China and India are driving Asia’s population and urbanization trends. According to a 2010 McKinsey study, the two countries are expected to account for 62 percent of growth in the continent’s urban population between 2005 and 2025, and a staggering 40 percent of such growth worldwide.
Statistics like these underscore the urgency of urban planning and growth management. However, it is equally important to acknowledge the critical differences between the two countries. Variations in their urban growth paths, as well as differences in their approaches to environmental policy, are likely to make India’s population challenges far more difficult to address.
China may be home to 20 percent of humanity, but for more than two decades its fertility rate has been lower than the “replacement” level — that required to maintain the current population — with population growth expected to turn negative within the next two decades. As a result, India, where population growth is projected to remain positive for the foreseeable future, is poised to become the world’s most populous country. Most projections have India’s population exceeding that of China by 2022.
Illustration: Lance Liou
Indeed, over the next 35 years, India is expected to add more than 400 million urban residents, while China will add just 292 million. For the first time, the majority of Indians will be living in cities — a significant transformation for a country whose rural population currently constitutes two-thirds of the total.
India’s two largest urban centers — Delhi and Mumbai — are often described as emerging global megacities. Delhi is already the world’s second most populous city, and it is expected to close the gap with Tokyo, the world’s largest city, almost entirely by 2030.
When population growth on this scale is combined with rapid urbanization, the associated environmental and social impacts become a formidable policy challenge. Last year, the WHO determined that Delhi has the world’s worst air quality, based on concentration of fine particulate matter, with Indian cities occupying the top four spots and 13 of the top 18.
China has been frequently — and often justifiably — criticized for poor environmental policies. However, according to McKinsey, China has been more proactive than India in planning for rapid urbanization, demonstrating that it has the capacity and the resources to address environmental challenges. In new cities across the country, urban plans already take into account such concerns, with riparian greenways and urban nature reserves complementing infrastructure projects that have environmental benefits, for example, extensive mass-transit networks.
By contrast, India’s cities have grown haphazardly, with little consideration of the functioning of urban systems as a whole. For example, the country’s urban areas often lack adequate regional transport networks. Large swaths of informal settlements have emerged in vacant inner-city districts and suburban peripheries, compromising environmental conditions, public health and personal safety. Land use patterns interweave industrial and residential districts, exposing vulnerable and growing populations to a host of negative spillover effects.
The differences between urban development in China and India are clear not only in the substance of policy, but also in the two countries’ governance styles. China’s leaders are placing heavy emphasis on pollution control. Ahead of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, the authorities are pushing for a regionally integrated plan to balance economic growth with environmental management, including the greening of manufacturing processes and the elimination of “excess capacity” in energy production.
Such multi-jurisdictional efforts require strong coordination and a stable vision, which China’s hierarchal governance system provides. In India, by contrast, the central government has no role in managing air pollution, which is a state-level responsibility. Whatever Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration decides to do, state governments under the control of different parties are likely to oppose his policies, or fail to devote adequate attention and resources to them.
According to the WHO, of the 4.3 million annual deaths resulting from “indoor air pollution,” nearly one-third, or 1.3 million, occur in India. A recent report argues that more stringent environmental regulation would add 3.2 years to Indians’ life expectancy. This tangible welfare gain would also include economic benefits. The resulting addition of more than 2 billion “life years” represents a significant amount of human productivity, creativity and uncompensated contributions to families and society. By failing to address the impacts of rapid urbanization adequately, India is leaving these benefits unclaimed.
A good-faith, well-publicized official declaration would signal to India’s citizens and the world that the country intends to save its growing population from the life-shortening effects of urban environmental degradation. It would also provide a roadmap for improving the quality of life in India’s cities, benefiting local residents both directly and indirectly by inducing foreign investment.
India’s competitive advantages in the new global economy are well known. However, transformative social progress will be possible only if the country launches a more comprehensive effort to address pathologies long brushed off as the unavoidable collateral damage of economic growth.
Asit Biswas is distinguished visiting professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. Kris Hartley is a doctoral candidate at the school.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS