3 Ravindra

8/10/2019 3 Ravindra

1/20

THE FOURTEENTH FINANCE COMMISSION AND

URBAN SERVICES

D. RAVINDRA PRASAD AND V. SRINIVAS CHARY

The Fourteenth Finance Commission (14thFC) was constituted

at a time when the role and contribution of urban areas forthe nations economy and development is being recognised.

With urbanisation, cities and towns experience service delivery

deficit both to general and slum households. With benchmarks

for some services in place, the State Finance Commissions

(SFCs) and Finance Commissions (FCs) need to allocate

grants-in-aid to local bodies to bridge the deficit and to meet

future needs based on a formula instead of ad hoc grants whichhas been the case hitherto. The 14th FC need to address a

comprehensive agenda that includes infrastructure provision,

improved service delivery, services to poor, bridging the

resource gap of Urban Local Bodies (ULB) and improve

governance and workout a formula for grants-in-aid based

on efforts of local bodies and state governments. This is critical

to address the challenges of sustainable urban development

and Indias urban future.

INTRODUCTION

THE FOURTEENTH Finance Commission1was constituted at a time when

the significance and contribution of urban areas is being recognised in thecountry. During the last decade, several developments have taken place in

the urban sector including launching of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban

Renewal Mission (JNNURM),2publication of Handbook of Service Level

1Joshi, B.M. Fourteenth Finance Commission; Constitution and Terms of Reference,

The Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LIX, No. 4, Oct.-Dec., pp. 821-834,

2013. Thimmaiah, G. Terms of Reference of the Fourteenth Finance Commission,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No.48, pp.18-21, 2013.

2Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development,Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban

Renewal Mission An Overview, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi, 2005.


2/20

236 / INDIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

236 / VOL. LX, NO. 2, APRIL-JUNE 2014

Benchmarks (SLBs)3for core services and appointment of a High Powered

Expert Committee onIndian Urban Infrastructure and Services(HPEC)4

for estimating the urban investment requirements by the Ministry of Urban

Development, Government of India (MoUD). The 12thFive Year Plan (12th

Plan)5and Working Group reports6constituted by the Planning Commissionunderpinned the need and urgency to improve service levels. They also

highlighted the problems of governance, human resources and capacities

of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in the context of emerging urban challenges.

Studies by Mathur, Oommen and others clearly bring out the fragile

municipal finances, insufficiency of grants-in-aid, need to strengthen

performance linked assistance to ULBs, problems of inter-governmental

transfers and the challenges of 14 th FC to strengthen democratic

decentralisation and improve local finances and governance.7 Oommen

discusses the terms of reference of the 14th FC and argues the need to

increase the share of devolutions to local bodies and special financial

assistance to six metropolitan cities to improve infrastructure. This article

discusses and analyses the status of urban infrastructure and gaps in service

delivery, investment needs to meet the gaps and governance issues. It arguesthat the 14thFC need to address a comprehensive urban agenda, viz. service

3Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Handbook on Service Level

Benchmarking,New Delhi, 2008.4Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Report on Indian Urban

Infrastructure and Services, New Delhi, 2010.5Government of India, Planning Commission, The Twelfth Five Year Plan, (2012-13 to

2017), Economic Sectors, Volume II, New Delhi, 2013.6Government of India, Planning Commission, 2011, Report of the Working Group on

Financing Urban Infrastructure, New Delhi. See, http://planningcommission.nic.in/

aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/hud/wg_Financing_rep.pdf. Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013;

Government of India, Planning Commission, 2012: Report of the Sub-committee on

Financing Urban Infrastructure in the 12thPlan, New Delhi.7Mathur, Om Prakash, India: India Municipal Finance Study (2011),(ADB Technical

Assistance Consultants Report (2013), See, http:www.adb.org/projects/documents/

municipal-finance-matters-india-municipal-finance-study-tacr. Accessed on 3rdNovember, 2013; (2013), Finances of Municipalities: Issues before the Fourteenth Finance

Commission, Economic and Political Weekly, 48(22), pp.23-27; Oommen M.A. (2010),

The Thirteenth Finance Commission and the Third Tier,Economic and Political Weekly,

Vol. 45, No.48; (2013), The Third Tier and the Fourteenth Finance Commission,

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 48, Nos.45&46; Mohanty, P.K. et al, (2007):Municipal

Finances in India: An Assessment,(Mumbai, Reserve Bank of India); Mathur, Mukesh P.

Municipal Finance and Municipal Services in India,Present Status and Future

Prospects, See www.developmentfunds.org/.../Mukesh%20Paper%20on%20Municipal%20Situation%20in%20India.doc. Accessed on 27th October, 2013; United

Nations (2012), World Populations Prospects, The 2011 Revision, Department of Economic

and Social Affairs, Population Division, File 2, (New York).


3/20

THE FOURTEENTH FINANCE COMMISSION AND URBAN SERVICES / 237


delivery improvements, formula based inter-governmental transfers,

strengthening ULB finances through efforts of local bodies, state and

Central governments, effective monitoring of performance and to bring

professionalism into municipal governance to meet the emerging urban

challenges.

Urban Challenges

Indias urban population with 377 million in 20118constituting 31.16

per cent of total population is projected to be about 600 millions by 2030

and the United Nations project that it would cross 50 per cent by 2050.9

The number of statutory and census towns increased from 3799 and 5161

to 4041 and 7935 during 2001and 2011 respectively.10

It is now widelyrecognised that urbanisation contributes significantly to the economic

development goals of a country. However, the pace of urbanisation is posing

challenges related to service delivery and infrastructure, poverty, housing,

environment, traffic and transportation, etc. Infrastructure is often deficient,

service delivery standards are sub-optimal especially for the urban poor.

With haphazard planning and weak governance, cities are becoming places

of growth and public health threat. As the 12thPlan noted that if the urbanchallenges are not tackled appropriately, not only Indian cities get

increasingly chaotic and choked, rural poverty will be converted into urban

poverty with no gains to improvement of livelihoods of Indias burgeoning

population.11

Urban Infrastructure

The physical infrastructure supports economic activity but weak

resource base constrain the ULBs to provide, maintain and renew

infrastructure and they do not have the creditworthiness to borrow and

invest. The 12thPlan period (2012-13 to 2016-17) coincides, in part, with

the award period of 14 th FC (2015-16 to 2019-20) and latters

recommendations will have a bearing on urban infrastructure improvements

during the 12thand subsequent plans.

