Post on 06-May-2015
Competitiveness of India Cities
Institute for Competitiveness, India
INDIA IS THRIVING – NOW AND WILL IN FUTURE
% contribution in World’s GDP
European Union18% United
States16%
China18%
Japan9%
India4%
Others35%
2030 Projection
European Union26%
United States23%
China9%
Japan9%India
3%
Others31%
2010
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
4.03
5.22
3.77
8.37
8.28
9.32
9.27
9.82
4.93
9.108.81
7.80
5.30
GDP
grow
th (a
nnua
l %)
*value for 2012 and 2011 is for Q1
Source:- World Bank and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
MAIN CONTRIBUTORS IN INDIA’S GROWTH
Maha-rashtra
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Naidu
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat West Bengal
Karnataka Rajasthan Kerala Delhi0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
775,020
394,499
391,372
381,942
365,295
317,786
279,932
204,398
193,383
191,6962010
-11
nom
inal
GD
P (i
n cr
ores
of r
upee
s)
Ahmedabad, Surat
Kolkata Bengaluru
Jaipur Thiruvananthapu-ram
Mumbai, Pune
Lucknow, Kanpur
Chennai Hyderabad
Source:- RBI and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
TREND IN POPULATION SIZE AND GROWTH RATE (1901-2011)
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 20410
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
238.4 252.09 251.32 278.98318.66
361.09439.23
548.16
683.329999999999
846.42
1028.74
1210.19
1338.64133333333
1494.63076190476
1650.62019047619
0.1
5.75
-0.03
11
14.22
13.31
21.51
24.8 24.6623.85
21.34
17.64
Population (in millions) Decadal Growth rate (in %)
Popu
lati
on (i
n m
illio
ns)
Dec
adal
Gro
wth
Rat
e (i
n %
)
Source:- Government of India Census and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
THE RURAL-URBAN DIVIDE
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 20110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10.8 10.3 11.1 12 13.8 17.3 17.9 19.9 23.3 25.7 28.5 31.2
Urban Rural
10.3 11.1 1210.8 13.8 17.317.9 19.9 23.3
25.7 28.5 31.2
Source:- Government of India Census and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
INCREASE IN NUMBER OF TOWNS, UAS AND VILLAGES (1971-2011)
1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
2921
40294689 5161
7935
Num
ber o
f Tow
ns
1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
231276
381 382 384
Num
ber o
f UAs
1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
520000
530000
540000
550000
560000
570000
580000
590000
600000
610000
556561 556014
579688
593732
608789
Num
ber o
f Vill
ages
Towns (in Numbers) UAs (in Numbers)
Villages (in Numbers)
Source:- Government of India Census and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis*UAs = Urban Agglomerations
Institute for Competitiveness, India
URBANIZATION: SIGN OF A DEVELOPING EOCONOMY
1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 20110
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
18.33
28.3
34.45
43.57
52.21
64.874
Degree of Urbanization Literacy Rates (%) Registered Motor Vehicles (No.)
Mobile Cellular Subscription (per 100 people)
Source:- Government of India Census, World Bank, Road Transport Year Book& Figure and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
INDIAN STATES WITH HIGH GROWTH HAVE HIGH URBANIZATION RATE
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 10000000.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
453367.60
5278.88
93867.16 171947.50
120513.18
201308.83
22997.23
413194.19
229352.99
44811.45
39217.9088162.87
326494.60
227049.88
200495.57
887905.30
7209.45
11407.39
4502.65
7663.08
166732.84
205511.09
241676.88
3096.19
409245.21
13561.81
516191.3048353.28
420113.36
GDP (Dec-11) in Rs. Crore
Urba
niza
tion
leve
l (in
%)
DISTRIBUTION OF TOWNS BY SIZE CLASS
Cities Classification Population 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Class I > 1,00,000 76 102 148 218 300 393
Class II 50,000-1,00,000 91 129 173 270 345 401
Class III 20,000-50,000 327 437 558 743 947 1151
Class IV 10,000-20,000 608 719 827 1059 1167 1344
Class V 5,000-10,000 1124 711 623 758 740 888
Class VI < 5,000 567 172 147 253 197 191
Class I UAs/Towns 468
Million plus UAs/Towns 53
Mega Cities 3
Greater Mumbai UA (12.05%)
Delhi UA (26.69%)
Kolkata UA(6.87%)
Institute for Competitiveness, India
Source:- Government of India Census and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
SNAPSHOT OF URBAN INDIA IN 2011
10 - 30 million 5 - 10 million 1 - 5 million 0.1 – 1 million
Cities Size Class By Population
Source:- India Urban Conference 2011: Evidence & Experience - IIHS
Competitiveness is the productivity with which a region utilizes its human, capital, and natural resources
Productivity determines wages and the standard of living – Productivity growth determines sustainable economic growth
It is not what industries a nation competes in that matters for prosperity, but how productively it competes in those industries
Productivity in an economy depends on a combination of domestic and foreign firms
Innovation in products and processes is necessary to drive productivity growth
Only productive businesses can create wealth and jobs States compete to offer the most productive environment for business
The public and private sectors play different but interrelated roles in creating a productive economy
Leading to the prosperity of the region
Institute for Competitiveness, India
ENHANCING THE PROSPERITY OF URBAN INDIA via COMPETITIVENESS
Institute for Competitiveness, India
INFLUENCES ON COMPETITIVENESS
WORLD ECONOMY
BROAD ECONOMIC AREAS
GROUP OF NEIGHBOURING NATIONS
NATIONS
STATES, PROVINCES
METROPOLITAN AREAS, RURAL AREAS
Multiple Geographic Levels
[Our Focus]
Source:- Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness
Institute for Competitiveness, India
DRIVERS OF COMPETITIVENESS
Quality of overall business environment
Concentration of resources and urban growth
Policy Coordination among Multiple Levels of
Geography/Government
Institute for Competitiveness, India
MEASURING COMPETITIVENESS: THE FRAMEWORK
Context for Firm Strategy and
Rivalry
Related and Supporting Industries
Demand Conditions
• Local rules and incentives that encourage investment and productivity .
- E.g. performance based salaries, incentives for capital investments, intellectual property protection• Vigorous local competition i.e., - Openness to foreign and local competition - Sophistication of company operations
• Local availability of suppliers and supporting industries
• Presence of clusters instead of isolated firms
Sophisticated and demanding local customers and needs e.g.,- Strict quality, safety, and environmental standards– Consumer protection laws – Government procurement ofadvanced technology – Early demand for products andServices.
Access to high quality business inputs i.e., - Natural endowments - Human resources - Capital availability - Physical infrastructure - Administrative infrastructure - Information infrastructure - Scientific and technological infrastructure
Factor Conditions
Institute for Competitiveness, India
HIERARCHY OF CITY COMPETITIVENESS INDEX
Overall Competitiveness
Factor Conditions
Demand Conditions
Context for Strategy & Rivalry
Related & Supporting Industry
1. Financial
2. Physical
3. Communication
4. Administrative
5. Human Capacity
6. Innovation
1. Demographics
2. Income Distribution
and Spending
Pattern
1. Competition
Intensity & Diversity
of Firms
2. Business Incentives
1. Supplier
Sophistication
2. Institutional Support
Nearly 200 Indicators
SrinagarJammu
Shimla
LudhianaAmritsar
ChandigarhDehradun
GurgaonFaridabad
Allahabad
DelhiNoidaAgra
Meerut
LucknowKanpurJaipur
VaranasiPatna
Rajkot
AhmedabadVadodara
Surat
Ranchi Kolkata
Asansol
JamshedpurRaipur
DhanbadJabalpur
IndoreBhopal
BhubaneswarNashik
PuneMumbai
Guwahati
Nagpur
VishakhapatnamHyderabad
Vijayawada
KochiThiruvananthapuram
Kozhikode
BengaluruMysore
PuducherryMadurai
ChennaiCoimbatore
Institute for Competitiveness, India
CITIES THAT WE STUDY
Institute for Competitiveness, India
EVERY CITY HAS A DIFFERENT STORY
Crucial to understand each city as what is right for one city will not necessarily be right for the other.
