Impact of Urbanization on the levels of Economic Development with Special Reference to Andhra Pradesh

ABSTRACT
Dr.KDL.JobPaul* Dr.K.Radika**

It is observed from the point of development that considerable gain arises out of the external economies that cities give rise to known as Urbanization. Growth in the size of city to some extent for instance makes its possible to reap that economies of scale in the provision of varies services. Of course, it may be cheaper to provide infrastructure like transport, communication etc. it is also possible to meet the needs of education, water, drainage, medical facilities at lower costs. Many a cultural activity and also entertainment can be organized with out much expenditure of resource for a large number of people 1. In his summing up of the seminar discussions Ashok Mehta observes, two tremendous forces have been unleashed in India today a relatively rapid growth of population and an increasingly rapid rate of urbanization 2 Apart from, according to the planning commission of India asserts that, urbanization is an important aspect of the process of economic and social development and is closely connected with many other problems, such as migration from villages to towns levels of living in rural and urban areas, relative costs of providing economic and social services in towns of varying size, provision of housing for the different sections of the population, provisions of facilities like water supply, sanitation, transport and power, pattern of economic development, location and dispersion of industries, civic administration fiscal policies and the planning of land use3. In the same context Sjoberg remarks that, economic development it seems too vivid, demands expansion of the urban growth 4. on the other hand according to Berry, economic advancement is related to urbanization and increasing specialization and continued urban growth go hand in hand 5

Infact urbanization is associated with development is something normal as has been the experience of the present developed countries wherein the process of development, many industries cities came into exists in this countries simultaneously the industrial and service sectors also developed. As result, commercial, financial and other activities like repair, maintenance etc got expanded with specialization of some cities. The same can be available to the industries towns that have come into exits in India. Thus, urbanization with its magnificent advancement on the economic, social, cultural and political fronts is the very epitome of progress and the urban centers emerge as dominant settlements in area in which they live. They are the points around which the national or regional spatial setup is organized and they play a crucial role in the integration of the economy. In fact , urbanization is an important concomitant of economic development and social change. Anther desirable aspect revealed by urbanainsation is the new and expanded employment opportunities that are created in urban areas. This benefits the urban population as well as the rural areas. The benefits to the rural labour from the agriculturally advanced religions of the country have been particularly noticed. The rural artisans has been absorbed in to the non-food consumers in industries viz., electronic goods, automobiles as well as in capital goods industries providing machines, tools, equipment etc. service industry because of the increasing demand for labour in these modern industries in urban areas. This is a familiar scenario of industriation-urbanation. There fore, it has been stressed, urbanization is a pre-requite to achieve rapid economic development. Ina country like India, economic development generally associated with the growth of urbanization. Some economists made emphasis on the empirically as the acid test of development population from the rural to urban areas. Thus, this paper attempts to concentrate on the concept of lies in the shift

urbanization and its impact on the levels of economic development in particular, Andhra Pradesh into to.

*Associate Professor, Dept .of Economics, SVUPG Centre. Kavali. **Assistant Professor, Dept .of Economics, SVUPG Centre. Kavali. economics_rdk@yahoo.co.in As per the notification of Municipal Authorities and AP Urban Ceiling Act,2001,the concept of Urbanization has comprises of Municipal Corporation Area, Cantonment Board and Notified Town Areas/Nagars/Panchayats. An urbanized area included territory encompassing underdeveloped land which indicated transformation of land from rural to urban use as an instrument of social, and economic change and of communitys efforts to corresponding urban development. The main characteristic feature is newly created urban area where its population earns its livelihood and also as an independent local government. According to 1961 census, which militates against the concept of urban area was more responsible for the declassification towns with a high proportion of workers engaged in agricultural activities. The urban units recognized by the Census Organization are known as Census Town based on the classification of urban areas as it consider the Size Class. The existing population of the 1size-Class carries a population up to one lakh and above, followed by 11 111ranging from 50,000 to 99000 and 20,000 to 49000,but there are other areas in which the 4th,5th,and 6th size classes will be fixed at 10,000 to 19000,5000 to 9990 and less than 5000. An important result of urbanization pertains to change attitudes that accompany it. This process is further by the enormous reduction in the costs of organizing disseminating information tend to promote modernization of behavior and motivation along with variety of jobs and existence of cultural activities. The changed attitudes which replace the traditional ones. By all means, it is rightly said that urbanization itself becomes a powerful factor in furthering urbanization. The concept of urbanization has explained by the economics thinkers from their point of view in due course of time. As RPMISRA viewed on urbanization as, a process which reveals itself through temporal, spatial, and sectoral changes in the demographic, social economic, technological and environmental aspects of life in a given society. These changes manifest themselves in the increasing concentration of population in human settlements larger than villages; in the increasing

