Measurable development: When cities compete

Of this, as of January, 2,855 projects worth Rs 135,459 crore were under implementation, and 147 projects worth Rs 1,872 crore completed.

To recall, 2015 had also seen the launch of another such competitive development programme – the Swachh Survekshan – among cities to improve urban sanitation. That covered 73 cities and has now been extended to all 4,041 cities in the country.

Swachh Survekshan has served a an agent of change, given unique interventions such as ranking in urban governance. Like the Smart Cities Mission, it encourages large-scale citizen participatio and emphasises working together t make towns and cities more habitable It also fosters healthy competition among towns and cities to improve servic delivery to citizens.

The good part is, city rankings are increasingly drawing public attention, evaluated and ranked as they are in terms of economic, social and geographical characteristics to identify the best and the worst across parameters. Comparison, thus, has become a significant yardstick.

Small wonder, policymakers are increasingly using such city rankings. These offer an important empirical base for identifying comparative advantages and sharpening specific profiles, and consequently for defining goals and strategies for development. Besides, positive results can be used as the central part of a city’s marketing strategy given that high ranking improves the international image, too.

But while the rankings reinforce the competitive position, the strategic efforts of urban politics are focused mostly on strengths and neglects weaknesses.

Riding on the enthusiasm of the Smart Cities Mission and Swachh Survekshan, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has now decided to bring out a Liveability Index of 116 cities (including the 99 smart cities, state capitals, and cities with 1 million-plus population).

These cities, accounting for a total population of 13.4 crore people, will be ranked in order of the quality of life they offer. The concept of liveability is simple: It assesses which locations provide the best and worst living conditions.

For the 2018 survey, liveability standards with 79 indicators in 15 categories would be used for measuring institutional, social, economic, and physical aspects that affect the quality of life. These would include education, healthcare, roads, mobility, jobs, grievance redressal, pollution, emergency response, green open spaces, as well as cultural and entertainment opportunities.

The liveability survey is designed to be a yearly affair and will help create real-time data and more information on the state of affairs in our cities.

Such ranking is in vogue globally.

The Economist Intelligence Unit, for instance, publishes an annual Global Liveability Ranking, which ranks 140 cities by their urban quality of life based on assessments of stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure. Since 2013, several international institutions have stepped up their engagement in measuring city performance in order to help decision makers identify gaps and priorities.

Intergovernmental organisations such as the EU and UN-Habitat were among the first to try to compare outcomes in city and metropolitan areas and, after a quiet period, have now become more active in trying to measure progress in productivity, infrastructure, smartness and inclusion. As the world urbanises rapidly, with cities transforming and reinventing, so will the field of city indices and benchmark creation.

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry recently released a state-wise ranking on ease of doing business, in a bid to infuse competition for attracting investments and improving the business climate. The rankings were available live on the ministry portal, showing where states were going up or down.

The budget for the next financial year takes this emphasis forward. While addressing issues to ensure sustainable, long-term and equitable growth in the economy, it has also expanded focus from the ‘ease of doing business’ agend by adding ‘ease of living’ as a goal — jus as the political cycle begins leading t the battle of hustings.

While the intent on having new-generation infrastructure for the 21st century India is salutary, the initiatives to improve ease of living is even more so. Competitive and efficient cities will be integral to achieving this goal. That’s why relative ranking will be an important tool of urban policy in the road ahead.

However, the rankings are very heterogeneous in terms of methodology and objectives. More importantly, one should go beyond a simple comparison of the ranks. Indian cities have historically struggled to perform and deliver.

While competitive ranking helps, it should not be oversold, or used as the base for strategic policy advice, as much as an opportunity for identifying gaps for improvement, peer learning and replicating good practices.

The Prime Minister has harped on ‘competitive, cooperative federalism’ and on cue, the Centre has been increasing the onus of driving transformation on states. Rising competition also offers opportunities for cross-fertilisation of ideas for a better morrow.