“Mega Cities” “Million plus Cities”
Variables DELHI KOLKATA JAMSHEDPUR KOCHI
Population 16753235 4486679 2291032 3279860
No. of Branches of Commercial Banks 2177 1121 179 634
Literacy Rate: Female 80.93 84.98 67.33 94.27
No. of GSM users (per lakh) 265 145 11 19
Molestation Incidence 550 226 6 67
Ownership of consumer durable- Home Theater 23 25 19 31
Share of total passenger traffic (airways) 21.8 15.1 0.7 1.1
Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers 169 178 103* 158
Starting a business cost (% per capita income) 51.1 39.6 51.5 47.2
Institute for Competitiveness, India
LOOK AT THE ENTIRE PICTURE
For instance, Mumbai
Weak Areas Strong Areas
Number of slums
Number of accidental deaths
Total-corruption cases registered
Population density
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
61300
9093
1228
20925
Varia
bles
Media Reach-Press
Literacy rate: Males
Work Force Participation Rate (per 1000)
Paying Taxes (Time)
98.8
94.28
434
271
Varia
bles
Institute for Competitiveness, India
Rank City Overall Competitiveness Score Factor Conditions Demand Conditions Context for Firm
Strategy & RivalryRelated & Supporting
Industries
1 Delhi 69.732 1 1 1 10
2 Mumbai 67.856 2 2 2 4
3 Chennai 62.323 4 5 5 2
4 Hyderabad 61.782 3 12 7 1
5 Kolkata 61.464 6 11 6 3
6 Gurgaon 61.167 7 7 4 23
7 Bengaluru 61.100 5 3 8 18
8 Noida 60.406 9 38 3 5
9 Pune 59.854 8 4 9 8
10 Ahmedabad 58.036 15 8 15 7
11 Nagpur 56.942 17 15 12 14
12 Chandigarh 56.842 10 17 25 15
13 Jaipur 56.263 18 6 19 26
14 Coimbatore 55.955 29 45 10 6
15 Kochi 55.884 28 23 14 11
16 Surat 55.726 26 10 17 20
17 Nashik 55.651 33 9 21 9
18 Indore 55.637 11 35 22 37
19 Thiruvananthapuram 55.434 22 18 18 28
20 Kozhikode 55.212 35 19 11 32
21 Mysore 55.118 12 39 30 33
22 Bhubaneswar 54.642 13 42 27 43
23 Vadodara 54.627 32 25 16 25
24 Rajkot 54.607 36 14 20 27
25 Lucknow 54.584 23 16 39 22
A GLIMPSE: CITY COMPETITIVENESS RANK
First 25 Cities
Institute for Competitiveness, India
A GLIMPSE: CITY COMPETITIVENESS RANK
Rank City Overall Competitiveness Score Factor Conditions Demand Conditions Context for Firm Strategy
& RivalryRelated & Supporting
Industries
26 Madurai 54.570 38 36 13 24
27 Bhopal 54.322 16 40 28 40
28 Kanpur 54.318 19 49 38 12
29 Faridabad 54.097 20 32 36 34
30 Ludhiana 54.022 27 28 23 42
31 Vijayawada 53.964 30 20 32 30
32 Guwahati 53.961 14 46 31 46
33 Raipur 53.849 25 31 26 38
34 Vishakhapatnam 53.741 34 22 33 31
35 Patna 53.580 37 21 42 21
36 Jabalpur 53.249 24 50 34 35
37 Agra 53.157 39 29 46 16
38 Varanasi 53.039 45 41 37 13
39 Meerut 52.975 43 34 40 17
40 Puducherry 52.905 42 27 29 39
41 Asansol 52.813 47 13 35 36
42 Dehradun 52.725 31 30 47 41
43 Ranchi 52.575 40 33 41 29
44 Allahabad 52.573 46 26 48 19
45 Shimla 52.295 21 43 43 49
46 Amritsar 52.181 41 24 24 47
47 Jammu 50.621 44 47 49 48
48 Jamshedpur 50.475 49 44 44 44
49 Dhanbad 49.829 50 48 45 45
50 Srinagar 49.732 48 37 50 50
Next set of 25 Cities
Institute for Competitiveness, India
TOTAL POPULATION VERSUS COMPETITIVENESS
48.00 53.00 58.00 63.00 68.000
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
18000000
4380793
7208200
5959798
2490891
7723663
9588910
2368145
22463411054686
4681087
3472578
1698560
16753235
2682662
17989541514085
1260419
40102383272335
2460714
6663971
1526406
2291032
4572951
3279860
4486679
3089543
4588455
34878823041038
3447405
12478447
2994744
4653171
6109052
1674714
5772804
1244464
9426959
40621603799770
2912022
813384
1269751
6079231
3307284
41575683682194
45290094288113
f(x) = 491626.064114559 x − 23111674.8481309R² = 0.45608557418231
Microeconomic Competitiveness Score
Tota
l Pop
ulai
ton
Institute for Competitiveness, India
TEACHERS IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOL VERSUS COMPETITIVENESS
48.00 53.00 58.00 63.00 68.000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
6856
1527
8388
2994
1032 988
2541
2379
3257
962
3455
1960
5838
2881
1299 1433
6539
2706
37194091
5368
1931
2821
5987
1108
6608
1201
5347
3510
2083
4251
1709
2258
3137
7170
2042
5859
954
7254
154
32073544
482
1208
2047
3774
54565092