Despite urban areas contributing about two-thirds of nations GDP,there is a wide infrastructure gap affecting the economic productivity of

cities and urban quality of life. For the first time Zakaria Committee (1963)

8Census of India, Primary Census Data Highlights-India, 2011. See, http://

www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/PCA/PCA_Highlights/pca_highlights_india.html9United Nations, World Populations Prospects, The 2011 Revision, Department of

Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, File 2, New York, 2012.10Pradhan, Kanhu Charan, Unacknowledged Urbanisation: New Census Towns of

India, Economic and Political Weekly, 48(36), pp.43-51, 2013.11The Twelfth Five Year Plan, op. cit. para.18.12.


4/20



laid physical and expenditure norms for five services, viz. water supply,

sewerage, storm water drains, roads and street lighting. This was followed

by Town and Country Planning Organization (1974), Planning Commission

(1983 and 1999), etc.12Some state governments also attempted norms for

different services. Despite these prescriptions, the Zakaria Committee normsare used as benchmarks with adjustments for inflation despite them being

decades old. In 2008 the MoUD published benchmarks for water supply,

sewerage and sanitation, solid waste management and storm water drains

with 28 indicators.13Select eight indicators are given in Table 1. The HPEC

accepted these benchmarks and expanded the list to cover roads, transport,

traffic and support infrastructure and street lighting. It noted that if cities

are indeed to serve as engines of growth a concerted plan should be put in

action to achieve the standards in 20 years.14

Access to Services

Access to services as per Census 2011is given in Table 2.

TABLE 1: SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

Sl.No. Indicator Benchmark

Water Supply

1 Coverage of water supply connections 100

2 Per capita availability of water at consumer end 135 lpcd

3 Extent of non-revenue water 20%

Sewage Management

1 Coverage of Toilets 100

2 Coverage of waste sewerage network services 100

Solid Waste Management

1 Household level coverage of solid waste management 100

services

2 Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste 100

Storm Water Drainage

1 Coverage of storm water drainage network 100

SOURCE: Handbook on Service Level Benchmarking, MoUD.

12Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services, op. cit, Chapter 2.13Handbook on Service Level Benchmarking, op.cit.14Report of the Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services, op.cit., para, 2.2.6.


5/20



TABLE 2: STATUS ON ACCESS TO SELECT URBAN SERVICES

Sl.No. State /UT Tap Water Type of Latrine Piped Drainage

Coverage Treated Safe Others OD Sewers Closed Open No

1 INDIA 70.6 62.0 78.6 8.8 12.6 32.7 44.5 37.3 18.2

2 Jammu & Kashmir 87.9 70.6 70.3 19.0 10.7 25.3 32.7 50.4 16.9

3 Himachal Pradesh 95.5 93.3 91.0 2.1 6.9 40.7 65.0 28.6 6.4

4 Punjab 76.4 66.1 86.4 7.8 5.8 63.7 57.6 33.3 9.1

5 Chandigarh 96.8 93.8 96.2 0.6 3.2 85.9 87.3 8.7 4.0

6 Uttarakhand 78.4 72.7 87.6 7.7 4.7 31.7 42.3 50.6 7.1

7 Haryana 77.5 70.2 81.8 9.4 8.8 54.8 49.4 42.8 7.8

8 NCT, Delhi 81.9 75.8 93.1 3.9 3.0 60.5 60.3 35.7 4.0

9 Rajasthan 82.6 75.4 75.0 8.3 16.7 25.6 34.4 51.6 14.0

10 Uttar Pradesh 51.5 44.7 79.3 5.9 14.8 28.3 32.2 61.2 6.6

11 Bihar 20.0 15.1 65.6 5.5 28.9 7.2 30.0 41.4 28.6

12 Sikkim 92.1 70.0 94.4 3.4 2.2 34.4 39.5 52.6 7.9

13 Arunachal Pradesh 84.2 46.5 78.7 14.6 6.7 13.8 15.7 50.6 33.8

14 Nagaland 35.7 6.0 82.3 15.5 2.2 4.5 8.6 67.9 23.5

15 Manipur 56.3 50.9 65.6 32.1 2.3 7.4 6.0 64.4 29.6

16 Mizoram 74.4 61.8 81.5 17.6 0.9 5.1 20.4 59.1 20.5

17 Tripura 54.0 43.5 50.8 47.9 1.3 6.7 7.3 46.2 46.6

18 Meghalaya 77.6 68.1 84.8 12.8 2.4 9.7 17.9 62.5 19.719 Assam 30.2 27.4 72.3 22.7 5.0 15 15.4 40.9 43.7

20 West Bengal 55.6 50.0 65.3 23.4 11.3 13.6 24.4 42.4 33.2

21 Jharkhand 41.6 34.7 66.5 2.5 31.0 14 24.9 45.9 29.2

22 Odisha 48.0 42.1 60.8 6.0 33.2 11.5 19.9 39.2 41.0

23 Chhattisgarh 62.5 44.2 64.1 1.5 34.4 9.1 17.5 51.4 31.1

24 Madhya Pradesh 62.2 50.6 74.8 2.7 22.5 20.2 31.9 50.4 17.7

25 Gujarat 85.6 68.8 88.8 2.5 8.7 60.4 69.4 13.2 17.4

26 Daman & Diu 72.6 48.7 94.7 1.2 4.1 6.3 46.5 30.7 22.827 D & N Haveli 50.3 35.7 87.9 1.0 11.1 8 47.0 15.7 37.3

28 Maharashtra 89.1 85.7 88.3 4.0 7.7 37.8 62.7 28.4 8.8

29 Andhra Pradesh 83.5 75.5 81.4 6.7 11.9 33.7 49.6 38.7 11.7

30 Karnataka 80.4 68.4 76.0 13.3 10.7 53.3 56.5 31.1 12.4

31 Goa 90.2 87.8 85.8 4.7 9.5 18.6 54.8 23.2 22.0

32 Lakshadweep 16.9 11.7 97.6 0.5 1.9 2.9 14.8 11.1 74.1

33 Kerala 34.9 30.4 76.2 22.1 1.7 14.3 33.5 21.0 45.5

34 Tamil Nadu 80.3 66.3 75.1 8.7 16.2 27.4 44.8 30.2 25.135 Puducherry 95.4 91.8 86.9 0.9 12.2 19.9 32.3 50.2 17.4

36 A & N Is. 97.9 92.7 91.9 0.3 7.8 3 12.1 74.0 14.0

SOURCE: Compiled from Census Reports, 2011.

Water

Over 70 per cent people have access to tap water in their premises and

the rest depend on alternate sources. Only 62 per cent of urban residents

get treated water. In Bihar, only 20 per cent households have access to

water within the premises, in Assam 30.2 per cent and lowest access is in

Lakshadweep with only 16.9 per cent. In Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, though


6/20



over four-fifths have access to tap water in the premises, only 66.3 per

cent and 68.4 per cent, respectively receive treated water (Table 2).15City

water supply ranges from a few hours a day to once in a few days. There is

no ULB in the country except Malkapur in Maharashtra, which supplies

city wide continuous (24/7) water.16Public health hazards and coping costsinvolved in intermittent water supply are well-known. This in part can be

attributed to weak governance.

Sanitation

Urbanisation is posing enormous challenge to urban sanitation service

delivery. While at the national level over 78 per cent have access to personal

or public toilets, in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Odisha 31 per cent, 34.4per cent and 33.2 per cent, respectively have no access to toilets and defecate

in the open. Similar is the case with states like Bihar (28.9%), Madhya

Pradesh (22.5%) and Tamil Nadu (16.2%). The prevalence of open

defecation still exists in urban India is a matter of grave concern. Though

many a village eliminated open defecation in rural India, it is not so with

urban areas.17

Drainage

Only 45 per cent households have closed drains, 37 per cent open

drains and others release waste water into the open areas. Only eight states/

UTs have more than 50 per cent closed drains and in Kerala, Assam, Odisha,

Tripura and Lakshadweep open drains constitute more than 40 per cent.

Chandigarh and Delhi with four per cent have lowest percentage of open

drains (Table 2).

15Access is computed based on SLB definitions and Census of India 2011data.16Malkapur received an award for providing continuous water supply under Prime

Ministers Excellence in Public Administration Scheme in 2009-10. See Government of

India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of

Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Success Story of Malkapur 24X7 Water

Supply Scheme, in Prime Ministers Excellence in Public Administration Scheme in 2009-

10, New Delhi, pp.3-4. See, http://darpg.gov.in/darpgwebsite_cms/Document/file/pmawards_brochure.pdf; Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013.

17Under National Urban Sanitation Policy, the MoUD evaluated sanitation status in 423

Class I cities as per 2001 Census in 2009-10 and rated them based on output, process and

outcome indicators. The cities were classified as green (healthy and clean city with more

than 91 marks), blue (recovering city with 67-90 marks), black (needing considerable

improvement with 34-66 marks) and red (less than 33 marks needing immediate remedial

action). No city was in green category and four cities viz., Chandigarh, Mysore, Surat and

NDMC were in blue and the rest are in black or red category. See http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/uwss/FlyerRating.pdf. Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013.

Recently it is reported that Sikkim has achieved 100% sanitation both in rural and urban

areas. See Times of India, February 9, 2014.


7/20



Sewerage

Less than one-third households have sewerage connection18and others

leave toilet waste water into septic tanks or open drains. Chandigarh has

85.9 per cent coverage while the lowest is in Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Punjab (63.7%), Delhi (60.5%), Gujarat (60.4%), Haryana (54.8%) andKarnataka (53.3%) have better coverage of sewer lines (Table 2).

Solid Waste Management

Urban India daily generates over a lakh metric ton waste with 200-600

gms per capita. In larger ULBs, solid waste collection efficiency ranges

between 70 per cent to 90 per cent and in small ULBs it is less than 50 per

cent. The ULBs spend Rs. 500 to Rs.1500 on solid waste management perton, of which 60-70 per cent is on street sweeping and collection, 20-30

per cent on transportation and less than five per cent on disposal. This

highlights the priority accorded to disposal. Projections indicate that in

the next 50 years waste generation would almost double. Unless efforts

are made to address this problem, there exists a serious threat to public

health and environment.

Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs)

The 13th FC endorsed the SLBs published by MoUD in 2008 and

recommended that the ULBs notify the status of services and targets for

the next fiscal year in the state gazette and made it conditional to access

the performance grant of about Rs.8, 000 crore it recommended.19In 2010-

11, thirteen states notified the status of four services and targets for the

next fiscal. The data gives a dismal picture of urban services (Table 3).

The national average20of water connections within the premises is 53.6

per centabout half the benchmark of 100 per cent coverage. In Gujarat

and Himachal Pradesh the coverage is better with 77 per cent and 74.4

per cent, respectively and lowest is in Bihar with only 17 per cent.

The per capita water supply benchmark is 135 lpcd whereas the average

supply is 76 lpcd. Highest supply is in Himachal Pradesh and Odisha

with over 110 lpcd but in Bihar supply is less than 30 lpcd. The non-revenue water should be less than 20 per cent and Gujarat is

the only state which is close to the benchmark with 20.6 per cent. The

18Connection of latrine waste water to sewer pipelines is taken as sewerage coverage.

See, http://censusmp.nic.in/censusmp/All-PDF/4.Latrine%20Facility.pdf. Accessed on 27th

October, 2013.19

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Thirteenth Finance Commission-2010-2015, New Delhi, chapter 10, 2009.

20National average refers to 1405 ULBs constituting 35 per cent of the total ULBs in

2011from 13 states that notified the benchmarks.


