Why There Are More Slums In Maharashtra Than In Any Other Indian State

If you look closely at the living conditions in slums, you will notice many strange facts. For instance, in slums, the sex ratio is more skewed in favour of women. Even though we hear that slum population is growing, slum population is actually growing slowly, when compared to the growth of urban population. The household size in slums is not larger than that of the rest of urban India and the dwellers enjoy amenities that are much better than that of rural Indians, and comparable to that of other urban Indians. They are likely to have as many as children as other urban Indians, and enjoy comparable amenities.

Another interesting fact is that wealthier Indian states usually have more slums. With 11 million people living in slums, Maharashtra has the largest slum population followed by Andhra Pradesh with 10 million people in slums. A large segment of people in Delhi lives in slums, too.

India's experience is not unique. Prosperous cities across the world are more likely to attract slum dwellers. This was true even centuries ago, when every major city attracted large numbers of poor people. Plato observed 2,500 years ago that “any city, however small, is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich.” This applies to Indian states, too.

It is, of course, true that the proliferation of slums is caused by poor urban planning and government interference. But this does not answer why poor people are unusually more likely to be found in prosperous cities. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, for example, observes that though Rio's hills have some of the best views in the world, but are occupied by dishevelled huts.

Anti-capitalist intellectuals claim that this is because cities make people poor. This is a false inference drawn from many true observations. As Glaeser points out, cities do not make people poorer. Cities attract poor people. Moving to a city is the best way to escape rural poverty. Some places seem more equal because those places are not open to everybody. It is one of the strengths of market economy that everybody has a place to live in. This is true even in the most prosperous Indian states and cities, so long as they are willing to compromise on housing standards.  

When low-income households move to urban areas, their income levels are much lower than that of everybody else. But in the long run, this is not true, and this proves that people move to cities to improve their lot. The problem with Indian cities and prosperous states is not that they attract many low-income households. The problem prosperous Indian states is that they do not do the best possible job of accommodating people of all income levels.  

As Glaeser argues, cities like Mumbai, Bengaluru and Kolkata lift the moods of people. There is enough evidence to think that people are happier in cities, and this is true even in cities in the third world. Glaeser points out that in Rio, even if you are poor, you can enjoy the Ipanema Beach. Cities across the world offer such entertainment in varying degrees.

Slums are rare in some Indian states and cities. But this is usually a proof that such places lack something that poor households want. For example, if housing is expensive, few people will move to a neighbourhood. Similarly, if cheap public transportation is not available, people will not be willing to move to in. For example, poor people are more likely to live near bus stops or metro stations. This is because metro stations it makes economic sense. It is not a coincidence that Maharashtra, India's most prosperous state, is slum-ridden.