8128
f(x) = − 26.061098094641 x + 5060.10971761459R² = 0.0018373379481994
Microeconomic Competitiveness Score
Teac
hers
in G
over
nmen
t Sch
ool
Institute for Competitiveness, India
FEMALE LITERACY RATE VERSUS COMPETITIVENESS
48.00 53.00 58.00 63.00 68.0055
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
59.16
80.29
62.67
72.8
70.47
84.8
76.6
82.0681.4
87.16
79.1679.61
80.93
64.7
75.2
77.6
85.82
78.4274.975.3017023968698
64.63
77.41
67.33
76.89
94.27
84.98
93.16
73.88
78.276.74
65.69
86.93
66.59
85.07
73.43 72.78
63.72
81.281.13
66.21
75.26
68.2
77.8
63.47
81.02
90.89
74.4
68.269.92
60
f(x) = 1.00161399019652 x + 20.1110934625408R² = 0.232115262095216
Microeconomic Competitiveness Score
Fem
ale
Lite
racy
Rat
e
Institute for Competitiveness, India
48.00 53.00 58.00 63.00 68.000.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.523
0.657
0.523
0.73
0.503
0.656
0.4860.496
0.7350.7440.744
0.587
0.72
0.431
0.68 0.68
0.445
0.662
0.4860.486
0.544
0.512
0.431
0.523
0.772
0.503
0.772
0.523
0.730.744
0.523
0.6630.6560.6630.663
0.523
0.421
0.6630.663
0.498
0.657
0.431
0.654
0.512
0.657
0.772
0.657
0.523
0.6620.662
f(x) = 0.010483927453262 x + 0.0204464566923889R² = 0.15918544815916
Microeconomic Competitiveness Score
Educ
ation
Dev
elop
men
t Ind
ex
EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT INDEX VERSUS COMPETITIVENESS
Institute for Competitiveness, India
CHEATING INCIDENCE VERSUS COMPETITIVENESS
48.00 53.00 58.00 63.00 68.0020
220
420
620
820
1020
1220
1420
266
212
141
275
47
170
1108
163
524
148204
21
154
254240 151
80105
90
461
297
1271
277
750
385
124
234 264
187
53
174
77
663
188
26
168
31
63
126
689
115
209
298294
f(x) = 105.874884875056 x − 5342.86249159677R² = 0.283739149709869
Microeconomic Competitiveness Score
Chea
ting
Inci
denc
e
Institute for Competitiveness, India
DECADAL GROWTH RATE VERSUS COMPETITIVENESS
48.00 53.00 58.00 63.00 68.000
10
20
30
40
50
60
20.96 22.3120.71
15.48
12.01
46.68
28.5
19.65 17.1
7.77
18.46
32.48
20.96
11.91
31.75
18.95
4.71
32.7
14.4
26.91
12.48
15.53
9.72
5.67.31
25.79
15
17.9515.92
8.01
13.3914.39
22.33
51.52
22.3427.72
30.34
34.65
19.87
23.9
12.58
23.56
42.19
2.25
14.16
17.32
8.15
11.89
f(x) = 0.392096913744252 x − 1.34194088310914R² = 0.0145767385471779
Microeconomic Competitiveness Score
% d
ecad
al g
row
th ra
te (2
001-
11)
Institute for Competitiveness, India
OWNERSHIP OF CONSUMER DURABLES - MOBILE VERSUS COMPETITIVENESS
48.00 53.00 58.00 63.00 68.0098
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
99
99.4
99.7
99.6
100 100
99.7
98.6
100
99.7
98.6
100100
99.3
99.8
100100
99.6
99.9100 100
100
99.3
99.7
99.3
100
99.3
100
98.6
99.7
99
99.899.7
99.7
100
98.4
98.6
100
99.5
98.6
99.5
98.6
100100
99.5
99.399.399.4
99.799.7f(x) = 0.0166353995871989 x + 98.6175998908751R² = 0.0197344931930818
Microeconomic Competitiveness Score
Ow
ners
hip
of C
onsu
mer
Dur
able
s- M
obile
Institute for Competitiveness, India
THE UNTAPPED ASSET OF INDIA: TIER 2-3 CITIES
Consists of a pool of opportunities
Avoids the pitfalls of the megacities
More people are moving towards them as they are facing scarcity of land in Mega cities
Each city has its own competitive edge
Preferred by many people
Tier I cities Tier II and III cities0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
35%
50%
Grow
th (i
n %
)
Growth of organized retail
Source:- Report on “India Boarding” by TCS and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
URBANIZATION LEVEL OF TIER 2 CITIES
AgraAsansolBhopal
CoimbatoreDhanbad
IndoreJaipur
JamshedpurKanpur
KochiKozhikode
LucknowLudhianaMaduariMeerutNagpurNashikPatnaRajkotSurat
ThiruvananthapuramVadodaraVaranasi
VijaywadaVishakapatnam
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
45.8766.93
80.8475.83
58.1374.09
52.5155.55
65.9368.07
67.1566.20
59.1460.64
51.1368.30
42.5343.4843.4843.48
53.8049.54
43.4341.01
47.51
Urbanization level (in%)Source:- Census 2011 and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
UNTANGLING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN CITY, COMPETITIVENESS & ECONOMIC GROWTH