8/20



TABLE3:URBAN

SERVICESSERVICELE

VELBENCHMARKS

Indicator

WaterConnection

Percapita

NRW

Coverage

Sewage

Househo

ld

Collection

Coverage

inpremise

s

supply

oftoilets

network

levelSW

M

efficiency

ofSWD

LPCD

coverage

coverag

e

ofsolidwaste

network

Benchma

rk

100%

135

2

0%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Average

53.6

76.6

3

4.1

71.1

49.5

57.2

77.2

52.9

AndhraP

radesh

37.6

68.9

4

1.2

77.2

30.7

72.7

87.1

69.3

Bihar

17.0

29.2

4

8.1

49.0

25.0

23.8

42.8

33.8

Chhattisg

arh

25.8

45.2

6

4.9

69.2

9.7

20.1

76.2

33.4

Gujarat

77.0

97.3

2

0.6

77.4

61.5

79.2

81.3

47.8

HimachalPradesh

74.4

110.3

2

9.4

87.6

41.1

23.7

70.8

19.8

Karnatak

a

64.5

94.1

3

0.9

70.7

50.6

49.9

72.1

52.7

Kerala

36.9

64.1

2

9.1

84.5

17.5

16.0

60.4

16.3

MadhyaPradesh

45.7

56.9

4

5.1

73.7

17.6

26.0

71.0

55.2

Maharashtra

67.8

80.8

3

2.1

66.6

54.5

66.3

76.2

63.5

Odisha

25.7

110.7

5

4.6

56.2

18.3

45.6

68.9

12.6

Rajasthan

66.4

68.7

2

7.1

68.4

42.4

26.8

76.1

60.5

Tripura

27.9

71.3

7

2.7

62.4

0.0

52.8

80.7

2.2

UttarPra

desh

37.3

60.3

2

6.7

71.8

31.2

26.1

93.5

52.6

SOURCE:AdministrativeStaffCollegeofIndia2011.


9/20



national average is 34 per cent and in Tripura and Chhattisgarh more

than two-thirds of water produced goes waste.

Only 71 per cent households have toilets in the premises. Himachal

Pradesh and Kerala are better placed with 87.6 per cent and 84.5 per centrespectively while Bihar with about 50 per cent has lowest coverage.

No state has 100 per cent sewerage network. Gujarat with over 61 per

cent stands better while Tripura has no sewage system and Chhattisgarh

has less than 10 per cent coverage.

The door-to-door collection of solid waste stands at 57 per cent against

100 per cent benchmark. Gujarat has about four-fifths coverage and all

other states are far behind. Uttar Pradesh with over 93.5 per cent solid

waste collection efficiency is closer to the benchmark while Bihar with

43 per cent collection efficiency is way behind.

Only 53 per cent have a network of storm water drains. Andhra Pradesh

has about 70 per cent coverage while Tripura with two per cent has

lowest coverage followed by Odisha with over 12 per cent.

The foregoing data clearly bring out the less than satisfactoryperformance of ULBs vis--vis the benchmarks and road to achieve them

appear to be long and arduous.

Service to the Poor

Despite poors contribution to national economy, poverty continues to

be a major problem in our cities and towns and no comprehensive and

authentic data on slums and the poor peoples access to basic services isavailable. As per Census 2011, there are 137.49 lakh slum households in

India.21But a study by Participatory Research in Asia and Indicus Analytics

put the figure at 240 lakh households and they contribute 7.53 per cent of

the countrys urban GDP.22 As per Census 2011, three-fourths slum

21Primary Census Abstract for Slums. See, http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-

Documents/Slum-26-09-13.pdf. Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013;Housing Stock, Amenities& Assets in Slums; See, http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/Slum_Table/

Slum_Table.html Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013,House Listing and Houses Census Data

Highlights, Assets in Slums. See, http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/

hlo_highlights.html Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013; House Listing and Houses Census

Data Highlights, Assets in Slums. See, http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/

hlo_highlights.html Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013.22The Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) and Indicus Analytics undertook

a survey on Economic Contributions of Urban Poor in Indiain 50 cities in which a 5, 353households and 24,445 individuals were covered. See, The Economic Times,16thOctober,

2013. See, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/slums-contribute-

over-7-5-to-gdp-study/articleshow/24217724.cms. Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013.


10/20



households have domestic tap connection but only two-third among these

get treated water; about three-fourths have safe sanitation facilities, one-

fourth connected latrines to sewer lines and about one-fifth households

defecate in the open with variations between states (Table 4). Tap

connections within the premises appear to be high with more than 90 per

cent in several states/UTs. But the coverage is poor in Bihar (15.6%),

Jharkhand (27.48%) and Odisha (40.69%). Open defecation is very high

TABLE 4: STATUS ON ACCESS TO SERVICES TO SLUM POPULATION

Sl.No. State /UT Tap Type of Latrine Piped Drainage

Coverage Treated Safe Others OD Sewers Closed Open Nosystem

1 INDIA 74.0 65.3 72.8 8.3 18.9 24.5 37.0 44.3 18.8

2 Jammu & Kashmir 91.0 63.8 58.0 32.9 9.1 25.9 26.9 54.2 18.9

3 Himachal Pradesh 94.0 92.5 82.2 8.4 9.4 32.5 57.9 31.6 10.5

4 Punjab 69.8 60.4 80.0 9.5 10.5 58.3 49.9 38.8 11.3

5 Chandigarh 93.1 72.6 79.5 1.0 19.4 1.6 15.6 56.8 27.6

6 Uttarakhand 73.8 68.2 85.3 8.7 6.1 27.7 29.8 64.4 5.8

7 Haryana 73.2 63.9 70.3 12.4 17.3 45.9 38.4 52.1 9.68 NCT of Delhi 84.3 73.3 85.3 2.2 12.5 43.0 48.7 45.6 5.7

9 Rajasthan 83.0 76.0 61.9 11.8 26.3 22.0 26.6 56.6 16.8

10 Uttar Pradesh 45.4 38.6 74.4 6.9 18.8 20.5 21.5 70.7 7.7

11 Bihar 15.6 11.7 51.3 6.2 42.5 4.4 19.3 39.5 41.3

12 Sikkim 92.6 71.6 91.4 6.0 2.7 22.8 35.3 59.8 4.9

13 Arunachal Pradesh 48.4 11.1 53.2 33.3 13.5 6.0 4.2 33.5 62.3

14 Nagaland 35.9 4.1 23.0 75.7 1.3 4.4 5.0 80.0 15.0

15 Manipur

16 Mizoram 67.1 56.6 86.1 13.4 0.5 5.0 23.8 61.4 14.8

17 Tripura 58.9 48.4 18.7 79.3 2.0 4.3 3.9 43.4 52.818 Meghalaya 66.4 61.4 88.9 7.4 3.7 18.9 19.6 61.6 18.9

19 Assam 28.0 25.8 63.3 26.2 10.5 13.1 12.1 37.8 50.1

20 West Bengal 63.2 55.7 66.5 22.4 11.1 14.6 25.0 43.8 31.3

21 Jharkhand 27.5 21.6 55.3 2.8 41.9 5.9 14.4 41.6 44.0

22 Odisha 40.7 35.0 44.1 7.6 48.3 5.4 9.4 36.7 53.9

23 Chhattisgarh 60.9 42.6 56.6 1.8 41.7 3.6 10.2 56.8 33.1

24 Madhya Pradesh 60.9 48.4 64.8 3.5 31.7 13.6 20.8 57.1 22.1

25 Gujarat 84.5 72.7 75.6 3.1 21.3 40.3 50.6 21.9 27.6

26 Daman & Diu27 D & N Haveli

28 Maharashtra 90.3 86.6 86.5 3.8 9.8 23.0 57.5 34.8 7.7

29 Andhra Pradesh 84.0 77.8 40.8 44.4 14.8 29.7 43.2 44.3 12.4

30 Karnataka 83.6 67.5 59.8 15.2 25.0 33.3 34.9 49.0 16.1

31 Goa 97.5 93.6 92.1 0.5 7.4 29.6 61.5 23.8 14.7

32 Lakshadweep

33 Kerala 58.0 53.2 74.9 21.8 3.3 15.6 31.7 30.7 37.6

34 Tamil Nadu 80.6 67.1 71.7 5.2 23.1 30.7 42.1 29.0 28.9

35 Puducherry 98.2 91.1 73.6 1.5 24.9 11.5 20.9 53.2 25.9

36 A & N Islands 95.8 95.7 20.2 65.9 14.0 4.1 10.3 82.1 7.7

SOURCE: Compiled from the Census of India, 2011 Reports.


11/20



in Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha and Chhattisgarh with over 40 per cent of

urban poor defecating in open. Sewer connections are very limited in most

states except in Punjab and Gujarat where it is 58 per cent and 40 per cent

respectively. The problem gets compounded when slums are not notified

or regularised as local governments extend services mostly to notifiedslums.23 The NSSO survey in 2002 clearly brings out the variations in

access to water and sanitation services to slum households between notified

and non-notified slums (Table 5). No doubt, in some states the non- notified

slums have better access than the notified which can be attributed to the

pressures exerted by local councillors. The cumulative impact of lack of

access to basic services is insecurity, unhygienic living conditions, poor

health and nutrition and above all disempowerment.

TABLE 5: ACCESS TO SERVICES IN SLUMS (IN %)

Sl.No. Service Notified Slums Non-notified Slums

1 Access to tap water 84 71

2 Access to sewerage 30 15

3 Without drainage 15 44

4 Without latrine 17 51

SOURCE: India Infrastructure Report, 2006.

Access to Services in City and Slums

Status on access to services in the city and slums in 2011 is presented

in Table 6. Access to tap water appears to be better in slums vis-a-vis other

households in the city.24

This may mainly be because the slum households have access through

house or public tap, whereas the general households have access mostly

through house tap. Most slum households access water from outside the

23Census of India, 2011 classified slums into three categories viz., notified (under slum

Acts), recognized (not formally notified under Slum Act) and identified (compact areas

with 60-70 households of poorly built congested tenements in unhygienic environment

with inadequate infrastructure and lacking in sanitation and water facilities). Details of

access to services category-wise are not yet available.24

As per Census of India, 2011, only 2543 of 4041 ULBs or 63 per cent reported slums.It is possible that slum reporting may have better access to services. See C. Chandramouli,

Housing Stock, Amenities and Assets in Slums Census 2011. See censusindia.gov.in/

2011-Documents/On_Slums-2011Final.ppt. Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013.


12/20



premises indicating their dependence on public tap. In slums households

closed drains are less, use of public latrines and open defecation is higher.

Absence of safe sanitation increases the vulnerability to diarrhea and otherwater borne diseases. As Girish and Nitin noted about 3.8 crore people are

affected by waterborne diseases every year losing 7.30 crore working days

TABLE 6: ACCESS TO SERVICES IN CITY AND SLUMSA COMPARISON

Sl.No. Service Urban Slum

Source of Drinking Water

1 Tap 70.6 74.0

2 - Treated Source 62.0 65.3

3 - Untreated Source 8.6 8.7

4 Well 6.2 3.0

5 Hand pump 11.9 12.7

6 Tube well 8.9 7.6

7 Other sources 2.5 2.8

Location of Source

8 Within the premises 71.2 56.7

9 Outside the premises 28.8 43.3

Drainage Connectivity

10 Closed drainage 44.5 36.9

11 Open drainage 37.3 44.3

12 No drainage 18.2 18.8

Latrine

13 Latrine within premises 81.4 66.0

14 - Water closet 72.6 57.7

15 - Pit latrine 7.1 6.2

16 - Other 1.7 2.2

No Latrine in premises 18.6 34.0

17 - Public latrine 6.0 15.1

18 - Open defecation 12.6 18.9

SOURCE: C. Chandramouli.


13/20



and about 15 lakh children lose their lives due to diarrhea every year (both

urban and rural) is a matter of grave concern.25

Service Delivery Gap in City and Slums

The service delivery gap

26

is very high both in cities and slums. Treatedwater is not reaching 38 per cent of urban population, latrines are not

available to 21.4 per cent urbaniites and 67 per cent do not have sewerage

system (Table 7). In slums there is about 35 per cent deficiency in treated

water supply, over 27 per cent have no access to latrine, 18.8 per cent do

not have drainage facility, and 75 per cent do not have access to sewerage.