involvement of the people in secondary and tertiary production in the progressive adoption of certain social traits, which are typical of traditional rural societies. Nevertheless, urbanization can influence rural society depending upon the nature of rural-urban articulation and other factors such as the development of learning process communication skills and economic change. Some how, urban life may transform the migrants. The rural culture may gradually substituted with the urban culture. But it does not mean that he completely abandon the old habits as himself loses perfectly into the multidimensional urban culture. Thus, India is taking part in an earth-wide tide of urban growth, presently creating in developing nations. As a whole, in India, the pace of urban increase but not yet noticeably quickening. The percentage of Indias urban population at the time of INDEPENDENCE was 17 percent, but now it is 24 percent as per census of India. India has the slow growth of urban population when compared with G10 countries. Till now, urbanization in India has reflected an increasing magnitude of numbers rather than high urban growth rates, a pattern shared with other developing nations. URBANISATION IN India has relatively slow over the past fifty years as compared with many other developing countries. According to 1991 census. its urban population of 217million, occupies along with China as the countries with the largest urban systems in the world. HISTORY OF URBAN GROWTH: The development to urbanization in India has been through a prolonged and slow process of the progress of civilization may be called a ,Cultural Process. During the past historical background visualized various socio and political change may be called a Political Process, whereas in modern times urbanization has mostly associated with industrialization economic development and accordingly it may be called an Economic Process. Not with stand this, the process of urbanization in India was thrashed out in considerable detail at an International Seminar held at Berkeley(California)in 1960.As a result, a major contribution to the study of urbanization in India turns into a new outlook. Gradually the process of urbanization can be divided into four namely, (a)Sub-urbanization (b) Metropolisation (c)Urban-commercialsation and (d)Rural -Urbanization.

TRENDS IN DECADAL GROWTH OF POPULATION: From the general trends of population change and urbanization in the 20th century, it has identified two factors ,firstly except during 1911-21 both India &Andhra Pradesh had experienced minus percentage decadal growth and secondly the population growth accelerated in each successive decade with one exception from 1941 to 1951.The reason was mainly due to the deaths caused by the great famine in Bengal and the portion of India and Pakistan. The growth of urban population has increased at the rate that exceeds the growth for the whole population and it began to rise in decade of 1911-31,later on it was declined from 1981 to 2001. COMPARATIVE PICTURE OF URBANIZATION WITH SELECTED COUNTRIES: From the survey an attempt has been made to examine the levels of urbanization in different countries. The table reveals that a comparison of the level of the urbanization in India with the developed countries of the world in 1992.Singapore was stood at first position next followed by UK and Argentina, whereas India and China the percentage of urbanization was too low and it was less than the percentage of the developing nations. Obviously employment strategies should be planned to attract population to urban areas. Table: 1 Comparative Picture of Urbanization with Selected Countries. 1992 Country Singapore UK Australia Japan USA Russia Percentage of Urban Population 100 89 85 77 76 74

India China Mexico Argentina Brazil More developed countries Less developed countries

28 26 73 86 75 73 34

source: Rudder Dutt and Sundaram. KPM, Indian Economy, 2003 P.53. united nations estimates cited in Pradeep Roi SN.Dass Gupta, Ed, Urbanizations New Delhi 1995 P.31. . and Slums

Table: 2 LEVEL OF URBANISATION IN INDIA:( in selective states)

State

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

Andhra Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Haryana Madya Pradesh Maharastra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil nadu

17.4 8.4 25.8 22.3 14.3 28.2 6.3 23.1 16.3 26.7

19.7 10.0 28.1 24.3 16.3 31.2 8.4 23.7 17.6 30.3

23.3 12.5 31.1 28.9 20.3 35.0 11.3 27.7 20.9 33.0

26.8 13.2 41.0 30.9 23.2 38.7 13.4 29.7 22.9 34.2

27.1 10.5 37.4 34.0 26.7 42.4 15.0 34.0 23.4 43.9

Utter Pradesh West begal India 24.5 18.3

12.9 24.7 20.2

14.7 26.5 23.7

18.0 27.4 26.1

19.9 28.0 27.8

20.8

Source: 1) census Reports from 1961-1991 2) census on India, paper II of 2001, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad As per the table the data has computed from the census reports of 1961-1991&the census of India, AP, Hyderabad shows that the level of AP Urbanization compared per decade i.e.,1991-2001,which recorded as 26.8 percent and 27.1 percent as compared to the All I IDIA AVERAGE. I T is almost equivalent to the All India average since 1961 and up to now. The table on the other hand represents a view that there will be fast rate of urban growth confined to the industrially developed states respectively except Gujarat registered a fall from 41 to 37 percent. As per the census of 2001 Tamilnadu tops the list with 42.4 percent followed by Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab and Karnataka in respect of the level of urbanization whereas AP was stood at sixth place.

URBAN POPULATION IN A.P: Table : 3 Popullation Census 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 (000s) Total Urban 19.1 1.8 21.4 2.2 21.4 2.2 24.O 2.7 27.3 2.7 31.1 5.4 Variation Total Urban 12.49 -0.13 12.99 12.75 14.02 17.68 1.03 22.17 36.07 47.86 Percent of Urban 9.42 10.26 10.28 11.25 13.55 17.36 Population India 10.8 10.3 11.2 12.2 13.8 17.2

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

36.O 43.5 53.5 66.5 75.7

6.3 8.4 12.5 17.9 20.5

15.65 20.96 23.1 24.2 13.86

15.76 33.92 48.62 43.24 14.63

17.44 19.31 23.32 26.89 27.08

18.O 19.9 23.3 25.7 27.8

Source: Computed from census reports (1901- 2001)

The table contains the percentage of urban population in A.P. It shows that the urbanization was slow during 1901 to 1941 and then onwards this has been increasing slowly by one or two percent. During 1951 the urban population registered an increase of about 3.3 percent and reached 17.2 percent. Once again there was rise of urban growth about 3.75 percent between 1981and 1991.Later on during the next two decade, the process of urbanization in AP was about 2 percent. This could be attributed by the various reasons; a)construction of huge multi purpose dams,2)creation of additional employment opportunities,3)rural migration, d)industrialization and significant development in the tertiary sector of road and transportation, e)increase literate rate among the masses, f)increased health care facilities and reduction in death rates, g)social change and increased mobility.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT

OF URBANISATION OF A.P.

WITH OTHER

SOUTHERN STATES OF INDIA(1961-2001): Table: 4

Sn.no 1 2 3

State Andhra Pradesh Tamil Nadu Karnataka

1961 17.4 26.7 22.3

1971 19.4 30.2 24.3

1981 23.3 33.O 28.9

1991 26.8 34.2 30.9

2001 27.1 43.9 34.O

Kerala India

15.1 18.O

16.3 20.O

18.5 23.7

26.4 26.1

26.O 27.8

Source: computed from the census tables (1961-2001) This table reveals that the comparative picture of urbanization of A.P. with other southern states during the period 1961to 2001.The proportion reflects a relatively low levels of urbanization, whereas the credit goes to Tamilnadu stood at first with 43.9 percent, followed by Karnataka with 34.0,and A.P. at 27.1 percent and the least was recorded in Kerala with 26.0percent.But all the four States have registered a rise nearer to the percentage of Indias Urbanization on the whole. This pace of urbanization has been faster and more wide spread in the last decade mainly due to the rapid developmental process has been take place in service sector and overall economic development of the state. There fore, the study of urbanization trends and strategies for urban growth has great importance to the policy makers as the economic development is linked with the process of urbanization precisely as one of the key dimensions in the modernization process of society. It is very interesting to know the trends of growth of urbanization population would be examined from the table accounted for district wise urban population in AP during 1981-2001.Out of 23 district in A P, Hyderabad had unique development reached for all the three decades where urban population. The other district where urban population was higher than the state and averagein2001areRangareddy(53.27)Visakhapatnam(39.89)Krishna(32.37)

Guntur (27.95)percent. The lowest percentage of urban population is the Mahabubnagar with 10.59 percent and all the Rayalaseema districts along with the remaining districts in A P revealed the lowest proportion of urban population as against the percentage of the State. So. Name of the No District Urban Populatio n in1981 of Urban Populaatio Percentage Urban Population in 1991 of Urban Populaatio Percentage Urban Population in 2001 of Urban Populaatio Percentage

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Adilabad 316,983 Nijamabad 322,653 Karimnagar 384,730 Medak 216,404 Hyderabad 2,260,702 Rangareddy 3,76,997 Mahaboobnagar 267,221 Nalgonda 259,517 Warangal 396,474 Khammam 297,386 Krikakulam 213,404 Vijayanagaram 287,499 Visakapatnam 805,961 E.Godavari 822,180 W.Godavari 596,874 Krishan 992,062 Guntur 945,702 Prakasam 349,277 Nellore 418,389 Kadapa 374,503 Kurnool 589,599 Anantapur 530,917 Chittoor 462,142 Andhra Pradesh 8,609,107

n 19.34 19.21 15.79 11.97 100.OO 23.83 10.93 11.38 17.24 16.98 10.89 15.94 31.28 22.21 20.76 32.54 27.53 14.99 20.76 19.37 24.49 20.84 16.88 23.32

481,576 412,944 624,319 328,487 31,45,939 12,05,177 3,42,192 3,31,453 5,46,622 4,48,163 2,90,238 3,63,500 13,08,583 10,80,804 7,28,553 13,24,954 12,86,700 4,53,902 5,69,062 5,44,973 7,68,100 7,48,053 6,45,832 1,78,87,12 6

n 23.13 20.27 20.55 14.47 100.OO 47.23 11.12 11.87 19.39 20.23 12.5O 17.22 39.83 23.8O 20.71 35.82 28.89 16.45 23.79 24.03 25.84 23.5 19.8 26.89

656,343 422,533 678,944 273,131 3,686,460 1,878,138 3,71,461 4,29,458 6,20,791 5,08,048 2,78,203 4,12,093 15,12,840 1,136,714 7,47,458 1,365,617 12,31,253 4,66,709 6,03,634 6,00,487 7,92,664 9,20,079 8,10,015 2,05,03,59 7

n 26.47 18.04 19.53 14.45 100 53.27 10.59 13.26 19.21 19.3 11.OO 18.36 39.89 23.33 19.69 32.37 27.95 15.28 22.7 23.33 22.57 25.28 21.69 27.08

Source: computed from the census report (1981-2001) THE CONCEPT OF URBAN AGGLOMERATION: It was first introduced in the 1971 census continued in the 1981 census and further also. Accordingly the urban agglomeration is defined as a continuous urban spread constituting a town and its adjoining urban out-growths or more philosophically contagious town together with continuous and well recognized outgrowths if any of such towns.The A.P. State had four such urban agglomerations namely Hyderabad Vijayawada and Rajamundry in 1971.The same were found in the 1981 census also. But the number of urban agglomerations has increased to 15 in the 1991 census.

