Governance of urban civic-authorities below par, Janaagraha Survey shows

There is a need for sharp focus on improving city-systems and institutional reforms, Janaagraha.

The governance of urban civic authorities in most Indian cities leaves much to be desired for, if the findings of the latest Survey of India’s City-Systems (ASICS), are anything to go by. The Survey is published annually by the Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy (Janaagraha), a not-for-profit institution which seeks to transform the quality of life in India’s cities and towns.

“Overall, India’s cities have continued to score low over the last three editions of ASICS, with average score improving marginally from 3.4 to 3.9 indicating a slow progress in fixing city-systems. This is particularly worrisome, given the pace at which India is urbanising and the already poor state of public service delivery in our cities,” the organization said releasing the report on Wednesday.

The report underlines the need for sharp focus on City-Systems or institutional reforms to city governance in our cities.  The study, which evaluates the quality of governance in cities, in its 2017 edition covered 23 major cities in India across 20 states based on 89 questions.

Our cities lack a modern, contemporary urban planning framework. This may be denying us up to 3% of our GDP each year

The ASICS report is designed to help city leaders pin point issues in urban governance and help them chart out a reforms roadmap to make their city better.

Indian cities scored between 3.0 and 5.1 on 10, with Pune topping the charts for the first time. Other cities that came in the top five include Kolkata, Thiruvananthapuram, Bhubaneswar and Surat, with scores in the range of 4.6 to 4.5. Bengaluru, Chandigarh, Dehradun, Patna and Chennai constituted the bottom five cities with scores in the range of 3.0 to 3.3 on 10.

In comparison, the global benchmarks of Johannesburg, London and New York which scored 7.6, 8.8 and 8.8 respectively.

[caption id="attachment_741" align="aligncenter" width="735"] AICS Scores and Rankings[/caption]

Our cities lack a modern, contemporary urban planning framework. This may be denying us up to 3% of our GDP each year, the organization said in a presentation on the findings. Furthermore, pointing to the lack of peoples’ participation in city governance and upkeep, the Janaagraha said the absence of ward committees and Area Sabhas across the board has led to a citizen disconnect from decision-making in the city and their neighbourhood. What is also worrisome is that Public Disclosure Law is not implemented in its spirit despite being enacted.

Indian cities are grossly under-prepared to deliver a high quality of life that is sustainable in the long term. The recurring floods, garbage crises, fire accidents, building collapses, air pollution and dengue outbreaks are only symptoms of this deeper governance crisis in our cities.

Scores in the range of 3 to 5.1, with 12 out of 23 cities below 4 on 10, strongly signals that Indian cities are grossly under-prepared to deliver a high quality of life that is sustainable in the long term. The recurring floods, garbage crises, fire accidents, building collapses, air pollution and dengue outbreaks are only symptoms of this deeper governance crisis in our cities.

“Pune wrested the number one position from Thiruvananthapuram in ASICS 2017. Surat was the biggest gainer in this year’s rankings, jumping 12 positions over 2016 to the 5th spot. This was on the back of improved performance on own revenue generation, higher capital expenditure per capita by the city and implementation of AMRUT reforms including appointment of an internal auditor and credit rating”, Vivek Anandan Nair, Associate Manager and project lead on ASICS 2017, said in a press release.

Bhubaneswar stood out for showing steady improvement and moving six positions to fourth this year from the tenth position in 2016.

Based on the findings of the Survey, five systemic challenges can be identified that need to be urgently addressed for our cities to deliver a better quality of life to citizens in a sustainable manner.

These are:

1. Lack of a modern, contemporary framework of spatial planning of cities and design standards for public utilities such as roads, footpaths, bus stops and other underground utilities such as water and sewerage networks


2. Weak finances, both in terms of financial sustainability and financial accountability of cities


3. Poor human resource management, in terms of number of staff, skills and competencies of staff, organisation design and performance management


4. Powerless mayors and city councils and severe fragmentation of governance across municipalities, parastatal agencies and state departments


5. Total absence of platforms for systematic citizen participation and lack of transparency in finances and operations of cities