In Bihar, Lakshadweep, and Nagaland treated water is not accessible to 80

per cent slum households. Over 40 per cent households do not have latrinesin their premises in several states including J&K, Bihar, Nagaland,

Jharkhand, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, etc. Gap in sewerage

coverage is very high in most states and drainage deficiency is over 50 per

cent in states like Assam, Odisha, etc. Commenting on the service delivery

gap, the HPEC noted that the urban service delivery is far too poorer than

is desirable for Indias income levels .. Floods, traffic jams,

accumulated wastes on road sides and people queuing up for water fromstand posts and tankers across cities and towns all drive home the urgent

need to address the challenges of delivering urban services in India.27

Long neglect, inadequate investments, poor O&M, fragmented institutional

responsibility, absence of regulatory mechanism, poor governance and

capacity constraints seriously affect service delivery.

Costing Urban Infrastructure Needs

There were few efforts in the past to estimate the urban infrastructure

investment requirements. The HPEC estimated costs of asset creation,

renewal and redevelopment of slums and capacity building, but excluding

land acquisition over a 20 year period2012 to 2031 at Rs.39.2 lakh crore

at 2009-10 prices.28It also estimated a requirement of Rs. 19.9 lakh crore

to meet O&M costs of existing infrastructure and new infrastructure to be

provided over the next 20 years.

29

The McKinsey Global Institute, however,

25 Kumar, S. Girish, and Joseph, Nitin, Drainage and Sewerage System in Urban

India: Need for Action, Indian Journal of Occupational Medicine,16 (3): pp150-151.

Seehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3683187/. Accessed on 27th October,

2013.26Gap is the difference between the benchmark and the actual status as per Census of

India, 2011.27Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services,op.cit., para. 2.1.1.28Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services,op.cit., para. 3.4.1.29Ibid. para. 3.5.3


14/20



put the requirement at a much higher level.30The Working Group on

Financing Urban Infrastructureestimated the need for Rs. 78,274, Rs.1.62

and Rs. 3.3 lakh crore during the 12thPlan period from the Government of

India under different scenarios to meet the infrastructure backlog in 20, 15

and 10 years respectively.31

Financing Services

Studies on municipal finances by Mathur, Mohanty, Mukesh, Oommen,

Ramakrishna and others, as noted earlier, brought out the poor status of

municipal revenues and wide gap between revenues and expenditure

inadequate to provide basic services. The local bodies spend far less than

needed to provide minimum services to their citizens. The reasons for suchunsatisfactory state are attributed to ULB management of finances as well

as state policies. Total municipal revenues in India are a mere 0.76 per

cent of countrys GDP while it is 4.5 per cent in Poland, five per cent in

Brazil and six per cent in South Africa. McKinsey Global Institute estimated

that in India ULBs invest a mere $ 17 on infrastructure whereas in other

countries it is far higher $ 116 in China, $ 127 in South Africa and $ 391

in UK.32 The Working Group noted that the 11th Plan outlay on urbandevelopment including housing and poverty alleviation is a mere Rs.68,

080 crore while the investments in rural sector are in the range of Rs.5.5

lakh crore at 2006-07 prices. 33Urban sector investments are little over 12

per cent of rural investments while the urban population is over 31 per

cent of the total population explaining the poor status of urban

infrastructure. It noted the need for predicable and timely fiscal transfers

and the GoIs fiscal support to manage the process of urbanisation.34Asper the World Wild Life Fund study India spends one-sixth of rural spending

on urban areas and there is a need to change this bias. 35This clearly indicates

theinability or unwillingness of the local bodies to exercise their powers

to mobilise revenues. To meet the projected requirement, ULBs need to

30McKinsey Global Institute, Indias Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities,

Sustaining Economic Growth, The Report estimated that about $2.2 trillion is required at2008 prices. p.63, 2010.

31Report of the Working Group on Financing Urban Infrastructure,op.cit., para.4.2.32Khan, Harun A., (2013), Conference on Financing Strategy for Urban Infrastructure:

Inaugural Address, Center for Advanced Financial Research and Learning, (Mumbai).

See, http://www.cafral.org.in/docs/CHRK230713FD.pdf. Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013.33Report of the Working Group on Financing Urban Infrastructure,op.cit., Para. 1.42.34Ibid. para 4.5.35

In case of urban poor the allocation is one-tenth of rural poor. Sanjeev Sanyal, et al:The Alternative Urban Futures Report- Urbanisation & Sustainability in India: An

Independent Agenda,p.21. http://assets.wwfindia.org/downloads/urbanisation_report.pdf.

Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013.


15/20



TABLE 7: SERVICE DELIVERY GAP IN CORE SERVICES IN CITY AND SLUMS

Sl. State /UT Treated Tap Latrine Piped Sewer Drainage

No Water .

