap labour for the mines and commercial farms. The 1918 Natives In Urban Areas Act, to force blacks into outlying townships or 'locations' specifically reserved for them.The 1923 Urban Areas Act, to introduce the idea of the residential segregation of different racial groups.The 1926 Colour Bar Act, to prevent blacks from practicing skilled trades with a motive to protect the skilled white workers from wage competition. This was one of many measures employed to safeguard the interests of white workers from wage competition.

Besides the aim of racial separation and containment of an unwelcomed tide of black urban migration, these laws were also shaped by wider concerns. these included the need to improve public health, supply clean water, reduce fire risks, re-develop overcrowded slums, modernise the physical layout of urban areas, in short, managing settlement growth more efficiently in a scenario of unprecedented industrialisation and Urbanisation.

Second Period: Urbanisation during World War II (Apartheid Policy at Extreme)Inter-war segregationist policies intensified after the Second World War, when apartheidbecame official government policy. Apartheid is the name of the racial institution that was established in 1948 by the National Party that governed South Africa until 1994.  The term, which means “apartness,” reflected a violently repressive policy designed to ensure that whites, who comprised 20% of the nation's population, would continue to dominate the country. The National Party argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups – Africans, coloureds, Indians and whites. These groups were split further into 13 nations or racial federations. A welter of new laws and the creation of a large state bureaucracy paved the way for ‘Grand Apartheid’, which was centred on separating races and strengthening segregation by forcing people to live in different places defined by race. This meant both different territories/regions of South Africa, and different neighbourhoods within urban areas.

These laws was listed as follows,The 1950 Population Registration Act: this act provided that all South Africans will be classified in one of three categories: white, black and coloured. According to this act, Indians fell under the coloured category. This act was used to determine the qualification into each of these three categories was based on appearance, social acceptance and descent. The Department of Home Affairs formalised racial classification and introduced an identity card, the infamous "dompas" for everyone over 18 which had their fingerprints, photo and information. The 1950 Group Areas Act: the primary aim of this act was to make residential separation compulsory. Primary reason to introduce this act was to curb the movements of the non-

whites, in particular blacks from rural areas into big cities and whites-only areas and this influx was stimulated by the booming economy. So, to counter the influx and consolidate the growing numbers, the government set up semi-urban townships for black, Indian and coloured population groups.The 1951 Bantu Authorities Act: In the objective of keeping black people permanently from urban areas, this law was passed allowing the government to demolish informal settlements and the settlement was on racial and ethnic basis. They created separate government structures for black and white citizens and was the first law to support separate development in rural areas Government named as 'homelands'. All the black peoples was pushed forcefully out of urban areas to stay in these homelands.Another law forced white employers to pay for the construction of housing for essential black workers permitted to reside in cities and towns. The 1953 Reservation of Separate Amenities Act: The Nationalist Party developed this concept of unequal allocation of resources such as general infrastructure, education and jobs. This act resulted in the designation of separate municipal facilities, beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. These laws were driven strongly by the political and ideological motives of racial separation and segregation. As long as the mining corporations and major industrial companies were able to benefit from cheap labour, they did little to oppose these features of apartheid. There was a very heavy price to pay in depriving blacks of access to decent education, training, health and other social amenities, with severe consequences to this day. Blacks were also deprived of access to services that would have helped them to earn a living through self-employment and business formation. This restrictions on black had left a legacy of low levels of general entrepreneurial activity, low rates of formal business formation and high rates of failure and this was one of those cause which interrupted South Africa's natural urbanisation growth . The 1955 Black labour Amendment Act: this act amended the 1953 Black Labour Relations Regulation Act which provided for separate industrial conciliation machinery which applied to black workers other than those employed in framing companies, domestic service, governmental or educational services and the coal and gold mining industries.The 1959 Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act entrenched the policy of nominally independent Bantustans. This act announced the existence of eight African ethnic groups based on their linguistic and cultural diversity. This was built mainly for the transfer of powers of self-government whereby each ethnic group would govern itself independent of white intervention. They were given some devolved administrative powers and some funds to encourage inward investment and jobs in order to limit migration pressures on the cities. The Bantustans had virtually no resource base of their own and ended up with too few and often poorly qualified educators, police, health workers and other public servants. This suffering from severe underinvestment in economic and household infrastructure, left them with inadequate transport, communications, power and irrigation for agricultural producers and manufacturing companies.The 1967 Environmental Planning Act: This act allowed government to restrict industrial development in the ‘white’ cities and towns and redirect it to the Bantustans. Once again the intention was to reduce the numbers of black people in rural areas migrating to the cities. The 1970 Bantu Homeland Citizenship Act: It removed citizenship from blacks living in South Africa so they became citizens of one of the ten Bantustans, according to their ethnic group. They were only allowed to occupy the houses bequeathed to them by their fathers in urban areas and they would have to work as foreign migrant labourers on temporary work permits. The aim was to ensure the existence of a demographic majority of whites within South Africa and to reinforce the political, economic and spatial exclusion of non-whites.

Between the 1960s and early 1980s, the government implemented a brutal policy of ‘resettlement’ to force people to move to their designated urban ‘group areas’ and rural ‘homelands’. At least two million people experienced expulsion during this period. They included people relocated due to slum-clearance programmes, labour tenants on white-owned farms, inhabitants of so-called ‘black spots’ – areas of black-owned land surrounded by white farms, families of workers living in townships close to the homelands, and ‘surplus people’ (or ‘idle blacks’) from urban areas, including thousands of blacks from the Western Cape who were moved to the Transkei and Ciskei homelands in the Eastern Cape. The number of arrests for pass-law offences increased to approximately 750,000 a year by the mid-1960s, which indicates how seriously the state sought to prevent urbanisation. The migrant labour and homeland system provided a cheap, controlled workforce for the economy, but the very opposite of a cohesive, contented society.So in the world war II era, we can see there was no specific "urbanisation" pattern in South Africa, the period between 1930's and the 1980's was only an era of different policy implementation and regarding experiments, made by the "white's government" to prevent the white's from blacks and This can be seemingly included that black people were only supposed to live not with their rights but with their purposes!

Third period: urbanisation after 1994The pace of urbanisation accelerated during the 1980s after many of the restrictions ofApartheid proved impossible to enforce. The figure below shows that the average annual rate of urban population growth (diagram A) increased between the 1970s and the early 1990s. The country’s rural–urban transition resumed during this period, with the rising share of the population living in cities and towns (diagram B). The tipping point when the urban population exceeded the rural population was crossed around 1986–87, and the share has continued to rise since then. The other interesting feature of diagram A is the

Figure7: Comparison of % of urban population between South Africa and Sub- Saharan Africa, 1950-2015

1950

-19

55-19

60-19

65-19

70-19

75-19

80-19

85-19

90-19

95-20

00-20

05-20

10-20

15-

0

20

40

60

80

100

120% of population in urban

south africa sub-saharan africa

% o

f urb

an p

opul

atio

n

(

(Source: World Population Database 2012)

Figure8: Comparison of Annual Rate of Change of Urban Population between South Africa and Sub- Saharan Africa, 1950-2015

1950-55

1955-60

1960-65

1965-70

1970-75

1975-80

9180-85

1985-90

1990-95

1995-00

2000-05

2005-10

2010-15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

annual rate of change in urban population

south africa sub-saharan africa

rate

of c

hang

e

(Source: World Population Prospects, 2012)

Table9: Comparison of Annual Rate of Change of Urban Population between South Africa and Sub- Saharan Africa, 1950-2015

Year

Annual rate of change, South Africa

Annual rate of change, Sub-Saharan Africa

1950-55 3.35 5.151955-60 3.43 5.471960-65 2.87 4.451965-70 2.78 4.581970-75 2.78 4.831975-80 2.6 4.791980-85 2.91 4.7

Year % of population in South Africa

% of population in Sub-Saharan Africa

1950 42.2 10.71955 44.4 12.61960 46.6 14.8 1965 47.2 16.41970 47.8 18.21975 48.1 20.31980 48.4 22.41985 49.4 24.71990 52 27.11995 54.5 29.12000 56.9 30.82005 59.5 332010 62.2 35.42015 64.8 37.9

1985-90 3.24 4.711990-95 3.29 4.091995-00 2.45 3.752000-05 2.37 3.972005-10 2.17 4.072010-15 1.59 4.01

Decline in the rate of urban growth since the mid-1990s. This does not appear to be attributable to a slowdown in rural–urban migration, but rather to a decline in the natural growth rate of the population (births minus deaths), associated with the problems of HIV/AIDS and associated illnesses such as tuberculosis. These challenges have affected rural and urban areas.

4. Common challenges of BRICS The common challenges BRICS are facing which is as follows:

Economic Transformations Inequity and Poverty Education and Skill Development Universal Access to Healthcare Governance Challenges Service Delivery Sustainability

*[All the data and definitions are collected from World bank Indicators Database, Website: data.worldbank.org]

Economic Transformations:

The challenges they are facing in economic transformations, is explained under the following indicators: GDP, GDP growth rate, GDP per capita, share of workers in primary, secondary and tertiary sector, labour force participation rate and unemployment rate and the data is collected on US$.

GDP is one of the primary indicators used to gauge the health of a country's economy; this represents the total value of goods and services produced by a country over a specific time period. GDP growth rate indicates the rate at which a nation's GDP changes from year to year and GDP per capita, based on PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) is the converted value of one country's GDP to international dollars using PPP rates.Table10: GDP, GDP Growth Rate And GDP Per Capita (PPP)

Country GDP (billion US$)

BRAZIL 2246RUSSIA 2096INDIA 1726CHINA 9185SOUTH AFRICA 382

*GDP (B-2012 R,I,C-2013 & SA-2012) *GDP growth rate (B,R,I,C-2013) SA-2011 *GDP per capita (B,R,I,C,S-2013)

Economic activity of a country are broadly grouped into primary, secondary and tertiary sectors.

Primary sectors are directly dependent on environment, more specifically on utilisation of earth resources such as land, water, vegetation, building materials and minerals. It thus includes hunting and gathering, fishing, forestry, agriculture, mining and quarrying. People involved in this sector are called red-collar workers due to the outdoor nature of their work.

Secondary Sectors add value to natural resources by transforming raw materials into valuable products. Therefore its concerned with manufacturing, processing and construction (infrastructure) industries. People involved in this sector are called blue-collar workers.

Tertiary sectors include production and exchange, here the production involves the provision of services that are consumed and exchange involves trade, transport and communication facilities that are used to overcome distances. People involved under this group are called white-collar workers.

Table 11: Share of workers in 3 sector

*

*B,I,SA-2012, C,R-2013

Among BRICS, China has near to equal share of workers under three sectors and the highest share among the BRICS countries which implies China can have a highest GDP of 9185 billion US$.

India has the second highest share of workers in three sectors; most of the share work under primary and tertiary workers. So India has to increase the share of workers in secondary sector.

Country SHARE OF WORKERS (primary sector)(million)

SHARE OF WORKERS (secondary sector)(million)

SHARE OF WORKERS (tertiary sector)(million)

BRAZIL 13.6 21.7 60RUSSIA 7 27.8 65.3INDIA 207.9 97.6 115.1CHINA 241.7 231.7 296.4SOUTH AFRICA 0.7 1.1 11.7

Comparatively, share of workers in three sectors is very less for Brazil, Russia and South Africa.

Labour Force Participation Rate is the proportion of the population ages 15 and older that is economically active: all people who supply labour for the production of goods and services during a specified period.Unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the no of unemployed individuals by all current individuals in labour force.

Table 12: labour force participation rate and unemployment rate

*labour force:B,I-2012 R,S-2013 C-2011 unemployment: B,S-2012 R,C,I-2013

The table shows, South Africa has the highest percentage of unemployment ,25.1% with 53.1 % labour force participation rate. so it states that, SA has to decrease unemployment rate at a high scale. in the labour force participation rate, we see all the five countries have near to equal LFPR but they also have a descent unemployment rate comparatively than SA.

So, under this section, we see that, In terms of economic transformations, China is in a good position , first to India. Both the Asian countries are doing really well ; both have a good LFPR, less unemployment rate, large share of workers in economic activity and a healthy GDP growth rate (India has the highest GDP growth rate among BRICS).

Inequity and Poverty:

To explain, GNI per capita (PPP), Poverty Gap at 1.25$ a day (PPP), Income share held by lowest 20%, second 20%, third 20%, fourth 20%, highest 20% and GINI coefficient is taken under consideration.

Table 13: GNI per capita (PPP)

Country labour force participation rate(%)

unemployment rate(%)

BRAZIL 65.90% 6.10%RUSSIA 68.50% 5.50%INDIA 53.40% 5.30%CHINA 69.80% 4.10%SOUTH AFRICA 53.10% 25.10%

Country GNI, Per Capita (PPP) $

BRAZIL 14750RUSSIA 24280INDIA 5350CHINA 11850SOUTH AFRICA 12530

*B,R,I,C,S-2013

*B,R,I,C,S-2013

GNI, Per Capita (PPP) is Gross National Income converted to International dollars using purchasing power parity rates. As the table shows, in 2013, Russia was the one who was holding highest gross national income of 24280$ superior than Brazil (14750$), South Africa (12530$), China (11850$), lastly India (5350$). India was the least GNI holder.

Table 14: poverty gap at $1.25 a day (PPP) and Gini Coefficient

* Poverty gap: B,R,I,C,S-2011 GINI coefficient: B,R-2012, I-2010, C-2013, SA-2011

Poverty Gap index is a measure of the intensity of poverty; it is the mean shortfall from the poverty line. It is defined as the average poverty gap in the population as a percentage of poverty line.

GINI Coefficient measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption expenditure among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. Economically, a Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual. Now GINI coefficient measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a imaginary line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. GINI coefficient of 0 represents perfect equality while 100 represents perfect inequality.

So, from the table, we get that China has the best GINI coefficient (0.473<0), Russia has 2nd perfect GINI coefficient (0.42), this in turn implies that, there is no much inequality in Russia and China. On the other side, India , Brazil and South Africa has the perfect inequality . And Under poverty gap at 1.25$/day (PPP), we can conclude that, Russia doesn't hold poverty gap at 1.25$ a day, India holds the top position with 4.8 % people at 1.25$ prior to Brazil with 2.5%. China and South Africa have almost equal value.

Table 15: Income share held by lowest, second, third, fourth And highest 20%

*

B-2012,R,I-2009,C-2010,S-2011

Country Poverty gap at $1.25 a day (PPP) (%)

GINI Coefficient

BRAZIL 2.5 0.56RUSSIA 0 0.42INDIA 4.8 0.65CHINA 1.3 0.473SOUTH AFRICA 1.2 0.65

Country Income share held by lowest 20%

Income share held by second 20%

Income share held by third 20%

Income share held by fourth 20%

Income share held by highest 20%

BRAZIL 19.3 7.7 12.4 3.4 57.2RUSSIA 21.2 10.6 14.8 6.5 47INDIA 20.8 12.1 15.7 8.5 42.8CHINA 23.2 9.7 15.3 4.7 47.1SOUTH AFRICA 15.7 4.3 7.7 2.5 69.9

Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles which is divided into 5 part, lowest, second, third, fourth and highest.

table shows, for brazil, 19.3% income share is held by lowest 20% people, 7.7% income share held by second 20% people, 12.4% held by third 20%, 3.4% held by fourth 20% and 57.2% held by highest 20%.

same interpretation is applied to other countries.

It can be notified from the table, South Africa has to increase the share in second, third and fourth 20% income share holding.

if we add up the shares holding by each country, we can see that

Brazil's share is 100%

Russia's share is 100%

India's share is 99.9%~100%

China's share is 100%

South Africa's share is 100% but yet South Africa has to increase the income share in middle groups.

Education and Skill Development:

To access the state of education and skill development, the indicator such as literacy rate and enrolment ratio & govt. expenditure as % of GDP was taken into consideration.

Table 16: literacy rate and total net enrolment ratio in primary education

*

B,SA-2012,R,C-2010,I-2011 (literacy rate) *B-2010,R-2008,I-2012,C-1999,SA-2013(Net Enrolment Ratio)

Literacy Rate is the percentage of people ages 15 and above who can read and write a short with understanding simple statement on their everyday life. From the data, we see India's literacy rate is comparatively low than other countries although we can't compare them because of unequal population

To support the above statement, we have to look at the total net enrolment ration in primary education.

Net primary enrolment ratio in primary education is the number of children of primary school age who are enrolled in primary education as a percentage of total children of the official school age

Country Literacy rate(%)

Total Net Enrolment Ratio, primary (%)

BRAZIL 98.6 94.0RUSSIA 99.7 97.2INDIA 74.0 98.8CHINA 99.6 87.0SOUTH AFRICA 98.8 90.5

population. So, the data says all the BRICS countries have a high degree of enrolment in education by the official school age population, the difference in the value is mainly because of differences between individual national education system and difference in the population.

Table 17: Govt. Expenditure on education as % of GDP

*B-2010,R-2008,I-2012,C-2009,S-2013

Government expenditure on education is expressed as a percentage of GDP. It does include expenditure funded by transfers from international sources to government but in general, it mean expenditure by local, regional and central governments.

From the table, we see that comparatively India and China has a very low government expenditure than other 3 countries and it's because of high population . So under this indicator, we conclude that BRICS countries spend nearly equal same in their education.

So, In a nutshell, It can be concluded that education is not so challenging but they have to develop more in the govt. expenditure and infrastructure.

Universal Access to Healthcare

BRICS countries have a large number of vulnerable population. These countries differ largely in allocated resources to healthcare. IMR, CBR, CDR, TFR, Life Expectancy at Birth and govt.'s expenditure on health as % of GDP are taken under our consideration.

Infant Mortality Rate(IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old per 1000 live births.

Maternal Mortality Rate(MMR) is the annual no of female deaths per 100,000 live births from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management. Productive age for woman is generally defined as 15-44 years of age.

Crude Birth Rate(CBR) is the no of live births occurring among the population of a given geographical area during a given year, per 1000 total population estimated at mid-year.

Similarly, Crude Death Rate(CDR) is the no of deaths occurring among the population per 1000 people per year.

Total Fertility Rate(TFR) is the no of children that would be born to a woman if she were live to the end of her child bearing years and bear children in accordance with current specific fertility rates.

Life Expectancy At Birth (total) indicates the number of years a newborn infant would live if prevailing patterns of fertility at the time of its birth were to stay the same throughout its life i.e. the

Country Govt. Education Exp as % of GDP

BRAZIL 5.8RUSSIA 4.1INDIA 3.8CHINA 3.6SOUTH AFRICA 6.2

average number of years that a newborn could expect to live if he or she were to pass through life subject to the age-specific mortality rates of a given period.

Table 18: IMR, MMR, CBR, CDR, TFR, Life expectancy at birth

* B,R,I,C,S-2013

If we look at IMR, we see India has the highest IMR of 42, second is South Africa of 32.8. It implies that 42 infant per 1000 died in India in 2012-13 and in South Africa 32.8 per 1000 died. For other, IMR is comparatively low.

In MMR, we also see that MMR is high for India and South Africa with a female death of 190 and 140 per 100,000 live births; others are comparatively low.

Under Crude Birth Rate, data shows us that for India and South Africa , the value is high; it implies, in India 20 child took birth per 1000 total population and in South Africa 21 child took birth per 1000 population. Other's also are low than that but yet they may be equal because of unequal total population of BRICS countries, individually.

Crude Death Rate column shows that, for Russia and South Africa the value is comparatively higher than other three countries , with the value of 13 i.e. per 1000 population, 13 death happened in Russia and South Africa and that's may be because of very cold, dry weather in Russia and very tropical Weather in SA or Lack of infrastructure in Healthcare is very low.

TFR is almost equal for the five countries i.e. very less difference is there among the values But the one , we should conclude here that India's value is high.

The high IMR and MMR in India and South Africa reflects the lack of medical facilities such as pre-natal and post-natal care.

The value for Life expectancy at birth is very low for South Africa; it implies that really, in South Africa , infrastructure for health care is low or the weather is not healthy.

Country IMR MMR (ratio) CBR (%) CDR (%) TFR (%) Life Expectancy at birth (years)

BRAZIL 12.3 69 15.1 6 1.8 74.8RUSSIA 8.6 24 13.2 13 1.7 70.7INDIA 42 190 20 8 2.51 66.46CHINA 10.9 32 12.1 7.2 1.7 75SOUTH AFRICA 32.8 140 21 13 2.4 57

Table 19: Govt. Expenditure on health as % of GDP

*B-2010,R-2008,I-2012,C-1999,S-2013

Government Health Expenditure on health refers to expenditures incurred by central, state and local governments excluding social security schemes which is represented as a % of total GDP.

Governance Challenges and Regional Equity

Poor governance hinders any nation's ability to reach its full economic and social potential. Governance must be strong at each level in order to maintain rates of growth and increase economic participation. Within BRICS, there is a significant variation in terms of federal and state structures. Now taking a look at the structures,

Table 20: Federal and State structure of BRICSBrazil 26 states and 1 federal districtRussia 83 federal subjects(grouped into 8 federal districts; among 83, 46

oblasts/provinces, 21 republics, 9 territories, 4 autonomous districts, 1 autonomous oblast & 2 federal cities

India 28 states and 7 union territoriesChina 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 direct controlled

municipalities and 2 special administrative regionsSouth Africa 9 provinces

Source: A long-term vision for BRICS: Submission to the BRICS Academic Forum, 2013There is vast difference in the federal and state structure in BRICS countries, so we can't do any comparative study on their respective structure. Yet, at least, we can study the intra-nation economic disparities these countries are having.

Among all the regions in Brazil, its northeast has lagged behind other regions in development; it has 28% of the country's people but just 14% of its GDP. A fifth of the area's adults are illiterate, twice the national rate. For decades, it has exported workers to the kitchens and construction sites of the rich cities in the south east. This region has recently become Brazil's star economic performer; in the past decade, the region's GDP rose by 4.2% a year. It has become the biggest building site in Brazil, railway track and better transportation facilities are taking place; shortly it is now the Japan of the 1960's ,said by Eduardo Bartolomeo, the director of logistics for vale, a mining firm. By 2015, Ponta da Madeira will be Brazil's largest port by tonnage. But the region's rapid pace of development combined with workers new found muscle flexing, has brought industrial unrest, the strain is evident in traffic jams and soaring housing prices. it is also evident in the history that the past 60 years, education infrastructure is not enough so it may fail in tackling their longstanding development carefully. (source: http://www.economist.com/node/18712379)

Country Govt. health exp as % of GDP

BRAZIL 9.7RUSSIA 6.5INDIA 4CHINA 5.6SOUTH AFRICA 8.9

In Russia, from 1999 to 2009, average per capita GDP grew by 1.83 times while regional differentiation in GDP is more than doubled. Ingushetia and Chechnya has the level of GDP per capita correspond to the first case with Ghana and the second with Iraq. Ivanovo is close to Sri Lanka with 4800 GDP per capita or Turkmenistan with 6600$ GDP per capita. Among the top performers is Tyumen with a per-capita GDP comparable to United States, a level which Sakhalin is swiftly approaching. A little lower Moscow and Chukotka, with their average income, is comparable to peripheral Euro zone countries like Greece and Spain. The main point we should notify here that If Russia doesn't balance these economic disparities, one day all the poorest regions will become restless and difficult to govern. Administration will be misplaced and as a result, the whole developmental scheme will break down.

Problems faced by India's economy is the alarming growth rate of regional differences among India's different states and territories in terms of per capita income, socio-economic development, poverty and availability of infrastructure. Economic inequality is easily visible by the fact that 40-50% of the populations in Bihar and Orissa live below the poverty line while states such as Delhi and Punjab exhibit very low poverty ratios. There are in total 7 states of India which are lagging behind in the race of economic growth namely Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Annual growth rates of different states between 1999 and 2008 strongly reveals economic disparities in the country as per the data Gujarat (8.8%), Haryana (8.7%), or Delhi (7.4%) were much ahead in the race as compared to  Bihar (5.1%), Uttar Pradesh (4.4%), or Madhya Pradesh (3.5%) (source: India's annual growth rate database). Economic disparity in India can be compared by the fact that growth rates of the states of the single country varies to the greater extent. Rural Orissa (43%) and rural Bihar (40%) stands in the list of states with the poorest growth rates in the world while rural areas of other states of the same country India, lies well among the middle-income countries as rural Haryana (5.7%) and rural Punjab (2.4%).

Though the Indian Government is trying to improve the economic status of different states by implying different policies and programs, yet the issue is of major concern. The five-year plans introduced by the Indian Govt. which have proved to be useful in reducing regional disparities, it emphasized on encouraging industrial development in the interior regions, but industries still tend to concentrate around urban areas and port cities while on other hand, union and state governments of backward regions are putting their efforts to bring the country under the state of economic equality rather than economic disparity.

China has seen, even among the BRICS, incredible growth in recent years. In mid-August 2010, global news outlet reported about China, surpassing Japan to become the world's second largest economy. Although the economy is vast, China is not yet a wealthy country. This is not only a country of continental scope but its regional economic disparities are the largest in world. According to 2009 per capita GDP, Hong Kong was more than 16 times of Guizhou ($42,748 vs. $2682 in PPP). The overall impression a reader might gain from glancing at the map is one relative wealth across China's North-eastern quadrant with a narrow South-eastern strip which truly forms prosperous part of China, not the greater North-east. Some of the difficulties of mapping economic differences in China are unavoidable. Mining regions, for example, often yield elevated GDP figures due to the high value of the minerals extracted, yet may remain relatively underdeveloped by most criteria. In China, the autonomous region of Inner Mongolia appears to be one of the more prosperous parts of the country and it has certainly experienced blazing economic growth in recent years. But as it relies heavily on coal, natural gas, rare earths, niobium, zirconium, and beryllium, Inner Mongolia is not as broadly productive as official figures might seem to indicate. Inner

Mongolia is also a vast area, larger than all of China’s south-eastern coastal provinces put together, and economic output varies greatly from one part of the region to another. Mapping Inner Mongolia as a single unit masks this diversity. The same may be said of other administrative divisions, but the larger the unit, the larger the distortions generally are. So the distortions and chaos may become fatal for China in future.

In South Africa, three basic forms of geographic inequalities can be outlined: regional disparities, a rural-urban divide and an urban underclass. Poorer provinces tend to be along the south-eastern coast and in the north, whereas the Johannesburg region and the southwest tend to be wealthier. The most striking disparity is that between Western Cape Province and the impoverished Eastern Cape Province. This contrast encourages substantial internal migration towards the economic opportunity in Cape Town and away from poverty of Eastern Cape. Inequality in South Africa is highly correlated with race. The system of apartheid, instituted from 1948-1994, determined economic possibilities and expectations based on race, contributing deeply to the unequal society that exists today. However in the book 'Race, Class, and Inequality in South Africa' by Jeremy Seekings and Nicoli Nattrass it's shown that apartheid did not have only the effect of increasing general inequality. For example, during early apartheid, the government was able to successfully decrease intra-race disparities. Furthermore, the overall levels of inequality remained fairly consistent, even through apartheid. The success of the earlier apartheid regime in promoting prosperity and equality among whites has intertwined socioeconomic status and race. In particular, the apartheid government successfully provided an excellent education for the white population, which enabled many whites to retain professional jobs even after the end of mandated segregation. The white population, as well as the newly wealthy non-white population, utilized their economic position to send their children to high-quality schools. As a result, highly unequal levels of education will continue to be reflected by an extremely varied pattern of income distribution.

Service Delivery

To check the condition about the service delivery, it's taken Improved Sanitation Facilities, Improved Water Resources and Access to electricity as % of total urban population under the consideration.

Table 21: availability of basic services

* 1st & 2nd column, B,R,I,C,S-2012 ** for the 3rd column, B,R,I,C,S-2010

In the 1st column, we see that India doesn't have improved sanitation facilities; 36% of urban population don't avail improved sanitation facilities, for other's value is nearly equal to each other but yet China's 65% is clearly notifying its slight lack in improved sanitation facilities.

Country Improved sanitation facilities (% of urban population)

Improved water resources (% of urban population)

Access to electricity (% of population)

BRAZIL 81 100 98.9RUSSIA 71 99 100INDIA 36 97 75CHINA 65 98 99.7SOUTH AFRICA 74 99 82.7

Under Improved Water Resources, we don't see any specific difference in the value and extremely high, so it can be concluded here BRICS do have an improved water resources facility.

Third column implies that, among BRICS countries, India has less access to electricity and it's because of huge population and huge geographical area that somewhere it couldn't reach or production of electricity is less than other BRICS countries; other values are comparatively near to each other.

Sustainability

Table 22: environment sustainability indicator

*B,R,I,C,S- 2010

Under Sustainability, I specifically wanted to see whether the atmosphere is sustainable or not. To verify, CO2 emissions, Methane emissions, Nitrous Oxide emissions and Other Green House gases emissions is taken under concern .

CO2 emissions are those stemming from the burning of fossil fuels and the manufacture of cement. They also include carbon dioxide produced during consumption of solid, liquid and gas fuels and gas flaring.

Methane Emissions are those stemming from Human activities such as agriculture and from Industrial methane production.

Nitrous Oxide emissions are emissions from agricultural biomass burning, industrial activities and livestock management.

Other Green House Gas emissions are by product emissions of HFC (hydro fluoro carbons), PFC (per fluoro carbons), SHF (sulfur hexafluoride).

Country

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

Methane emissions (Kt of CO2 equivalent) per capita

Nitrous Oxide emissions (1000 Mt of CO2 equivalent) per capita

Other green house gases (100 Mt of CO2 equivalent)per capita

BRAZIL 2.2 0.002 0.00150

RUSSIA 12.2 0.0038 0.00040.0004

INDIA 1.7 0.0005 0.00020

CHINA 6.2 0.0012 0.00040.0002

SOUTH AFRICA 9.1 0.0013 0.0004

0.0001

ConclusionIn Brazil, Urban Areas are legally defined on the basis of buildings, streets and intense human occupation; this includes areas that have been affected by transformations resulting from urban development and those reserved for urban expansion. From an international vantage point, the most striking feature of urbanization in Brazil is its precocity and rapidity – a trait shared with several other Latin American countries. Brazil has urbanized quickly and massively in comparison with most other countries outside the ‘first’ or ‘developed’ world. By 1950 it had already reached a level of urbanization (36.2 per cent) only attained in 2000 in Africa (34.5 per cent) and Asia (37.1 per cent). At the last count over 80 per cent of Brazil’s population was recorded as resident in urban areas, according to the official definition of ‘urban’. In short, Brazil experienced an early ‘urban transition’ despite being outside the small but dominant group of ‘rich countries’. The concept of the urban transition parallels the classic ‘demographic transition theory’, which posits that countries tend to move from high to low levels of mortality and fertility as they achieve economic success. Brazil is now in a ‘late transitional society’ stage. i.e. a large majority of its citizens live in urban areas, many of them in large cities, and its rate of urban growth has slowed drastically from its previous hectic pace.

After studying the urbanisation in Russia, It can be concluded that large city population growth steadily decelerated before modestly reversing trend during 2000-05. Small and medium sized consistently grew more rapidly on average than large cities during 1690-95 but later reversed during 1995-05. So, to sum up, Russia and its cities had vastly divergent experience in adjusting to capitalism lately socialism. Many cities and people had thrived. Cosmopolitan young professionals were more familiar and comfortable in Central and Western European counterparts than they were with their relatives and parents in the same cities. And lastly, most important fact was , beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg, many cities in the Urals and Western Siberia were thriving as are those in favourable agricultural areas.

Urbanisation in India reveals the pre-existing system of settlements , based on interactions between a large no of handicraft, service and commerce-based towns and their hinterland of primary production, as well as between large cities and small towns was disrupted in the colonisation period but the political economy of the regime became an obstacle to technological advancement in various sectors of the economy and lead to a heavy urban structure.

Since the post reform urbanisation period 1978 of China, two features is especially notable- first, It had a remarkable impact on the national policy framework, particularly the Hukou system, land reform, tax-sharing and housing reform. Central and Local state played an important role in determining the pace of urbanisation and shaping urban and regional growth patterns. It has a very influential national urban policy; second, the relation between urbanisation and the market. Marketization took place very quickly in post reform era with

the marketization of labour; migrants were being attracted from the countryside to provide a cheap urban workforce. It has also involved to include the commodification of the built environment through the establishment of a leasehold land system and commodity housing markets. Three stages of urbanisation is influenced by urbanisation policies on enterprises, land and housing reform and rising per capita income. These stages were varied also between regions due to vast land area and regional disparities.

For South Africa, Urban economies were clearly stronger than the rural economies, although employment levels had not kept pace with growth with growth in the working age population. In rural areas, employment levels were much lower and even if they had jobs, their earnings tended to be very low. This made rural households heavily dependent on transfers from government or family members. But this transfer, on the contrary, did not compensate for the lack of self-sustaining economic activities.

References Martine. George and McGranahan. Gordon (August, 2010): Brazil's early

urban transition: what can it teach urbanizing countries? IIED & UNFPA paper

Yeh. Anthony G.O, Xu. Jiang, and Kaizhi Liu, (May 2011): China's post-reform urbanization: retrospect, policies, trends, IIED & UNFPA paper.

Becker.Charles, Mendelsohn. S. Joshua and Benderskaya. Kseniya (November 2012): Russian urbanization in the Soviet and post-Soviet, IIED & UNFPA paper.

Ghosh. Jayati, Havlik. Peter, Ribeiro. Marcos P and Urban. Waltraut (December 2009): Models of BRICs' Economic Development and Challenges for EU Competitiveness, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw research reports, No 359.

Bloom. Len : Some Problems of Urbanization in South Africa, Vol. 25, No. 4, Clark Atlanta University.

Fox. Robert. Sean (September 2013): The political economy of urbanisation and development in sub-Saharan Africa, The London School of Economics and Political Science.

Zakharov. Sergei. V : Unexpected Advantage in Infant Mortality in Russia during the Second World War, Centre of Demography and Human Ecology Institute for Economic Forecasting, Moscow.

Martine. George & McGranahan. Gordon( 2013): The legacy of inequality and negligence in Brazil's unfinished urban transition: lessons for other developing regions, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development,Vol.5, No 1.

Reisen. Helmut: Economic Policy and Social Affairs in the BRICS, Sustainable Governance Indicators Paper.

Ogura. Mitsuo (1996): Urbanization and Apartheid in South Africa: Influx controls and their abolition

Ivins. Courtney: Inequality Matters, BRICS inequalities fact sheet, published by OXFAM & BRICS Policy Centre

World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Department of Economic and Social Affairs(DESA) , United Nations, New York,2014

Heilig. K. Gerhard: World Urbanisation Prospects, The 2011 Revision, Department of Economic and Social Affairs(DESA) , United Nations , July, 2012

World Statistics Pocketbook 2013 edition, Department of Economic and Social Affairs(DESA), United Nations, 2013

Sahu. Kabita Kumari (April, 2013): Urbanisation and Growth Linkage in China

McKinsey Global Institute (March, 2009): Preparing for China's Urban Billion

Bhagat. R.B (August, 2011): Emerging Pattern of Urbanisation in India, Economics and Political Weekly, Vol. 34

'Millennium Development Goals in Russia: Looking into The Future' (2010): National Human Development Report in the Russian Federation 2010, Moscow.

Turok. Ivan. (October, 2012): Urbanisation and Development in South Africa: Economic Imparatives, Spatial Distortions and Strategic Responses, IIED & UNFPA publication

Kolomak. Evgeniya : Urbanization and Economic Development in Russia

Robinson. J: The Post-Soviet City: Identity and Community Development Human Development Report 2014, UNDP Datta. Pranati (June, 2006): Urbanisation in India, Indian Statistical

Institute. World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2001 Revision, United Nations. Urban Households in Russia and the Soviet Union, 1900-

2000,Size,Structure and Composition, International Institute of Social History, 2005

Saran. Samir, Singh. Ashok. K,Saran. Vivan : A Long-Term Vision for BRICS, Submission to the BRICS Academic Forum, 2013, Observer Research Foundation

Report on Urban Infrastructure and Services, The High Powered Expert Committee Report, March, 2011

Kundu. A: Trends and Patterns of Urbanization and Their Economic Implications

BRICS Joint Statistical Publication 2014, IBGE, 2014 McGrahanan. G and Martine. G (December, 2012): Urbanization and

Development, Policy lessons from the BRICS experience, Discussion Paper, Human Settlements, IIED