More advanced economies are more urbanized economies
Cities tend to be the only place where companies and individuals find opportunities for successful economic activity
Rise of cities is seen as an inevitable part of development but also as a policy challenge
Avoid a political schism between metropolitan and rural regions
Cities have a different role to play in advanced economies
From the competitiveness perspective, the policy imperative is crucial for cities as well as for rural regions
Cities and the rural regions around them should cooperate closely
The case with Mumbai
Tried to manage the growth by creating artificial boundaries The approach failed and made living conditions worse Different policy approach is required that focuses on better public services and land use inside the city Competitiveness-oriented policy approach can be used that changes the economic fundamentals of where people live and work
Institute for Competitiveness, India
SECTORWISE TOTAL INVESTMENTS IN PPP PROJECTS IN INDIA : 2011
Airports
Education
Energy
Health Care
Ports
Railways
Roads
Urban Development
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
19131
1922.47
85141.18
1887.2
82402.67
3913.03
244289.176
99324.61
Project Cost (Rs. Crore)
Source:- PPP Database and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE: TRANSPORTATION IN INDIAN CITIES
Chaotic situation in most cities except the mega cities where the number of commuters is so high that the transportation seems weak Challenges:
- Vast gaps between demand and supply
- Poor infrastructure such as insufficient routes and roads
- Increase in private vehicles which leads to congestion and also slows down the speed of other vehicles such as buses etc. to 10-12 km
- Leads to environmental pollution
- Absence of comprehensive parking facilities in the city
Chennai Bengaluru Mumbai Ahmedabad Kolkata Delhi0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
3414
6110
4652
942 956
5771
278.59
205.38
154.02152.71
99.9
138.66
Total Fleet Held Vehicle Productivity (km/Bus/Day)
In N
umbe
r
In k
m/B
us/D
ay
Operations of Road Transportation in Major Cities: 2010-11
Source:- Road Transport and highways Ministry, 2010-11 and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
• The other major mode of transportation in cities is Railways• Though it is dominant for the inter city transportation only in cities• Also has a different face in every region such as in
- Delhi – Metro Rapid Transit System (MRTS) is main lifeline but Local Rails are also present
- Kolkata – The Underground Metro, The Local Rails and the tram, all are widely used by commuters
- Mumbai – Local Trains however, metro will be operational after short period, as reported by authorities
- Bengaluru – The introduction of Metro in the city has change the travelling experience of the commuters
United Kingdom
United States
Japan
Germany
China
India
South Africa
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
55019
9518
244235
78582
791158
903465
18865
In million passenger - km
Passengers carried by railways (million passenger-km)
Source:- World Bank and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE: WATER
Ahmedabad
Amritsar
Bengaluru
Bhopal
Chandiga
rh
Chennai
Coimbato
re
Indore
Jamsh
edpur
Kolkata
Mumbai
Nagpur
Nashik
Rajkot
Surat
Varanasi
Vijayw
ada
Visakh
apatn
am
Averag
e0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.168 0.213 0.1850.182
0.332
0.131 0.2860.108
0.808
0.246
0.2460.267 0.248
0.146
0.188
0.2170.22
0.3050.244
2
11
4.5
1.5
12
5
3
0.75
6
8.3
4
5
3.5
0.3
2.5
7
3
1
4.3
Production/Population (m3/d/c) Water availability (hours)
Prod
uctio
n/Po
pula
tion
(m3/
d/c)
Wat
er A
vaila
bilit
y (h
ours
)
AVERAGE= 0.244
Source:- India Infrastructure Report 2011 and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Institute for Competitiveness, India
URBAN CLUSTERS
“Geographical concentrations of industries that gain performance advantage through co-location”