City Slum City Slum City Slum City Slum

1 INDIA 38.0 34.7 21.4 27.2 67.3 75.5 18.2 18.8

2 Jammu & Kashmir 29.4 36.2 29.7 42.0 74.7 74.1 16.9 18.9

3 Himachal Pradesh 6.7 7.5 9.0 17.8 59.3 67.5 6.4 10.5

4 Punjab 33.9 39.6 13.6 20.0 36.3 41.7 9.1 11.3

5 Chandigarh 6.2 27.5 3.8 20.5 14.1 98.4 4.0 27.6

6 Uttarakhand 27.3 31.8 12.4 14.7 68.3 72.3 7.1 5.8

7 Haryana 29.8 36.1 18.2 29.7 45.2 54.1 7.8 9.68 NCT, Delhi 24.2 26.7 6.9 14.7 39.5 57.0 4.0 5.7

9 Rajasthan 24.6 24.0 25.0 38.1 74.4 78.0 14.0 16.8

10 Uttar Pradesh 55.3 61.4 20.7 25.7 71.7 79.5 6.6 7.7

11 Bihar 84.9 88.3 34.4 48.7 92.8 95.6 28.6 41.3

12 Sikkim 30.0 28.4 5.6 8.6 65.6 77.2 7.9 4.9

13 Arunachal Pradesh 53.5 88.9 21.3 46.8 86.2 94.0 33.8 62.3

14 Nagaland 94.0 95.9 17.7 77.0 95.5 95.6 23.5 15.015 Manipur 49.1 34.4 92.6 29.6

16 Mizoram 38.2 43.4 18.5 13.9 94.9 95.0 20.5 14.8

17 Tripura 56.5 51.6 49.2 81.3 93.3 95.7 46.6 52.8

18 Meghalaya 31.9 38.6 15.2 11.1 90.3 81.1 19.7 18.9

19 Assam 72.6 74.2 27.7 36.7 85.0 86.9 43.7 50.1

20 West Bengal 50.0 44.3 34.7 33.5 86.4 85.4 33.2 31.3

21 Jharkhand 65.3 78.4 33.5 44.7 86.0 94.1 29.2 44.022 Odisha 57.9 65.0 39.2 56.0 88.5 94.6 41.0 53.9

23 Chhattisgarh 55.8 57.5 35.9 43.4 90.9 96.4 31.1 33.1

24 Madhya Pradesh 49.4 51.6 25.2 35.2 79.8 86.4 17.7 22.1

25 Gujarat 31.2 27.3 11.2 24.4 39.6 59.7 17.4 27.6

26 Daman & Diu 51.3 5.3 93.7 22.8

27 D & N Haveli 64.3 12.1 92.0 37.3

28 Maharashtra 14.3 13.4 11.7 13.5 62.2 77.0 8.8 7.729 Andhra Pradesh 24.5 22.2 18.6 59.2 66.3 70.3 11.7 12.4

30 Karnataka 31.6 32.5 24.0 40.2 46.7 66.7 12.4 16.1

31 Goa 12.2 6.4 14.2 7.9 81.4 70.4 22.0 14.7

32 Lakshadweep 88.3 2.4 97.1 74.1

33 Kerala 69.6 46.8 23.8 25.1 85.7 84.4 45.5 37.6

34 Tamil Nadu 33.7 32.9 24.9 28.3 72.6 69.3 25.1 28.9

35 Puducherry 8.2 8.9 13.1 26.4 80.1 88.6 17.4 25.936 A & N Islands 7.3 4.3 8.1 79.8 97.0 95.9 14.0 7.7

SOURCE: Compiled from Census of India, 2011 Reports.


16/20



identify robust revenue schemes and both Central and state governments

have to increase their commitment to urban sector. The HPEC suggested

phased investments15 per cent during the 12thPlan, 12 per cent during

the 13thPlan and eight per cent during 14thand 15thPlans.36It also suggested

that the states should share 25 per cent of GST with urban and rural localbodies and this should be enforced through a constitutional mechanism. It

further suggested that the urban infrastructure investments should be

increased from 0.7 per cent of GDP in 2011-12 to 1.1 per cent by 2030-

31.37The 12thPlan emphasised the need to strengthen municipal finances

and make them predictable through suitable reforms already initiated under

JNNURM (Para18.62).38 It suggested a separate Local Bodies Finance

List in the Constitution through amendment.

Lukewarm attitude of the state governments to financially empower

ULBs to deliver constitutionally devolved functions is a matter of grave

concern. Similarly, unwillingness of ULBs to levy and collect taxes in

their domain like property tax to meet increasing cost of services is

becoming critical. This is compounded by the state governments usurping

their taxation powers and deciding postponement of property tax revision,exemption of penalty for delayed payment, etc. Non-revision of property

tax for years clearly indicates that this is against the intent of the 74thCAA

and recommendations of the 13thFC. Another problem is the unwillingness

of ULBs to levy and collect user charges to meet at least the O&M cost of

services they provide despite JNNURM reform agenda which was

reinforced by the 13thand earlier FCs. The Second Administrative Reforms

Commission felt that levy and collection of appropriate user charges mustbe encouraged and grants to the municipalities may be linked to their own

efforts at resource rising.39

The 13thFC recognised the need to increase devolutions to local bodies

as they are being asked to meet many a challenge including provision of

services. It also recognised the reluctance of state governments to implement

the recommendations of the previous FCs to strengthen local finances which

were taken as more indicative than imperative.40It is in this context thatthe 13th FC while increasing the grants to ULBs from Rs.5,000 crore

36Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services,op.cit., Para. 3.4.4.37Ibid.38The Twelfth Five Year Plan, 2012-13 to 2017, Economic Sectors, Vol. II, op.cit.,para.

18.6239

Government of India, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, LocalGovernance: An Inspiring Journey into the Future,Sixth Report, New Delhi, Para. 5.3.6.4.,

2007.40The Thirteenth Finance Commission, op.cit.,para. 10.106..


17/20



recommended by the 12thFC to over Rs. 23,000 crore, linked one-third of

the grant to performance and made release of these grants conditional to

compliance to the nine conditions.41This is a measure towards improving

urban governance and empowering the local bodies.

Governance

In the context of India becoming an urban majority country by 2050,

urban centric policy and governance becomes critical. Good urban

governance is a pre-condition for efficient financial management, effective

service delivery, O&M of infrastructure, transparency and citizen-friendly

administration, etc. But absence of professionalism and weak capacities

of even the existing staff plague the ULBs. Increased FC allocations ordevolutions by state governments would be of no avail unless

professionalism and increased capacities are brought into municipal

governance and performance. The inability of the ULBs to draw their full

share of the FC grants, not all states fulfilling 13thFC conditionalities so

far to access the performance grant and poor implementation of

infrastructure projects and agreed reform agenda under JNNURM as

pointed by the C&AG42 are pointers to the governance deficit at locallevel and the need to strengthen it.

FCs on Urban Infrastructure and Financing

State Finance Commissions adopted different methodologies to

strengthen ULB finances. Several SFCs lamented the weak financial

position of ULBs and suggested reforms. The Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and

Madhya Pradesh SFCs suggested global sharing, whereas others like

Odisha, Gujarat and Assam made ad hoc grants-in-aid. There is high

dependenc on non-plan transfers from state governments. For example:

The Bihar Fourth SFC noted that none of the ULBs maintained

asset registers. It noted that the poor contribute substantially

to the economy, but do not enjoy the urban benefits and

suggested to suitably develop infrastructure facilities in slums.

It made ad hoc grants to be invested on solid wastemanagement, governance improvement, parks and roads.43

The Kerala Fourth SFC too lamented the lack of asset

management planning. The database is not proper though it is

41Ibid.42Comptroller and Auditor General of India: Performance Audit on Jawaharlal Nehru

National Urban Renewal Mission: Report No.15 of 2012-13, New Delhi. See, http://

saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_performance/2012_2013/commercial/Report_15/Report_15.html.

