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
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
When 17,000 troops from the US, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Canada, France and New Zealand spread across the Philippine archipelago for the Balikatan military exercise, running from tomorrow through May 8, the official language would be about interoperability, readiness and regional peace. However, the strategic subtext is becoming harder to ignore: The exercises are increasingly about the military geography around Taiwan. Balikatan has always carried political weight. This year, however, the exercise looks different in ways that matter not only to Manila and Washington, but also to Taipei. What began in 2023 as a shift toward a more serious deterrence posture
RSS