10

According to the 2001census there were 37 urban agglomerations. Out of the 37 urban agglomerations 14 existed at the time of the 1991 census and 23 urban agglomerations were newly formed by the time of the 2001 census. Jammalamadugu in Kadapa district was deleted from the list of Urban Agglomeration in the 2001 census. As the economic development is relied upon the development of tertiary sector and its basical indicators linked with Urbanization such as; (a).Literacy, (b).Density of population, (c).Percentage of sex ratio, (d).Percentage of workers in agriculture/non-agricultural activities,(e).Percentage of means of Transport sector,(f). To compute the data related to ranking of District according to Gross Domestic Product. URBANISATION AND LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT IN A.P: Density of % of Population Name of the So.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 to Total District Population Adilabad 26.5 Nijamabad 18.O Karimnagar 19.5 Medak 14.5 Hyderabad 100.OO Rangareddy 53.3 Mahaboobnagar 10.6 Nalgonda 13.3 Warangal 19.2 Khammam 19.8 Krikakulam 11.O Vijayanagaram 18.4 Visakapatnam 39.9 E.Godavari 23.3 W.Godavari 19.7 Krishan 32.4 Guntur 27.9 Prakasam 15.3 Nellore 22.7 Kadapa 23.3 Kurnool 22.6 Anantapur 25.3 Chittoor 21.7 % of Rank Literacy Rank 6 18 15 20 1 2 23 21 16 13 22 17 3 8 14 4 5 19 10 9 11 7 12 61.1 53.3 53.5 53.2 79.O 66.3 45.5 57.8 58.4 57.7 55.9 51.8 59.5 65.5 73.9 69.9 62.8 65.9 65.9 64.o 54.4 56.7 67.5 11 20 19 21 1 5 23 14 13 15 17 22 12 8 2 3 10 6 7 9 18 16 4 Populaatio n Per sq.Kms 154 294 294 274 16988 468 190 227 252 160 233 343 340 351 490 483 387 173 203 168 199 190 247 Sex Rank Ratio Rank 23 11 10 12 1 4 18 15 13 22 6 8 9 5 2 3 7 20 16 21 17 19 14 989 1016 1000 976 945 941 970 967 973 975 1013 1004 991 992 992 961 984 971 983 975 965 957 983 8 1 4 12 22 23 17 18 15 13 2 3 7 5 6 20 9 16 10 14 19 21 22

11

Andhra Pradesh

27.1

61.1 %of Female

275

978

% workers engaged in Ran agricultura

%of Male workers to Name of the So. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 District Adilabad Nijamabad Karimnagar Medak Hyderabad Rangareddy Mahaboobnaga r Nalgonda Warangal Khammam Krikakulam Vijayanagaram Visakapatnam E.Godavari W.Godavari Krishan Guntur Prakasam Nellore Kadapa Kurnool Anantapur Chittoor Andhra Pradesh % of Wokers engaged So.No Name of the District 1 Adilabad in nonAgricultura l Works 38.5 Total Male Ran Population k 52.9 54.3 55.5 55.5 48.2 53.4 56.3 54.9 54.5 57.O 56.6 60.6 55.6 58.7 60.2 29.5 59.2 57.9 58.6 56.8 56.4 57.9 58.3 56.8

workers to Total Female

Population k l works Rank 21 37.O 14 61.5 17 19 44.2 3 57.2 20 16 43.5 4 59.2 18 16 41.4 9 67.6 11 22 8.8 23 0.3 23 20 25.6 21 40.2 22 14 17 18 10 12 2 15 4 1 18 3 9 5 11 13 8 7 47.2 43.1 41.8 39.5 38.4 44.6 27.8 20.4 28.O 40.9 38.7 42.5 32.2 32.6 42.2 39.5 35.3 35.1 1 5 8 11 13 2 20 22 19 5 12 6 17 16 7 10 15 73.4 67.9 68.4 72.O 68.4 68.4 53.5 62.2 69.4 8.6 67.1 68.5 62.6 63.5 68.4 67.7 66.4 62.3 1 9 8 2 7 5 21 16 3 2 12 4 15 14 6 10 13

% of All Types of Rank Vehicles 7 1.7 Rank 18

GDDP at Foctor cost at Constant (1993-94) 2000-2001 214281 Rank 21

12

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Nijamabad Karimnagar Medak Hyderabad Rangareddy Mahaboobnaga r Nalgonda Warangal Khammam Krikakulam Vijayanagaram Visakapatnam E.Godavari W.Godavari Krishan Guntur Prakasam Nellore Kadapa Kurnool Anantapur Chittoor Andhra Pradesh

42.8 40.8 32.4 99.7 59.8 26.6 32.1 31.6 28.O 31.6 31.6 46.5 37.8 30.6 40.9 32.9 31.5 37.4 36.5 31.6 32.3 33.6 37.7

4 6 13 1 2 22 15 16 21 17 18 3 8 20 19 12 19 9 10 17 14 11

2.2 3.4 1.4 26.4 6.7 1.3 1.9 2.9 2.4 1.O 1.1 7.9 7.7 5.4 8.6 4.4 1.6 1.9 1.3 2.4 3.1 3.1 100

14 8 19 1 5 20 15 11 12 23 22 3 4 6 2 7 17 16 21 13 4 10

217945 403438 444091 506228 474585 280493 329052 298026 300292 196696 172680 520482 596719 499163 522233 521665 318110 314488 272623 348331 386730 413853 371834

20 10 8 5 7 18 13 17 16 22 23 4 1 6 2 3 14 15 19 12 11 10

Source: census of India 2001 and Economic Survey 2003

From the available data of 2001 NINE indicators have been selected to identify the levels of development in A.P. as a result of the degree of urbanization. The level of urbanization of a state is a meaningful indicator of economic development. The concept of development can be identified with the increase in employment opportunities, availability of infrastructural facilities, amenities, and services, proper distribution of resources, increased production, investment and consumption and so on. The Districts were categorically divided into 3 types such as; High level development refers to those districts exceeding the state average,

13

medium level development can be referred in between high and low development of the state average There fore, basing on the available State Average data we can measure through the Ranking of the districts levels of economic development in A.P. resultant into Urbanization such as; Ranking of districts to the proportion of urban population 2001:Among 23 districts in A..P.,5 districts have recorded above the state average and in the first category of development .Among these the first three dists i.e., Hyderabad, Rangareddy, and Visakapatnam are industrially based and the remaining two are agriculture based economies. There are 18 districts which are recorded an urbanization below the state average among them, the first 14 districts that show above 15 percent of urban population are counted under medium level development and the other 4 districts are treated as low level development category i.e., Nalgonda, Medak, Srikakulam and Mahabub Nagar. Development on the basis of percentage of literacy: As the literacy rate would further motivate the mass to reach township in the persuasion of higher education and to improve learning process. The rural migration is one of the cause to consider to take curriculum mainly in English medium to their children. If we examine the state average of literacy rate is 61.1percent as per the census of 2001.The data reveals that there are eleven districts have recorded a literacy growth above the state averages. Among these ,Hyderabad is at the top with a literacy rate of 79.04 percent ,followed by West Godavari with 73.95 percent ,Krishna with 69.91 and Chittoor with 67.46 percent. According to the sex ratio: The state average sex ratio is 978/1000 women per men. The data reveals that sex ratio to be favorable to women in Nizamabad, Srikakulam and Vijayanagaram, In Karimnagar the sex is neutral. The lowest sex ratio is registered in Rangareddy, Hyderabad and Anantapur district. Low level development are to be identified below the state average.

14

Indicator of development measured on the percentage of total workers to total population:The Vijayanagaram district, the smallest among all districts in the state ranks first in the work participation rate(52.2)percent, followed by Mahabubnagar (51.8)percent and Prakasam(50.03)percent. There are three districts registered least work participation rates, i.e., Rangareddy(39.9)percent, East Godavari(39.6)and Hyderabad(29.2)percent. But in terms of work participation rate, there is upgrading from 27.4percent in the census of 1991to 29.2percent in 2001 census. 0n the basis of male workers to total male population/female workers to total female population: The census of India,2001 represents that half of the districts have registered a male workers population above the state average i.e.,56.8 percent .Among the other districts, West Godavari with (60.2)percent is in the top rank, followed by Vijayanagaram with ) 60.0)percent and Guntur with (59.2)percent. Hyderabad is the only district that had recorded the lowest i.e.,48.2 percent male work participation rate among the total male population.

In spite of it, more than half of the districts registered female workers population above the state average i.e.,35.1 percent. Districts like Mahabubnagar Viijayanagaram, and Nijamabad are in the top three ranks with 47.2,44.6,and44.2 percent respectively. East Godavari with 20.4 percent and Hyderabad with 8.8 percent stood at the lowest ranks. According to the percentage of agricultural/non-agricultural workers to total workers: The percentage of workers engaged in agriculture sector of the state average is at 62.3 percent and in non-agricultural activities, the state average is 37.7 percent as per the census of India 2001and the Economic Survey 2003.The survey shows that Mahabubnagar, Khammam, and West Godavari districts have registered top ranks where as Hyderabad(0.3),Rangareddy(40.2)and Visakapatnam(53.5) have registered the lowest ranks in agro based economy. The other districts showing percentage of

agricultural workers are almost highly urbanized and the districts showing high

15

participation rate in agricultural sector are less urbanized district. Apart from, in 23 districts of AP, only 8 districts crossed the state average with regard to nonagricultural labor. The remaining 15 districts recorded an average below the state average. There is a clear indication of slow urbanization process in state. There are two districts namely Khammam and Mahaboob nagar showing very poor performance that is below 30per cent. The Hyderabad district occupies the first rank as there is no rural area in the district and 99.7 per cent of workers engaged in nonagricultural activity. Predictable Rangareddy district occupies the second rank with 59.8 per cent followed by Visakapatnam with 46.5 is in the third rank. There is correlation to some extent between urbanization and workers in non-agricultural sector. According to the percentage of Means of Transportation Means of Transportation is a positive indicator of urbanization. The most urbanized centers have secured the first 7 ranks i.e., Hyderabad a (26.4) Krishna(8.6) movement Visakhapatnam(7.9)East below the state Godavari(5.4) average and as and Guntur(4.4).The Economic Survey of 2003 had revealed that five districts recorded vehicular Medak(1.4),Mahabubnagar(1.3),Kadapa(1.3),Vijayanagaram(1.1) Srikakulam(1.0) percent. Ranking of the districts according to gross district domestic product at factor cost: The State GDDP is of Rs.3,71,834 as per data and also the state average. Eleven districts GDDP have touched above the state average, whereas remaining 12 districts have recorded GDDP below the state average. Among the twelve districts, two districts namely Srikakulam and Vijayanagaram recorded least GDDP at factor cost. From the above analysis five districts fall under the category of high level of development from the all ranks of the districts namely, Hyderabad, Krishna, Visakhapatnam, Guntur and Rangareddy. No district has in this category from Rayalaseema region, rather all the districts have fallen under the category of medium level of development. The reason is that the low level degree of connectivity between Industrial development pattern and the agricultural base. The

16

districts which have insignificant development of both agriculture and industrial sector are also responsible for the low level of urbanization in the state reveals under the category of low level of development i.e., Medak, Nalgonda, Srikakulam and Mahabubnagar. FINDINGS/SUGGESTIONS: The following are some of the findings from the study where we can overcome to solve the problems arises due to the urbanization: *To check rural migration and to eliminate the idea of posturing about city crazy and false prestige *Stop conversion of agricultural lands into real estate zones/centres *To arrest deaffortion of forests and to save ozone layers which protect environment at large. *Unorganized growth of urbanized is accompanied by a sharp deterioration of sanitation and water supply. *There are many short comings due to excess urbanization which reflects in growing urban unrest, crime, prostitution, begging, social tensions, proliferation of slums, congestion, and other essential amenities. *The housing problems is yet another alarming and unmanageable sanitation with the growing inequalities as it is always inadequate in urban areas as the dwellers have low level of income, lack of education and sub-standard living in slums. *Another findings from the study is to check the menace of pollution and epidemic diseases. It is also find a major Herculean task to maintain the law and order to provide security to the people in case of urbanization. *It creates more regional disparities due to more emphasis has made on the improving of a particular town or city which attracts the people become hue and cry for their settlement . SUGGESTIONS: 1.The Government should formulate a uniform National Urbanization Policy in correlation with population policy

17

2.To remove regional disparities and priorities are to shown by the political leaders confine to a particular place/town/district 3.Irregular urban policies will be checked and controlled 4.Equal importance should be imparted in promoting both education and health facilities simultaneously 5.A sound perspective of urban development involving all the specialists, namely architects, town planners, engineers economists, bureaucrats transport authorities, health and medical experts as well as sociologists is need 6.The rural, urban disparities could be reduced by a balanced approach of development coupled with infrastructure development 7.Slum improvement and clearance should be undertaken with a determined plan and set targets 8.The growth of small towns should be encouraged by providing sufficient economic and social infrastructure. It promotes rural industries and also for the improvement of small scale industries 9.Massive rural employment programs should be undertaken to prevent the flight of from rural to urban areas 10.To manage urban affairs and their programmes, policies, and strategic plans are taken to appropriate. Political, Techno-Economic Administrative Institutions to be set up for promoting new concepts and leadership in unfamiliar areas 11.The civil administration has to create awareness among the people, regarding the dubious techniques of real estate businessmen spreading its tentacles and encroaching public assets, walk board endowments, and Christian missioners properties. 12.The municipal corporation /dist registration office has to strategies to check malpractices of real estate businessmen. Public places should be notified clearly ,so that they cannot be misused by this builders. The normal phenomenon of accelerating urban growth with industrialization seems to have been muted in the advanced industrial dists in A.P. because of absence of corresponding improvement in agricultural productivity. An over all view reveals that there is an increasing trend in inequalities of the levels development between the districts.

18

CONCLUSION: According to the estimates and projections of the United Nations Population Division, by the turn of the 20th century over 50 percent in 1950,39 percent in 1975,and 43 percent in 1985.The urban population of the world which doubled between 1950and 1975 and further it was doubled between 1975 and 2000.The urban explosion in the developing country is mainly responsible for the surging up the worlds urban population15. As Mr. TARUN Sareen has rightly said that the Urban Economics is the study of land use, location, decision and the growth of cities and towns. This broad subject encompasses the economic dimension of all activities in urban areas, including industry, housing, crime and poverty. Thus, the rapid urban growth is a problem of both developed and developing countries of the world because there is a wide gap between the rate of growth of urban population and rate of progress of social overhead facilities including employment opportunities for the educated urban population

References: 1.Dr.N.T.K.Naik&Dr.Mansoor Rehman,``Urbanisation of India``page:14 2.Ashok Mehta,``The Future of Indian Cities:Past and Future;National Issuses and Goals` 3.Govt.of.India,Planning Commission,THIRD FIVE YEAR PLAN. 4.Cited in Kundas,Abanti,``Urbanization in India``-A Contrast with Western Experience`` in SCIENTIST April,1983. 5.Ibid.,p.453. 6.MISRA,RP,``Million Cities of India``New Delhi,1978 7.Ibid.,p.9 8.International Seminar on Urbanization in India sponsored by Kingsley Davis, Richard, L.Park and Catherine Beuer Wurster at Berkeley, California in 1967. 9.Ibid.p.195 10.K.Siddartha&L.Mukheerji,``Cities, Delhi,2001. 11.Nicholas William,H.``Industralisation Factor Markets and Agricultural Development``in Journal of Political Economy,August,1961. Urbanization and Urban System,``New

19

12.KingsleyDavis,``WorldUrbanisation1950-1970Vol.1.Datfories,Countries,Regions; Population monograph series no;4(University of California)1969. 13.Census of India,1901-2001,1961-1991,2001, Govt.of India,publishcations,New Delhi. 14.Economic Survey of India,2003,New Delhi. 15.United Nations,Estimates and Projects of Urban, Rural and City Population 19502025,New York,1981. 16.Tarun Sareen, Dictionary of Economics New Dellhi, p.713. 17.Rudder Datt&Sunderam,KPM.,Indian economy``,2003. 18.United Nations Estimates cited in Pradeep Roy, S.D.Gupta (Ed) Urbanization and slums, New Delhi, 1995.

20

21