Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This policy paper critiques India’s Viksit Bharat 2047 urbanisation strategy, arguing that infrastructure-led growth and the ‘cities as engines of growth’ paradigm misread India’s structural realities. It contrasts classical absorption-based urbanisation with India’s displacement-driven migration into low-productivity informal urban economies. It highlights land markets as the central mechanism of surplus capture, where infrastructure-generated rents accrue to landowners rather than workers. Persistent informality hinders human capital accumulation, while growth increasingly diverges from capability expansion. Drawing on development economics and urban theory, it contends that without institutional reform of land and governance structures, urban growth will amplify inequality rather than deliver inclusive development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yashwant Singh (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: