Thread by @shrikanth_krish

It is often stated that India needs to "urbanize" faster. Over 60% of India still lives in the countryside

But there is a reason why India is not urbanizing fast enough

Indian cities are dirt poor, and the average "urban Indian" is arguably no richer than the average Indian

I don't have v conclusive data to turn this into an assertion. But here are the nominal Per-capita GDP figures as of 2014 for some major cities -

India : $1452
Delhi : $3580
Mumbai : $1990
Chennai : $1870
Hyderabad : $1430
Bangalore : $1420
Kolkata : $1110 !!

(as of 2014)

I am not even talking of Tier 2 and Tier 3 towns here. These are some of the largest metropolises in the world, contributing a large share of Indian GDP, and whose per-capita figures are no doubt skewed by the top 1%

Yet, the PCI figures are awful!

If these "mean" figures are accurate at all, then it is quite likely that the median resident in each of our major metropolises is significantly poorer than the median Indian, with the exception of Delhi

The source of this data is from a brookings report, which suggests that all of the major Indian metros rank at the bottom of the top 300 metropolitan areas with highest GDP across the world. A screenshot -

Link to the report - brookings.edu/wp-content/upl…

Now why would you migrate to the town if you are likely to lead a worse life on an average than you probably will in your village?

It makes even less sense when you factor in the loss of familial and caste networks that inevitably attend urbanization

I am all for urbanization.

But we need to take a hard look at the data. It presents a v v bleak picture.

Urban India is every bit as poor as rural India. And there simply aren't enough jobs out there for the unskilled youth from your typical Indian village

Until the time Urbanization presents the promise of a better life, India will remain rural. And our politics will also be largely driven by rural concerns - be it pandering to farmers, caste networks, among other things.

We tend to mock Gandhi and his "silly" view that India's soul lies in its villages.

I have mocked him myself.

But this data is in an ironic sense proving him right. For some reason, Urbanization doesn't seem to be working very well for the average Indian

To prove Gandhi wrong, we need to make urbanization work.

Until then, it will just remain a hollow mantra.

Postscript : Some clarifications.

One counter to all this can be - urban and rural incomes are similar even in other countries. If there is a differential, people will move.

True, but the gap is usually bigger than what you see in India

Let's take US for instance

As of 2013

Boston: $70K
DC: $68K
SFO: $67K
NYC: $64K

Rural states
Alabama: $36K
West Virginia: $36K
S.Carolina: $36K
PA : $47K

So there is a gap that is significant (nearly 2x). In India there is no gap really.

And this is because migrants to urban areas have no skill advantage over those who stay back. Which is why the standards of living seldom improve

Sure...migration still pays. But not in the short run

It pays off only in the long run

Eg - a farmer moves to the city to become a Driver but no improvement in incomes

But his daughter now gets an education (albeit in bad schools) that she wouldn't have received in the village

But unfortunately "migration decisions" are taken based on short-term prospects. People don't always have the vision or wisdom to imagine the "long run".

And those prospects are terrible.

Which is why this remains a rural country

Postscript 2 : While it is true that census figures may be understating urban population, our cities remain puny relative to China

Eg : As of 2011, India had just 3 areas above 10MM, and 9 areas above 4MM
China - 3 areas above 20MM, 8 areas above 10MM, 20 areas above 4MM