Brings together companies, suppliers, service providers and associated institutions in a particular field The close proximity – by geography and activities - provides economic benefits Facilitate commercialization and new business formation through spinoffs and startups Cluster initiatives can act as policy catalysts for competitiveness Growth of one competitive firm generate demand for other related industries Forces firms to improve and innovate Facilitate technology and knowledge transfer that strengthens the cluster and promotes future growth
City Industrial Cluster
Raipur Iron & Steel Cluster
Ahmedabad Chemical Cluster
Surat Gem & Jewelry Cluster
Nashik Engineering cluster
Guwahati Bamboo Cluster
Vijayawada, Chennai Auto Components Cluster
Bangalore Machine Tools Cluster
Hyderabad Pharma Cluster
Kanpur Leather Cluster
Ludhiana Textile Cluster
Institute for Competitiveness, India
SUCCESS STORY OF CLUSTER IN BENGALURU
The ICT Cluster in Bengaluru has attracted people and is also known as the Silicon Valley of India Currently Boasts of over 1500 IT firms out of about 3500 IT firms in India Indian companies such as Infosys, Wipro, Iflex have strong presence Fully owned subsidiaries of MNCs such as Motorola, Texas Instruments and Hewlett Packard have their base in the city Around 1/3rd of all of India’s software exports are from the city Ranked 4th in the category of global hub of technological innovation by United Nations Human Development Report
Factors that contribute Educational Institutions and training centers (IISC, IIIT, IIM etc.) Research Institutions (ISRO) Government policies (central and local) Y2K Problem (resulted in giving an important impetus to IT development) Quality issues Jobs creation
“Bengaluru is a model of how an agglomeration can bring prosperity to a poor country”
- Edward Glaeser, Harvard University
Institute for Competitiveness, India
ESTABLISHED IT/ITES HUBS IN INDIA
NCR Delhi
Kolkata
Mumbai
Hyderabad
Chennai
Bangalore
Pune
Total STPI Registered Units by 2006-07: 1400IT/ITeS Majors: IBM, Genpact Oracle, American Express, Convergys, HP, General Motors
Total STPI Registered Units by 2006-07: 166IT/ITeS Majors: IBM, Cognizant, TCS, Infosys, Wipro
Total STPI Registered Units by 2006-07: 1060IT/ITeS Majors: Hp, Amazon, Verizon, Convergys, EXL, Infosys, TCS
Total STPI Registered Units by 2006-07: 900IT/ITeS Majors: Infosys, Wipro, Accenture, Cognizant
Total STPI Registered Units by 2006-07: 630IT/ITeS Majors: TCS, Infosys, Wipro, Siemens, Accenture
Total STPI Registered Units by 2006-07: 635IT/ITeS Majors: Cognizant, Convergys, EXL, KPIT, Msource
Total STPI Registered Units by 2006-07: 1700IT/ITeS Majors: Wipro, TCS, HP, Siemens, HSBC, CompaqCumulative software exports from
Bangalore are estimated to be US$ 11 billion, positioning it as
the leading IT hub of IndiaSource:- Paper on “Knowledge-based Custer Development in India Opportunities and Challenges”, MIT
Institute for Competitiveness, India
AUTOMOTIVE CLUSTERS IN INDIA
Himachal Pradesh
DELHIHaryana
West Bengal
KolkataGujarat
Maharashtra
Mumbai
Karnataka
Bangalore
Andhra Pradesh
Tamil Naidu
Chennai
Maruti Suzuki, Honda, Hero,
Yamaha, LML
NORTH
GM, TATA, Fiat, Bajaj, Mahindra,
Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen,
Eicher, Force, Skoda, Audi,
Mahindra Renault, Swaraj Mazda
TATA, HM
EAST
Hyundai, Ford, Mitsubishi Motors,
TVS, Toyota, Volvo, Royal Enfield,
BMW, Nissan, Renault Nissan
Source:- Harvard Business School – Spring 2012
Institute for Competitiveness, India
ENHANCING CITY COMPETITIVENESS
Focus on
1. Public-Private Partnerships
- Increases the ease of business, fetches innovative ideas, provide potential for financing
- One of the successful model is the Delhi Noida Bridge
2. Dealing with Urbanization
3. Urban Poverty
4. Transparency and Civic Engagement
5. Other Common Areas
- Understand the city challenges & search their solutions, improve internal & external environment
- Some Tier-2 & 3 cities like Guwahati, Bhopal, Faridabad, Coimbatore are urbanizing at a fast pace
- Leads to vulnerable conditions, create issues with respect to sanitation, water, health , education etc.
- Government programmes: Swarna Jayanti Shahari Raozgar Yojana (SJSRY), JNNURM, Rajiv Awas Yojana
- Engage major stakeholders in most of the development activities
- A tool for the betterment of the democracy and thus the city
- Includes basic amenities, infrastructure, facilities etc. required for a decent standard of living
Institute for Competitiveness, India
GOVERNANCE
Movement of power
Center
State
Urban Local Government
Therefore,
Clear boundaries between Metropolitan governance body and municipal corporation
Need to make institutional arrangements
Empower Local bodies
Create well defined model for governance structure
Focus should be on managing the change wherein expectations of all stakeholders is taken into consideration
provide quality services in adequate quantities to the
residents A ‘GOOD’ City = sound political and governance system
are responsive towards the requirements of the businesses
City Mayor
City Management Service Delivery Agencies
Institute for Competitiveness, India
Focus on
1. Build Character
- Governed by planning norms, building controls and urban policy
- Immediate spatial and visual impact of city’s “Hardware” positively influence the psyche of people
2. Urban identity
3. Urban behavior
4. Interstitial urbanism
- Urban contexts of the city strike a deep chord with its residents
- Characteristics such as historicity, accessibility, multi-vocal qualities and inclusive nature are valued
- It replicates itself in recognizable pattern at multiple scales
- Helps to openly engage, individually and collectively
- Adds immeasurable value to the city
- Vitalizes a city, encourage a sense of belonging amongst residents and their engagement with the city
CITY BRANDING FROM WITHIN
Delhi can be branded if following possibilities are looked upon: Innovatively utilizing the old structures even when urban infrastructure are being constructed Enhancing the inclusiveness of the city via urban villages & historic settlements so as to make them vibrant contributors to Delhi’s
urban experience Improving the basic amenities within the city etc.
Institute for Competitiveness, India
INDIA CITIES ON GLOBAL BENCHMARK
Tokyo (68)Shanghai (55.2)Los Angeles (61.5)New York (71.4)
London (70.4)
Hong Kong (69.3)
Paris(69.3)Zurich (66.8)
Chicago (65.9)
Singapore (70)
Delhi (46.7)
Kolkata (37.8)
Chennai (38.1)Bangalore (44.6)
Mumbai (46.6)
Ahmedabad (41.9)
Source:- Economist Intelligence Unit and Institute for Competitiveness Analysis
Hyderabad (39.4)
Institute for Competitiveness, India
KEYS FOR SUCCESSFUL CITIES
Vision
Entrepreneurship
SpecializationSocial cohesion
Governance
ambition for future + desire + shared value system
shaping people and not merely “shaping knowledge”
understand every city’s unique characteristics
Creative city planning which, addresses social issues
Include principles such as, participation, coherency,
competitiveness, subsidiarity, sustainability
Institute for Competitiveness, India
THE CITIES OF FUTURE
Present cities seems stressed on multiple accounts that is, overpopulation, sketchy resources, exorbitantly high cost of living index,
mal governance etc. So the cities of future would primarily be an itsy-bitsy variation of current cities Current cities have built in so many contra forces that they are now leviathan white elephants. However it is being suggested that
city of future would be fragmentisation of population clusters Every employee shall serve many firms Geography and power would no longer correlate 21st century man is absolutely asocial Technology will keep on pouring and will make one city advanced and other obsolete Therefore, cities needs to see their future and then address the stresses bothering them and should not depend on the vacuous
pronouncements of politicians