Accessed on 27thOctober, 2013.43Government of Bihar, Report of the State Finance Commission 2010,Patna.


18/20



used to determine maintenance requirements. The SFC

underpinned on the poor state of roads in local bodies which

is raising the demand for transferring them to PWD.44

The Karnataka Third SFC lamented about the paucity of urbaninfrastructure like roads, toilets, waste management,

underground drainage, streetlights, water, etc., and proposed

an incentivisation scheme.45

A study undertaken by the Administrative Staff College of India

for the Chhattisgarh Second SFC adopted the per capita cost

norms prescribed by the HPEC to estimate the infrastructure

gap for different categories of ULBs and arrived at the financialrequirements during the award period based on ULB efforts

and state devolutions.46

Tenth to Twelfth FCs recommended ad hoc grants to ULBs and the

13thFC recommended sharing divisible pool of central taxes. The 10thFC

noted that urbanisation, particularly increase of slum population, is strong

and with meager resources, the ULBs find it difficult to provide even the

basic services. It felt that the outbreak of epidemics is a reminder of the

cost of neglect of civic services in urban areas.47It recommended Rs.1,000

crore ad hoc grant to ULBs and stipulated conditions like ULBs matching

contribution and use of funds for identified projects, particularly O&M of

core services. The 11thFC felt O&M of urban infrastructure did not receive

adequate attention and desired that the capital cost of infrastructure should

be provided by states from the budgetary heads and O&M costs should bemet by raising tax revenues and user charges or state devolutions. It

allocated Rs.2,000 crore untied grants to be utilised for provision of civic

services.48 The transfer of these grants is conditional which inter alia

includes withholding 25 per cent grants for not devolving powers as per

SFCs recommendations, ULBs making 50 per cent matching grant and

entrusting control and supervision of accounts and audit to the C&AG.

The 12th

FC recommended Rs.5,000 crore to ULBs and desired that 50per cent of the grants be spent on solid waste management. It noted investing

44Government of Kerala, Report of the Fourth Finance Commission, para 10.10.45Government of Karnataka, Report of the Third State Finance Commission, 2008,

Bangalore.46Administrative Staff College of India,Municipal Finances and Service Delivery in

Chhattisgarh, Hyderabad, 2012.47

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Tenth Finance Commission, New Delhi,Chapter 10, 1994.

48Government of India, Ministry of Finance,Report of the EleventhFinance Commission,

New Delhi, Chapter 8, 2000.


19/20



in capital infrastructure without addressing the issues of labour productivity

would turn out to be wasteful.49The 13thFC felt the need for a predictable

and buoyant source of revenues and other flows to local governments and

recommended sharing divisible pool of central tax revenues1.5 per cent

General Basic Grant and one per cent General Performance Grant to urban

and rural local bodies. It laid down conditions to access Performance Grant-

budgeting, accounting and audit reforms, electronic transfer of funds, levy

of property tax by ULBs without hindrance, constitution of property tax

board, etc. to improve service delivery and governance.50

An Agenda for the 14thFC

The foregoing discussion brings out the imperative need to strengtheninfrastructure and streamline service delivery for cities to attract investments

and to become generators of economic momentum. The 14thFC need to

address a comprehensive agenda like infrastructure provision, improved

service delivery, strengthening ULB resources and improving governance.

Empowering state finance commissions is also the need of the hour. The

agenda includes:

prioritise core serviceswater supply, sewerage, sanitationand storm water drainsand provide grants-in-aid to ULBs

to ensure their provision in two decades;

include access to services to the poor as one of the indicators

under SLB;

institutionalise SLB notification by all ULBs;

work out a formula for estimation of ULB finance needs based

on service delivery gaps vis--vis benchmarks, transfers of stategovernments and revenue mobilising efforts of ULBs;

substantially increase grant-in-aid as well as percentage of

performance grant to improve service delivery by ULBs;

review, deepen and take forward the incentive based grants

initiated by the 13thFC to improve municipal performance;

service delivery in particular. It should consider increasing

the incentive based grants. Die-hards would argue that it makes

inroads into local autonomy, but looking at the lackadaisical

attitude of state and local governments over years, it looks

imperative; and

other reforms include service delivery regulation to protect

the interests of consumers including the poor and service

49Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Report of theTwelfth Finance Commission,

New Delhi, Chapter 8, 2004.50Thirteenth Finance Commission-2010-2015, op.cit., Chapter 10.


20/20



providers and to ensure sustainable services with equity,

reforms in accounting and audit systems being recommended

by FCs and SFCs, development and updation of urban data on

different dimension of municipal performance including

services, finances, governance and other performanceindicators to provide a basis to FCs and SFCs to assess the

service and resource gap, strengthen organisation and working

of the SFCs, developing norms for the constitution of ULBs.

Introduce strong monitoring and evaluation system to measure

the efficiency and efficacy of investments.

CONCLUSION

The ULBs have been getting ad hoc grants-in-aid from FCs and SFCs

which do not meet growing urban infrastructure and service delivery needs.

There are many reasons for this including weak SFCs, absence of

benchmarks and data base on services, lack of professionalism and weak

municipal capacities, etc. With benchmarks in place for core services andavailability of data from Census and SLB notifications, ad hoc approach

should give way to need and formula based approach. This paradigm shift

is essential to address the changing demographic challenges. The 14thFC

need to work out grants-in-aid formula based on cost of services which

should also include ULB and state efforts. The 13th FC approach of

performance based incentives to the local bodies should be taken forward

and the conditionalities should be reviewed and deepened along with

improving the capacities of municipal functionaries to bring professionalism

into municipal governance. The SFCs need to be strengthened and they

should also adopt performance based than ad hoc approach to allocate

grants. Effective service delivery is part of wider urban governance reforms.

Only such measures enable the local bodies to improve their finances,

strengthen governance, and deepen the democratic decentralisation. Thisis an opportunity which 14thFC would miss with consequences to urban

development and Indias urban future.

3 Ravindra

Documents

Transcript of 3 Ravindra