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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS