See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248974192

Mapping Urban Poverty for Local Governance in an Indian

Mega-City: The Case of Delhi

Article  in  Urban Studies · June 2008

DOI: 10.1177/0042098008090679

CITATIONS READS

103 2,782

3 authors:

Isa Baud Sridharan Namp

University of Amsterdam School of Planning and Architecture
137 PUBLICATIONS   1,688 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   346 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Karin Pfeffer
University of Twente
101 PUBLICATIONS   1,481 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RURBAN and PERI-URBAN View project

Global Visibility View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Isa Baud on 26 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Urban Studies
http://usj.sagepub.com

Mapping Urban Poverty for Local Governance in an Indian Mega-City: The Case
of Delhi
Isa Baud, N. Sridharan and Karin Pfeffer
Urban Stud 2008; 45; 1385
DOI: 10.1177/0042098008090679

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/7/1385

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Urban Studies Journal Limited

Additional services and information for Urban Studies can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/45/7/1385

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008

 45(7) 1385–1412, June 2008

Mapping Urban Poverty for Local

Governance in an Indian Mega-City:
The Case of Delhi
Isa Baud, N. Sridharan and Karin Pfeffer
[Paper first received, August 2006; in final form, January 2007]

Abstract
The article maps urban poverty, using the ‘livelihoods assets framework’ to develop
a new index of multiple deprivation, examining the implications for area and sector
targeting by policy-makers. This article deals with the index and the results for Delhi.
The study maps: the spatial concentration of poverty; the diversity of deprivation at
ward level; whether poverty is concentrated in slums; and correlations between voting
patterns and poverty levels. The index uses census data disaggregated to electoral-ward
level for multicriteria analysis, through GIS. Results show that hotspots of poverty are
diverse in character, but are not concentrated in slum areas, with strong implications
for policy-making and poverty studies methodology. These results suggest that the
new index allows better insight into poverty with better targeting possibilities for
policy-makers.

Introduction wellbeing. These deprivations are linked to

Recent discussions of poverty have recognised
its multidimensional character. Whereas
classic approaches to poverty have focused
solely on issues of income and consumption,
the newer alternative approaches focus on
the multiple sources of deprivation that
poor households experience and which
hinder their efforts to obtain higher levels of
ways in which households live and work, the
access they do or do not have to collective and/
or state-provided resources and the extent to
which poor households can make their needs
heard politically or can organise collectively
to build up assets (see McGee and Brock,
2001; Narayan et al., 2000; Satterthwaite,
1997; Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones, 2002; Moser,
1998). A recent characterisation of urban

Isa Baud and Karin Pfeffer are in AMIDSt, The University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht
130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Fax: 31 20 525 4051. E-mails: i.s.a.baud@uva.nl and
k.pfeffer@uva.nl.
N. Sridharan is in the School of Planning and Architecture, 4-B Indraprashtra Estate, New Delhi,
11 00 02, India. Fax: 91 11 237 02378. E-mail: dr.nsridharan@gmail.com.

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online

© 2008 Urban Studies Journal Limited
DOI:
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 10.1177/0042098008090679
27, 2008
1386 ISA BAUD ET AL.
poverty lists eight types of deprivation. They
include: inadequate and unstable incomes,
inadequate, unstable or risky asset bases (such
as lack of education and housing), inadequ-
ate provision of public infrastructure (piped
water, sanitation, drainage, roads and foot-
paths), inadequate provision of basic ser-
vices, limited safety-nets for those unable to
pay for services, inadequate protection of
poorer groups through laws and rights, and
powerlessness of poorer groups within pol-
itical and bureaucratic systems (Mitlin and
Satterthwaite, 2004).
These deprivations indicate very clearly that
poverty consists not only of lack of work and
income, but also is produced by the collective
‘structures of constraint’, which make it
difficult for poor households to meet their
own needs and to gain access to collective
provisions of services from which they are
excluded. These aspects interact with each
other and deepen poverty for individual
households, with deprivation in one area
preventing them from meeting their needs
in other areas (Sen, 1999; Baulch, 1996). For
example, poor housing, lack of drinking
water and sanitation can lead to poor health,
preventing people from working effectively
and reducing their ability to earn an income.
This can have a knock-on effect on their
food intake and that of other household
members.
Such approaches are also characterised
by their views of households and their mem-
bers as active actors in their own right, not
as passive victims. This is best illustrated
by the ‘assets/vulnerability’ approach which
recognises that individuals and their house-
holds have differing types of ‘capital’ which
they can use to improve their wellbeing, even
when they have low incomes (Rakodi and
Lloyd-Jones, 2002; Moser, 1998).1 In urban
areas, such capital consist of
– human capital (health, education and
training, employment);
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
– financial capital (savings and income,
household assets (such as jewellery and
other capital goods);
– physical capital (housing and basic ser-
vices); and
– social capital (extent of collective organ-
isation and social networks).
A final type of capital—natural capital (i.e.
ownership of land, physical resources or water
rights)—is not usually included in the urban
context (see Moser, 1998). Ownership of land
is subsumed under ownership of housing.
Access to open spaces has not been discussed
under this heading by authors working on
urban poverty.2 Case studies of urban liveli-
hood strategies and poverty suggest that
households find it important to build up the
different types of capital in conjunction with
each other and that one type of deprivation
also affects other types of household asset
(Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones, 2002; Beall, 2002).
Although the new approaches to poverty
are substantively great improvements over
earlier approaches to poverty, they still have
two limitations. The first concerns the limits
of the case studies on which our current infor-
mation is built. Although local case studies
provide much-needed insights into ways
households build up different types of capital
and the constraints they face, they provide
no information on the extent to which such
deprivation hold true across large sections
of urban populations (Moser, 1998). This leads
to an underestimation of urban poverty and
too little knowledge about the interaction
between different deprivations contributing
to poverty in urban areas (Satterthwaite, 2004).
Secondly, urban planners and local govern-
ments often lack sufficiently disaggregated
data within their urban areas of jurisdiction
to implement anti-poverty policies effectively.
It is very difficult for them to indicate spatial
patterns of poverty within cities in developing
countries. This makes it difficult to support
urban governance—i.e. the interventions by

government and its ‘partners’—in strategic-
ally counteracting patterns of deprivation
within cities. Therefore, spatial information
disaggregated to the lowest level at which
decisions on interventions are made within
cities could contribute to improving local
governance (Henninger and Snel, 2002).
This article contributes to reducing exist-
ing limitations in our understanding of urban
poverty, by utilising the concept of multiple
deprivation for defining poverty and con-
structing a multiple deprivation index. It is
based on the analytical framework of types of
‘capital’ used within the livelihoods approach,
generally adopted by researchers working
on poverty issues in both rural and urban
areas.3 The choice of indicators follows this
model and is based on a combination of
social, economic and habitat/infrastructural
factors which strongly influence a household’s
livelihood strategies.4 We process a large data-
base (extracted from the Census of India)
within geographical information systems
(GIS) to analyse the composition and preval-
ence of urban poverty in one Indian mega-
city—Delhi.5 The choice of Delhi (and Mumbai
and Chennai in subsequent analysis) is based
on the rationale that the differences in level
of poverty/deprivation are very wide within
the metropolitan cities of India (Sivarama-
krishnan et al., 2005); this implies that know-
ledge is needed on the extent, location and
concentration of such deprivation in order
to be able to make urban governance more
effective by targeting interventions where
they are needed.6
Processing the Census through GIS within
the livelihoods framework allows us to exam-
ine the question of what factors contribute
to poverty and how widespread it is within
cities—i.e. the extent to which households
in different sections (electoral wards) of the
city have been (un)able to build up their
assets. This level of poverty analysis is stra-
tegic for urban governance because, after the
implementation of the 74th Amendment Act
to the Constitution, the electoral-ward level
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1387
is the lowest level of political representation
for citizens to local government. Analysis at
this level allows us to raise the question of
what types of deprivation occur within spe-
cific wards and indicate what areas of de-
privation can be addressed by local govern-
ance mechanisms (council and administrative
offices).
More specifically, the study deals with the
following four questions
(1) To what extent are the different aspects
of poverty spatially concentrated in the
concerned cities such that hotspots of
poverty emerge?
(2) To what extent do different aspects of
poverty contribute to the overall level of
poverty at the ward level?
(3) Are the highest levels of poverty (at
electoral-ward level) correlated with other
measures of poverty (slums, number of
households below the poverty line)?
(4) Are there differences in the extent to
which poor and non-poor households
are collectively organised and make their
voice known through local elections?
In each section, we indicate the connections
to urban governance issues and, in the final
section, the relation between poverty analysis
and urban governance mechanisms is analysed
specifically.
The first question examines the extent to
which deprivations are spatially concentrated
in cities, such that ‘hotspots’ of poverty at
ward level can be seen. If deprivations are
randomly distributed in cities, tackling them
requires broader interventions than if they
are spatially concentrated.7 Concentration
can take two forms: multiple deprivation in
one area, or several areas which show similar
levels of multiple deprivation (clustering).
Concentration of multiple deprivation indi-
cate geographical areas where governments
could concentrate interventions across the
board, in order to increase access to collective
infrastructure and services.
1388 ISA BAUD ET AL.
The second question fits into the discus-
sion on the extent to which different types of
deprivation occur together and influence each
other, such that their effects are cumulative
(Narayan et al., 2000; Krishna, 2003; Devas,
2004). The data allow us to examine statistically
the extent to which various deprivations occur
together, and what their relative strength is.
This is important to know as poor households
struggle to get out of poverty and build up their
capital. For instance, if lack of good housing
has a stronger effect on poverty than lack of
transport, municipal authorities could provide
scarce funding for good housing by and for
poor households as an effective support (see
Kundu 1993; Kundu and Mahadevia 2002).
The third question examines the degree to
which poverty corresponds with the presence
of slum areas and areas where city govern-
ments currently take anti-poverty measures.
The assumption that poverty is concentrated
in slums is often made in both studies and
policy, but it may not necessarily hold true,
especially where large parts of urban areas
are characterised by sub-standard housing.
Studies of Dharavi in Mumbai have shown
that a vibrant economy exists in the slum and
a substantial number of the households there
cannot be characterised as very poor (Sharma,
2000). It also provides us with insights into
the extent to which poverty corresponds with
interventions directed to the poor, such as the
ration card on the basis of the below poverty
line (BPL) designation (Department of Food
and Civil Supplies). In this way, it provides a
check on whether targeted interventions are
actually reaching the households for which
they are designed.
The fourth question concerns the extent to
which citizens can make their ‘voice’ heard.
This issue has been discussed widely in the
context of participatory urban or local gov-
ernance by increasing the feedback from
citizens about their priorities and improving
the accountability of local governments to
their citizens (for example, see the special issue
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
of Environment and Urbanisation on partici-
patory governance, 2004; Cavill and Sohail,
2004). Because local councillors have been
elected within Indian cities since 1992, this is
a recent indicator which indicates the import-
ance households give to this opportunity.
Mapping Poverty: Comparing
Approaches
There is interest in analysing spatial patterns
and concentrations of different forms of
poverty in both developing and developed
countries. This is reflected in the variety of
case studies mapping poverty in Europe and
in the South (for example, Labbate et al., 2004;
Bigman and Fofack, 2000; Henninger and
Snel, 2002; Orford, 2004; Harris and Longley,
2004; Boyle and Alvanides, 2004). According
to these authors, poverty mapping consists of
the following steps
(1) defining the purpose and expected use
of mapping;
(2) selecting the measures of poverty and
wellbeing;
(3) selecting input data;
(4) selecting the method of estimating or
calculating the poverty indicator;
(5) selecting a method to calculate, estimate
or display the poverty indicator for geo-
graphical area;
(6) deciding on the number of units for final
maps displaying the data;
(7) producing and distributing maps;
(8) monitoring usage and feedback.
In this article, we carry out several of these
steps—namely, steps (2), (3), (4), (5), (6)
and (7).8
Poverty mapping is not yet standardised,
but until now has consisted of mainly two ap-
proaches which are used respectively by the
World Bank and the UNDP. The former uses
an expenditure-based econometric approach,
based on small-area estimation (Henninger
and Snel, 2002). The latter uses a value-focused

approach, based on its composite human
development index. Such indexes are also
referred to as the ‘unsatisfied basic needs’
indexes and are mainly used in South America
(Henninger and Snel, 2002), as well as in
several European countries (DETR, 2000;
Noble et al. 2006).
The small-area estimation approach is
based on a combination of household survey
and national household-level data, such as
the census. Both datasets should have some
matching variables. Within the household
survey, correlations are established between
the expenditures (y) and other explanatory
variables, such as education and household
characteristics (x). The correlations found
in the survey are then used to predict house-
hold expenditure levels from the national
dataset, such as the census, for small areas in
the country. Usually this technique is linked
to a poverty line in analysing its outcomes.
However, this is not a necessary pre-condition
(see Henninger and Snel, 2002).
The composite indexes can be based on
non-expenditure-related data, reflecting a
range of ‘unsatisfied needs’. Such composite
indexes can reflect the full range of depriv-
ation faced by households (McGee and Brock,
2001; Baulch, 1996; Noble et al. 2006). This
can include deprivation in terms of physical
habitat and lack of access to education and
health services, as well as insecure employ-
ment. All components are usually weighted
equally. The approach developed by UNDP
recognises the multidimensional character
of wellbeing by including health, education
and life expectancy at birth in its human
development index (HDI).9
We are using the second type of index for
several reasons. To begin with, the livelihoods
approach is based on the combination of
types of ‘capital’ that households are able to
build up and not on consumption patterns
alone. It also allows us to determine the degree
of access households have to collective state-
provided resources as part of their livelihood
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1389
strategies in addition to their individually
built up assets (see Baulch, 1996; McGee and
Brock, 2001). Patterns of wealth (asset owner-
ship) are also recognisable not only from con-
sumption, but also from patterns of physical
capital ownership (housing, movable assets).
Similarly, the British have developed the
Index of Multiple Deprivation, which also
includes a similar full range of indicators
from the British census (DETR, 2000; Noble
et al. 2006).
Secondly, the small-area estimation ap-
proach is usually based on a combination of
household survey and census data, in which
the heterogeneity in the total population is
calculated indirectly through a much smaller
sample survey among households. Correla-
tions established from the household survey
between expenditure and other household
characteristics are used to calculate hetero-
geneity in other small areas; the first step in
the process actually limits the extent of hetero-
geneity to be found elsewhere (see Henninger
and Snel, 2002). This makes it difficult to reflect
strong regional heterogeneity in patterns of
expenditure. Expenditure data are also notori-
ously vulnerable to underestimation and
overestimation by respondents, because of
shame of poverty or fear of taxation.
However, a sampled household survey
across income-groups could be useful to
establish which indicators distinguish best
between ‘income’ groups; such a survey
should be matched as far as possible to the
wider population dataset to be used for the
poverty mapping exercise. We have done this
by carrying out household surveys in the
three cities covered in the total research pro-
ject, across the groups in the different types of
neighbourhoods (see the Appendix).
Thirdly, mapping of the resulting data was
found to be quite varied in the set of studies
examined by Henninger and Snel. Researchers
differed in their choice of mapping approach,
level of disaggregation and their choice of
geographical boundaries and indicators. Such
1390 ISA BAUD ET AL.
choices matter, as they can lead to a reranking
of regions, communities or households, or
lead to quite different policy conclusions
(Davis, 2000). In particular, if such differences
are linked to targeted financing programmes
by governments or are used by companies to
prioritise their investments, such rankings
take on political meanings (see Henninger
and Snel, 2002).
Apart from census data and different types
of survey with some kind of geographical re-
ferencing, valuable information on spatial
differences can be derived from geographical
information technology (GIT). High-resolution
remote sensing images, such as IKONOS,
Quickbird or IRS (www.landinfo.com), which
favour mapping at a scale of 1:10 000 to
1:25 000, or conventional aerial photographs
which are regarded as a primary source of re-
motely sensed information at the land-parcel
level (Masser, 2001), are powerful tools for
detecting physical structures. A study in Addis
Ababa used remote sensing images showing
the pattern, size and irregularity of groups of
small buildings lacking open spaces, to indi-
cate areas of high density and poor living
conditions in the built environment (Lemma
et al., 2006). Even though visual image inter-
pretation provides important data on physical
elements, it needs to be combined with other
spatial data, field visits and secondary data
to generate useful information on poverty,
which is usually not feasible for areas the size
of mega-cities.
Mapping the spatial distribution of pov-
erty within a country using census data and
different kinds of survey can be done at dif-
ferent geographical scales. In Britain, the
Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD
2004) is commonly applied to measure mul-
tiple deprivation at the small-area level (Noble
et al., 2004) or to identify spatial concentrations
of poverty within cities at ward level (Orford,
2004; Harris and Longley, 2004).10 In countries
in the global South, little attention has been
paid to identifying spatial concentrations
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
of deprivation in urban areas, partly due to
the lack of appropriate data at a sufficiently
disaggregated level (Petrucci et al., 2003).
India does have a regular, well-validated
census carried out every 10 years as well as
national sample surveys of households at
more regular intervals (every 4 years).11 The
census data can be disaggregated to the
lowest level of administration and electoral
representation in cities (i.e. to the electoral-
ward level) because of its complete coverage.12
This makes it possible to match spatial dif-
ferences in poverty levels (and the variety of
factors loading onto the multiple deprivation
index) with the level of administration and
electoral representation closest to local
citizens. This has the potential to link local
governance more effectively with needed
data for tackling poverty issues. A caveat of
course is that the long intervals between cen-
suses make these data gradually less reliable
for use in actual policy implementation
(Deichmann, 1999; Noble et al. 2006).
The Census also presents data on a variety
of indicators of wellbeing, which makes it pos-
sible to construct a composite index reflecting
the deprivation households experience as
poverty or a lack of wellbeing. The authors
have used data generated from the 2001 census
database, disaggregated to the electoral-ward
level for three Indian mega-cities (Delhi,
Bombay and Chennai) in constructing a com-
posite poverty index, as explained in the
following section. In this article, only the re-
sults for Delhi are discussed.
Poverty Studies in India
In this section, we briefly look at the types
of poverty studies done in India. There is no
pretension at being comprehensive in this
section; we want to bring out some salient
points in the various discussions, which in-
form our own work.
A first issue in poverty studies is whether
poverty is defined in absolute or relative
terms (see Beteille, 2003). Beteille and many

sociologists with him argue that poverty is
relative in time and space and therefore takes
on different forms and content. The differences
in form and content are reflected in the two
main approaches to poverty found in India.
The first is the set of approaches which rec-
ognises various factors as contributing to
poverty (the livelihoods approach); and the
second is the set of approaches limiting pov-
erty to deprivation in the areas of consump-
tion and income (however measured).
The livelihoods approach recognises a
variety of types of capital, which make a
household capable of producing wellbeing
for its members, or the lack of which prevents
them from doing so (see, for example, Krishna,
2003). Similarly, Sen’s capabilities approach
indicates that human beings need a variety
of endowments to realise their full set of
‘freedoms’ as human beings (Sen, 1999; Drèze
and Sen, 2002). The human development
index as used in the India Development
Report (and the state reports which follow
from it) recognises longevity, education and
employment/income as contributing factors
(see, for example, Planning Commission,
2001). All these approaches have in common
that they analyse poverty or deprivation as
the result of a number of individual as well
as institutional factors, not only the lack of
income and/or consumption.
The dominant approach to poverty uses
levels of consumption as an absolute measure
of poverty, using a poverty line as a basis for
classifying people (or households) as being
poor or non-poor (a head count measure).13
Again, there are a variety of methods to assess
poverty in this way—a biological minimum of
consumption necessary to survive, or a soci-
ally accepted minimum standard of living (see
Saith, 2005). In India, official poverty lines
are based on expenditures for a minimum
food basket, differentiated by rural and urban
areas.14 This type of approach has been used
in India since independence by government
planners and organisations.15
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1391
Saith (2005) critiques the latter approach
because it does not capture adequately what
poverty means in the lives of actual house-
holds. His main point of disagreement, which
also informs our stance on poverty issues, is
that it does not capture a number of issues
influencing poverty in essential ways. First,
expenditure lines do not capture the (lack
of) assets which households may have (or
sell) which reduce their vulnerability in the
longer term. These include land, homes and
larger capital goods which may serve as forms
of saving/assets to be sold off only in extreme
circumstances. Their loss needs to be counted
as part of poverty. Secondly, the health situ-
ation of family members can be an asset or a
liability (when labour is directed to the care
economy and ill family members cannot
work). Thirdly, spatial segregation and social
exclusion among poor households are not
covered in such approaches, despite the fact
that they reduce household access to state-
or community-provided resources.16
Poverty manifests itself in different ways
across space and time. In Europe, early stu-
dies of poverty focused mainly on urban
poverty as a result of industrial capitalism,
as its concentration made it very visible (see
Beteille, 2003). In India, poverty was wide-
spread before the rise of capitalism and was
strongly linked to differences in caste and
regional economies (Beteille, 2003). Whereas
in Europe, poverty was seen as a social prob-
lem, in India since independence, poverty
has usually been linked to economic stag-
nation and lack of growth (Beteille, 2003;
Tendulkar, 1983).
Studies on urban poverty in India from
the past 40 years are relatively few and have
usually focused on employment issues or
discussions on deprivation in slum areas in
terms of infrastructure and services, without
conceptualising poverty directly (Streefkerk,
1981; Harriss, 1982, 2005; Breman, 2004;
Holmstrom, 1984; Schenk, 2001; Kundu and
Mahadevia, 2002; Kundu, 1993). Earlier studies
1392 ISA BAUD ET AL.
were concerned with employment and labour
relation issues, focusing on the strength or
weakness of trade unions and other social ties
in protecting workers’ basic rights. Studies in
the 1990s, mainly by planners and architects,
focused more explicitly on the access of the
poor to services and housing infrastructure,
and concluded that discrimination was still
prevalent on the basis of caste, class and re-
gional identities. The strength of these stu-
dies in connecting poverty to employment
and living conditions is that they illustrate
the ways in which lack of infrastructure and
services, political structures and hierarchical
labour relations influence people’s social
and economic mobility. The weakness is that
these studies utilise data at national or state
level and do not disaggregate to the city or
within-city level, and are currently ignored
by most economists.
In India, studies and policies concerning
urban poverty have often focused specifically
on slum areas (for example, de Wit, 1996). This
is a logical perspective for a framework and
methodology for poverty studies, based on the
assumption that slums form concentrations of
poverty. However, in this paper, we will show
that in fact this assumption is not correct for
Delhi.17 This may mean that studies which
are based on this assumption, may be missing
large pockets of poverty in other areas of the
cities concerned.
Mapping Hotspots of Multiple
Deprivation
We now come back to the questions raised
earlier concerning poverty mapping in Delhi.
To provide a context, a short description of
Delhi is given. This is followed by the con-
ceptualisation of poverty and research meth-
odology used. Subsequently, the results of the
analysis are given.
Delhi
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),
the capital of India, lies within the National
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
Capital Territory of Delhi and had an esti-
mated population of 13.78 million people in
2001. Within its jurisdiction are some of the
most densely populated areas in the world,
reaching 150 000 inhabitants per square km
with an average population density of 9523
per square km. The population dynamics in
the city have been characterised by heavy mi-
gration into the city for employment, mainly
from neighbouring states (Dupont, 2000).
The MCD covers approximately 1450 square
km and consists of 12 zones with 134 electoral
wards of different geographical size (from
0.4 to 116 square km) as well as in number
of inhabitants (from 8700 to 260,085).18 The
areas covered by the MCD do not include
those belonging to the Delhi Cantonment
Board and the New Delhi Municipal Council
area, which come directly under the central
government (the census data used do not in-
clude the Delhi Cantonment and New Delhi
areas, reflected by the White areas in the
maps).19 The Delhi agglomeration is more
extensive, of course, but the analysis here is
confined to the MCD.20
The MCD was established in 1958 by an
Act of Parliament. The 74th Constitutional
Amendment brought about fundamental
changes in the composition, governance
and administration of the Corporation. The
number of electoral wards increased from
100 to 134 and 12 wards committees were
set up.21 This means that representatives at
the electoral-ward level could prioritise inter-
ventions, if they had the information con-
cerning existing deprivation in their areas.
Defining Deprivations and Types of
Capital
Mapping multiple deprivation to improve
urban governance involved several processes.
First, different deprivations of households or
people were defined, based on the assets/vul-
nerability approach (Moser, 1998; Rakodi
and Lloyd-Jones, 2002); then, for each type
of deprivation, indicators reflecting the lack
of a particular type of capital in India were

identified and hierarchically structured into
a multicriteria model. The conceptual model
was operationalised using the results of
fieldwork-based household surveys in three
metropolitan cities carried out under our
responsibility.22 The results were then matched
to selected datasets of the Indian census, dis-
aggregated to the spatial level of the electoral
ward. The India census is generally considered
by scholars to be very reliable in including the
majority of marginalised people—including
those in non-authorised slums. The main
group it leaves out are the people living on the
street, without an address (personal communi-
cation, A. Kundu; see also note 12). These
tables were processed within a geographical
information system, which supported the
calculation and overlay of indicator maps
and the representation of spatial modelling
results. In the third phase, the results of the
geographical analysis were linked to principles
of urban governance.
In this study, the four different types of
capital/ capital deprivation generally used in
urban livelihood approaches were utilised:
social capital, human capital, financial capital
and physical capital.23 The indicators chosen
were validated on the basis of smaller house-
hold surveys carried out by fieldwork con-
ducted within our own research programme
in Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai, which estab-
lished the most striking differences between
high-income (HIG), middle-income (MIG),
authorised slum and unauthorised slum
neighbourhoods (for a full discussion of the
household survey methodology, see the
Appendix).
Social capital has been defined by Moser
(1998, p. 4) as “reciprocity within commun-
ities and between households based on trust
related to social ties” and by Rakodi and
Lloyd-Jones (2002, p. 11) as “social resources
(networks, membership of groups, relations
of trust and reciprocity, access to wider in-
stitutions of society)”. Harriss (2001) has
discussed the distinctions in social capital
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1393
made between ‘bonding social capital’ re-
flected within homogeneous communities,
bridging social capital between different com-
munities and linking social capital, between
communities of different social status and
power. In India, caste still strongly structures
social networks and discrimination against
scheduled castes remains high—a form of
negative linking social capital which pre-
vents low-caste households from utilising
opportunities to increase their wellbeing and
reduce their deprivation (Deolalikar, 2005;
Beteille, 1983). The level of exclusionary prac-
tices towards scheduled castes is confirmed
in a recent report on reaching the millennium
goals in India; it indicates that scheduled
castes show systematic differences in child
mortality, school enrolment and malnutrition
rates among children (see Deolalikar, 2005).
The census data of 2001 also show significant
differences in the access of scheduled caste
households to employment and basic services.
Data on exclusionary practices towards other
social groups (such as Muslims) are not avail-
able at disaggregated levels within cities.24
Therefore, the indicator of ‘scheduled caste’
provided by the census was chosen as a proxy
for the deprivation linked to exclusionary
processes based on caste—such as discrim-
ination in access to employment, housing and
basic services.25
Human capital is defined by Moser (1998,
p. 4) as the “health situation, which deter-
mines people’s capacity to work, and skills
and education determining the returns to
their work” and by Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones
(2002, p. 11) as “labour resources available
to households”. The census does not provide
data on the health situation within house-
holds, which limits our possibilities of in-
cluding it. One can make the argument that
it is reflected indirectly in the extent to which
members of the household are able to work,
in terms of both the number of earners and
the amount of time spent in work (see Krishna,
2003). Therefore, we have mainly focused on
1394 ISA BAUD ET AL.
the household’s education and labour capital,
reflected by the number of literate people
within the ward and the number of employed
people (main workers in the Indian census).26
Deprivations in the area of education are re-
flected in the percentage of people excluded
from education at any level (illiteracy).
The vast majority of India’s working
people work in the non-registered sector—
i.e. in occupations not protected by labour
legislation, firm legislation or trade union
agreements (around 83 per cent of the total
workforce; Chen et al., 2004). This implies
that the majority of people in the category of
‘main worker’ work in non-protected occu-
pations (such as hawkers and other service-
sector workers, self-employed producers and
employees in small enterprises).27 The ‘main
worker’ reflects the importance given by the
households themselves to the concerned
person’s work in terms of the time spent and
income earned within the total of household
income. What the earned income means for
the household depends on the number of
‘consumers’ within the household it has to
maintain. For this reason, we have included
the ratio of people dependent on the working
people within the household, quantified by
the average number of dependents per house-
hold at ward level (see Krishna, 2003).28
Moser (1998) defines financial capital as
‘productive capital’, and she indicates that
housing is often poor people’s most product-
ive asset. Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones define it
as ‘financial resources (savings, credit, re-
mittances and pensions)’, which reflects a
wider range of ways in which households
build up financial reserves (or experience vul-
nerability). Ownership of houses was not
chosen as an indicator because this turned
out to be similarly high across all groups in
our household survey and would not distin-
guish well the poor households from the
others (see the Appendix).
Savings and credit in India are often ob-
tained through capital in kind. Women buy
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
jewellery or large household items (such as
‘steel’ pans, cooking stoves, watches) and
pawn them to obtain credit. Access to formal
banking services is limited to those working
in formal, registered employment. In con-
sequence, in addition to access to banking
services on which the census provides infor-
mation, large capital goods owned by the
households were used as a proxy for the level
of financial capital reflected in their pur-
chases. Although six such capital goods are
indicated in the census, our own household
surveys indicated that one of them most
clearly discriminated between household
categories in Delhi (and the other cities), so
that only ‘motorised scooters’ were included
as an item (see the Appendix for the full list
of capital household goods). We assume that
more access to banking services and owner-
ship of capital goods implies fewer depriv-
ation for households.
Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones (2002. p. 11) define
physical capital as “the basic infrastructure
(transport, shelter, water, energy, communi-
cations) and the production equipment which
people need to pursue their livelihoods”.
Moser (1998) calls this ‘productive assets’,
although she includes housing as a possible
form of productive asset. In this study, we
have included the physical capital indicators
pertaining to the housing/habitat, as this
applies to all households.
The conceptualisation led to the model
illustrated in Figure 1 which defines the
indicators constructed from the 2001 census.
Although it is clear that the census limits to
some extent the multidimensionality which
is inherent in the livelihoods approach, it
is an improvement over simple money-
metric measures, which do not recognise the
cumulative negative impact of other factors
included here.
Processing the Criteria Model within GIS
To apply the conceptual multicriteria model
at the level of electoral wards using the GIS

Figure 1. Model of criteria used to map multiple deprivation
ILWIS Academic 3.3 (ITC, 2005), indicator
values characterising the four capitals
(the right-hand columns of the model in
Figure 1) were derived from several census
tables at the ward level and matched to the
digitised boundaries of the electoral wards.
Within the GIS, an attribute map was cre-
ated for each indicator showing its spatial
distribution across the electoral wards. In
order to aggregate the indicator maps to
the intermediate level of a capital and to
the final index of multiple deprivation, the
attribute maps were standardised to values
between 0 and 1 indicating no poverty (0)
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1395
and extreme poverty (1). To compare the
wards according to the index of multiple
deprivation and the lack of individual types
of capital, the standardised attribute maps
were combined by means of weighted sums,
in which each type of capital (and within
one type, each indicator) was considered to
have equal weight. In this way the variety of
aspects involved in constructing the index of
multiple deprivation was synthesised. The
various steps of the operationalisation are
illustrated in Figure 2.
The resulting index of multiple deprivation
indicates, at the ward level, average levels of
1396 ISA BAUD ET AL.
Figure 2. Flowchart of the mapping methodology
deprivation in the various types of capital that
households need and was used to compare
differences in deprivation across wards in
Delhi. Combining attribute maps into an
composite index map leads to bad perform-
ance on one criterion being compensated by
good performance on another, resulting in
average poverty levels across wards. In order
to prevent undifferentiated conclusions, the
final outcome of the multicriteria overlay
(i.e. the map showing the spatial differences
of multiple deprivations) is overlaid with
the input maps and the maps showing the
spatial patterns of specific types of capital.
By means of a look-up table, the loading of
each input map (Table 2) and intermediate
map (‘capital’ level) to the final poverty index
of the ward can be traced back for a more
specific analysis. This option is particularly
important when the link between poverty
analysis and governance is made, in which
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
interventions need to be matched to specific
deprivations.
Mapping results
Poverty hotspots? The first question raised
for analysis concerned the extent to which
different aspects of poverty are spatially
concentrated in Delhi, such that hotspots
of poverty emerge. Such concentration of
multiple deprivation concentrated in one
area makes it difficult for households to
find a way out of poverty because they have
to deal with several deprivations at the same
time. It also means that intervention pro-
grammes would have to do the same to have
a meaningful impact.
The method used to answer this question
was to make a multicriteria overlay on the
map of Delhi. The resulting map shows the
spatial variation in the index of multiple
deprivation (IMD) (Figure 3). Figure 3 clearly
 MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1397

Figure 3. ‘Hotspots’ of poverty in the Delhi Municipal Corporation area: the spatial concentration
of multiple deprivation
Note: High values indicate a high multiple deprivation index per ward

illustrates that in Delhi, deprivations are hotspots of poverty can be clearly identified.
spatially concentrated in electoral wards 41, The electoral wards showing the highest
42, 70 and 86. In those wards, the IMD is levels of deprivation also are generally in
significantly higher (i.e. higher than the mean areas where incomes are low, as indicated by
+ 2 standard deviations) than the mean IMD a separate map of Delhi indicating income
for the whole Corporation area. categories (Figure 4).
This result indicates that deprivations are A second part of this question is whether
cumulative at the electoral-ward level and that poverty hotspots are themselves clustered
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
1398 ISA BAUD ET AL.

Figure 4. Income differences by electoral wards in the Delhi Municipal Corporation area
Source: NCAER 2002.

together, so that a whole ‘poor area’ exists
(see Orford, 2004). We found little clustering
of wards with a similar degree of poverty
(Figure 5). Figure 5 indicates that the wards
which surround the ‘hotspots of poverty’
(wards 41 and 42) are wards with much lower
levels of deprivation on the IMD, as well as
on each type of deprivation individually.
Our conclusion is that wards with a high
IMD are thus fairly isolated and can be
found adjacent to wards with lower levels
of deprivation. In the case of Mangolpuri,
it is even next to ward 43 with the lowest
IMD in the Delhi Corporation area (0.16).
This suggests that it is feasible to target
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
intervention strategies through the ward
offices, the lowest political and administrative
level within municipal government.
Poverty—diversity in deprivation? The
second issue pertains to the question of the
extent to which each type of capital depriv-
ation contributes to the overall level of
poverty for households, and whether this
differs by ‘poverty hotspot’ or not. This is
important for the actions needing to be taken
by intervention programmes in order to
support households in their efforts to reduce
poverty. If, for instance, the highest levels
of deprivation are found to be in education
 MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1399

Figure 5. Individual types of deprivation and the multiple deprivation index in the hotspots
(wards 41 and 42) and their surrounding wards in Delhi

(i.e. high levels of illiteracy), intervention
programmes could focus on improving
access/provision of schooling. If poverty is
based on lack of access to clean drinking
water, sanitation or housing, interventions in
those areas would be needed. This question
was addressed by ‘looking up’ the table of
individual types of capital deprivation, which
contributed to the overall outcome in the
concerned wards.
Table 1 shows that, in each ward, the loading
of the various types of capital on the final
index is different. For example, in Mangolpuri
South, the lack of physical capital is less
important than in the other wards; the score
on financial capital deprivation is one of the
highest. Deprivation in social capital is lowest
in Gokul Puri, which has distinct deprivation
in the area of physical capital compared with
the other wards. The average loading of
deprivation in physical capital in these wards
is much lower than that of deprivation in the
areas of financial and human capital. The lack
of social capital lies between the two extremes
(see next section for details).
The results indicate that, even when the
overall outcomes of the IMD seem very
similar across wards, they hide a diversity
in combinations of deprivations. This is an
important result both for the analysis of

Table 1. ‘Hotspot’ wards in Delhi: lack of capital contributing to the index of multiple
deprivation
Social Human Financial Physical Multiple Percentage
Name capital capital capital capital deprivation inhabiting slums
Mangolpuri North 0.46 0.55 0.83 0.34 0.55 0.70
Gokul Puri 0.33 0.58 0.81 0.42 0.54 0.00
Kondli 0.44 0.57 0.79 0.38 0.54 23.55
Mangolpuri South 0.44 0.55 0.82 0.32 0.53 2.60

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008

1400 ISA BAUD ET AL.

livelihood strategies by households them- city averages is inadequate for understanding

selves, which will therefore differ according
to type of deprivation they have to deal with,
as well as for policy-makers/NGOs developing
intervention programmes, as they also need
to choose the most strategic deprivation to
tackle.
Table 2 shows the ranges for each type of
capital and the index of multiple deprivation
for all wards in Delhi. Financial capital shows
a larger range and more variation than the
other types of capital, followed by social
capital. Social capital and physical capital
are also quite skewed, since just few wards
experience a distinct lack of those capital
types. The table shows clearly the strong
skewedness of the various sorts of depriv-
ation, indicating that an analysis based on
and inefficient for targeting intervention
programmes.
Detailed hotspot analysis. Mangolpuri
North (ward 41) and Mangolpuri South (ward
42) have an index of multiple deprivation of
0.55 and 0.53 respectively. Despite the fact
that the percentage of inhabitants living in
slums is very small in these areas (Table 3),
households living in these wards face de-
privation across the board. For example, the
percentage of households having no sani-
tation is very high (93 per cent and 90 per
cent); about 45 per cent of the population are
from scheduled castes facing discrimination;
approximately 36 per cent of the people are
illiterate; just a quarter of all households

Table 2. Ranges, mean and skewness in capital deprivation for all wards in Delhi
Minimum Maximum Mean S.D. Skewness
Social 0.03 0.66 0.1669 0.11086 1.474
Human 0.37 0.67 0.4872 0.05734 0.302
Financial 0.20 0.89 0.5831 0.15133 0.012
Physical 0.01 0.44 0.1627 0.09255 1.006
Multiple deprivation 0.16 0.55 0.3500 0.08797 0.253

Table 3. Summary of deprivation levels and percentage of slum inhabitants in quintile of Delhi
wards with highest levels of IMD (N = 12)
Social Human Financial Physical Multiple Percentage
Name capital capital capital capital deprivation inhabiting slums
Mangolpuri North 0.46 0.55 0.83 0.34 0.55 0.70
Gokul Puri 0.33 0.58 0.81 0.42 0.54 0.00
Kondli 0.44 0.57 0.79 0.38 0.54 23.55
Mangolpuri South 0.44 0.55 0.82 0.32 0.53 2.60
Sultanpur Majra 0.40 0.58 0.81 0.25 0.51 0.00
Mustafabad 0.05 0.67 0.86 0.42 0.50 0.00
Jaffrabad 0.25 0.61 0.80 0.32 0.50 51.77
Harkesh Nagar 0.25 0.52 0.89 0.31 0.50 72.84
Rana Pratap Bagh 0.31 0.53 0.76 0.30 0.48 44.22
Burari 0.26 0.56 0.82 0.26 0.48 0.00
Karawal Nagar 0.17 0.57 0.81 0.37 0.48 0.00
Seema Puri 0.20 0.60 0.77 0.33 0.48 19.93

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008


have access to banking services; and only
10 per cent of households have large dom-
estic capital goods in the form of a scooter.29
In these two wards, population density is very
high, almost 40 000 persons per square km,
in contrast to the average population density
in the Delhi wards of some 7372 persons per
square km.
Kondli, a ward at the edge of the city, has
a high percentage of people living in slums
(25 per cent), with a population density of
13 571 persons per square km. Despite the
slums, this is significantly less densely popu-
lated than the Mongolpuri wards. This ward
has a large percentage of households without
latrines (80 per cent) and limited access to
water services; almost half the households
experience overcrowding in their home. In
terms of social capital, it is comparable with
Mangolpuri. It has a slightly higher score
in human capital than the Mangolpuri area
because the percentage of illiterate people
is lower (60 per cent). Kondli has slightly less
deprivation in terms of access to financial
services.
Gokul Puri is also located at the edge of the
city with a population density of 9946 per-
sons per square km. This ward has no slums
according to the census. However, its index
of multiple deprivation is fairly high, mainly
caused by deprivations in physical capital—
i.e. the high percentage of households using
hand-pumps (65 per cent), having no electri-
city and undergoing overcrowding. In this
ward, having no latrine is a minor problem. In
addition, about 40 per cent of the inhabitants
are illiterate and the number of main workers
is low. Regarding financial capital, only 29 per
cent access banking services and only 10 per
cent of the households have large domestic
capital goods.
A final question concerning diversity was
whether there were significant differences
between these four wards with the highest
levels of deprivations and the other wards in
the quintile with the highest IMD (Table 3).
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1401
Table 3 shows that the other wards in this
quintile have similar levels of deprivation
in physical, financial and human capital,
but they show a clear difference in the level
of deprivation in social capital (i.e. in the
other wards the percentage of SC people is
much lower). This suggests that higher
levels of deprivation are still closely linked
to discrimination on the basis of caste. The
extent of the slum population in these wards
does not correlate with the level of other
types of deprivation, suggesting that poverty
is not concentrated in slums.30
Figure 6 disaggregates the poverty index
into its component types of capital. This
spatial perspective shows the areas where
policy initiatives are required at ward level to
deal with existing high levels of deprivation.
It indicates graphically that different wards
have different types and levels of deprivation.
This kind of mapping can be an important
tool for local councillors and ward officers
to set priorities in their areas of jurisdiction,
as the type of deprivation can be clearly de-
marcated and its ranking indicated. It does
assume that financing for such policy is set at
the same spatial level, so that there is a match
between decision-making power, financing
and information concerning deprivation.31
Poverty in slums? The third question raised
was whether the electoral wards with the
highest levels of poverty correspond with the
other indicators of poverty, often used as a
proxy for determining areas where research
is to be done (methodological aspects) as well
as proxies for prioritising interventions and
to target ‘poor households’ (policy orienta-
tion). Important factors used in India for both
research methodology and policy-making
include the presence of slums and other
measures for poverty such as the number of
households below the poverty line (Bpl).32
The results from our analysis (Table 4) indi-
cate that all the individual types of capital are
significantly correlated with the overall IMD.33
1402 ISA BAUD ET AL.

Figure 6. Distribution of each type of capital deprivation in Delhi, by ward

Note: A higher index indicates higher levels of deprivation.

Table 4. Correlations of capital types, poverty, percentage of inhabitants in slums, percentage

of voters in 1997 and 2002, and households below the poverty line (Bpl) in Delhi
% Bpl
Social Human Financial Physical IMD Slums Votes ’97 Votes ’02 hhs
Social 1
Human 0.371*** 1
Financial 0.513*** 0.833*** 1
Physical 0.395*** 0.756*** 0.836*** 1
IMD 0.704*** 0.840*** 0.949*** 0.872*** 1
Slums 0.117 0.131 0.271*** 0.124 0.220** 1
Votes ’97 0.270*** 0.293*** 0.180** 0.156 0.255*** 0.164 1
Votes ’02 0.255*** 0.417*** 0.278*** 0.209** 0.325*** 0.197** 0.805*** 1
% Bpl hhs 0.105 0.232*** 0.229*** 0.334*** 0.266*** –0.164 0.051 0.009 1
***Correlation is significant at the 0.01 per cent level (2-tailed); ** correlation is significant at the
0.05 per cent level (2-tailed).

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008

 MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1403

This in itself is an indication that the different
types of capital are factors independent of
each other and are significant in their own
right in contributing to the overall level of
deprivation. The strongest correlation of the
index is found in deprivation in financial
access, followed in order of strength by phy-
sical deprivation, deprivation in human cap-
ital and finally social capital. This suggests
that priority areas for households and their
representatives include better access to fi-
nancial services, and better housing and
basic facilities, followed by education and
counteracting discrimination patterns.
The presence of slums had a much weaker
correlation with the poverty index; the cor-
relation was significant only at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed).34 This result was confirmed by
the comparison of the map of Delhi poverty
hotspots (based on the IMD) and the map of
Delhi wards with the highest percentage of
inhabitants in slums (Figure 7). It is clear
from the two maps that the highest levels of
poverty are not concentrated in wards with
the highest levels of slum areas in Delhi.35 In
order to cross-check these results in a third
way, the electoral wards in which more than
60 per cent of the inhabitants live in slums
were examined for their levels of poverty
(Table 5). In these wards, the index of mul-
tiple deprivation is in the range of 0.29–0.5
(highest IMD level is 0.55). These results sug-
gest that slums incorporate a mix of house-
holds with different levels of deprivation,
rather than being an area of concentration
of deprivation. This is interesting, because
it implies that focusing on upgrading slums
is realistic as a means of supporting house-
holds in climbing out of poverty, rather than
demolishing the existing assets of house-
holds there.
A strong correlation was found between
the index of deprivation and the number of
Bpl households in the electoral ward. This
shows a significant correlation at 0.266, with
physical and human deprivation forming the

Figure 7. Wards with the highest poverty levels according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation
(IMD) (map to the left) compared with wards with the highest percentage of inhabitants living
in slums (map to the right)

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008

1404 ISA BAUD ET AL.

most important components. There is no to be collected to do effective targeting (see

significant correlation between the number
of households below the poverty line and
the number of households living in slums.
This tends to confirm our results, based on
an income measure of poverty.
We have tested the correlation between
slums and the index of multiple deprivation
in three different ways to ensure its robust-
ness. Having found it confirmed, it has a
number of implications for poverty studies
and policy-making. For policy-makers, it
means that targeting slum areas is not a
sufficient measure to address deprivation
within the Delhi Corporation area. It is rather
the different types of deprivation and their
multiple effects that need to be recognised and
addressed at the electoral-ward level. This
means that different interventions can be
matched to the type and level of deprivation
found in each ward. It also means that the data
needed for addressing deprivation needs to
come from databases, such as the census (in
the first five years after it has been carried out),
and that other smaller datasets may need
Figure 2). For studies on urban poverty, it
implies that research methodologies will
have to be adjusted. The practice of targeting
slum areas for such studies will have to be
reconsidered, as it clearly misses a number
of strategic areas where poverty is higher
than in slums (in Delhi, rehabilitation areas
in particular).
Can the poor make their voices heard? The
final question raised was whether there are
clear differences between the extent to which
households experience deprivation and the
extent to which they are able to organise
themselves collectively and make their voice
known through electoral representation.
This has been put forward as an important
channel for improving accountability in local
governance by many authors (for example,
Harriss, 2005; Goetz and Gaventa, 2001).
Since 1992, when the Nagarpalika Act was
introduced, citizens have had the possibility
of electing councillors at their electoral-
ward level. Therefore the voting patterns for

Table 5. Summary for wards in which more than 60% of the inhabitants live in slums (N = 13)
Social Human Financial Physical Multiple Percentage
Ward name capital capital capital capital deprivation inhabiting slums
Harkesh Nagar 0.25 0.52 0.89 0.31 0.50 72.84
Manakpura 0.34 0.51 0.66 0.22 0.43 86.14
Subzi Mandi 0.24 0.46 0.54 0.13 0.34 87.21
Kishanganj 0.27 0.48 0.65 0.20 0.40 89.03
Paharganj 0.16 0.44 0.52 0.11 0.31 90.10
Qassabpura 0.19 0.56 0.72 0.15 0.41 95.17
Jama Masjid 0.06 0.61 0.85 0.34 0.46 96.22
Qadam Sharif 0.38 0.55 0.80 0.16 0.47 96.68
Bazar Sitaram 0.19 0.52 0.67 0.15 0.38 97.83
Darya Ganj 0.05 0.56 0.75 0.14 0.37 99.24
Chandni Chowk 0.12 0.43 0.51 0.11 0.29 100.00
Ballimaran 0.05 0.51 0.65 0.14 0.34 100.00
Sadar Bazar 0.14 0.50 0.62 0.14 0.35 100.00
Notes: In the wards in which all inhabitants live in slums, social capital and physical capital are
a minor problem. Bold indicates the values above the average of each variable within the
Corporation area.

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008


the local councillors in 1997 and 2002 were
analysed. The results given in Table 4 show
that voting for local councillors was strongly
correlated with wards with high levels of
deprivation in 1997 (0.255, significant at the
0.01 level, 2-tailed).36 In 2002, the correlation
became even stronger (0.325, significant at the
same level as before). The correlations with
deprivation in human (lack of education and
employment) (0.417) and financial capital
(0.278) were much stronger in 2002, whereas
the correlation with social capital became
somewhat weaker. The wards with high levels
of voting in 1997 continued this pattern in
2002, as indicated by the high correlation
between the voting levels in 1997 and 2002.
These results suggest that voting for council-
lors is taken seriously by the inhabitants of
wards experiencing multiple deprivation
and is increasingly seen as a channel for
making their voices heard among the politi-
cians. This does not imply that this channel is
successful, as the mandate for local councillors
is very limited.
Conclusions; Linking Multiple
Deprivation Mapping and Local
Governance
In this final section, we would like to link
the process of poverty mapping to that of
decision-making (Figure 2). Such decision-
making includes primarily citizens, their
representatives (councillors) and local gov-
ernment. However, professional planners
and academic researchers have an essential
role to play in providing the insight and data-
bases which can be utilised for more informed
and transparent decision-making. To begin
with, the index of multiple deprivation de-
veloped here makes it possible to indicate
the level of deprivation concentration at
the electoral-ward level, the lowest level of
public administration (to which funding is
allocated).
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1405
The patterns of poverty found in Delhi
show that hotspots of poverty are found at
the electoral-ward level, but do not cluster
together in larger areas of deprivation. There
is also diversity in the types of deprivation
experienced, with deprivation in human,
financial and physical capital existing in
several wards at different levels, but high
deprivation in social capital being gener-
ally spatially concentrated in a few areas
(Figure 3). This diversity makes it important
for the Corporation to have information
which identifies precisely the nature and
concentration of deprivation at electoral-
ward level before deciding on intervention
programmes and implementing them.
It is also clear that an assumption gener-
ally made about the nature of urban poverty
in Indian cities does not hold true for Delhi;
namely, that poverty is concentrated in
slums.37 The results show that multiple de-
privation are found in outlying areas of the
Corporation. There seems to be a connection
between rehabilitation areas and high levels
of poverty, which needs to be tested further.
This means that it is not sufficient for re-
searchers or policy-makers and staff imple-
menting urban programmes merely to target
slum areas. Researchers need to rework their
methodologies for doing poverty studies
based on this result, expanding their focus
to include other areas (rehabilitation areas,
for example). Policy-makers can fruitfully
apply GIS mapping methods, using existing
databases such as the census, to target wards
which need priority, because they experience
the highest cumulative levels of poverty. For
each ward, the criteria maps indicate which
specific type of deprivation occurs in that
ward, allowing the ward officer and coun-
cillors to identify specific areas of activities
which could reduce existing deprivation. It
also allows the Corporation to identify the
wards which should have priority in finance
allocation to address specific deprivations.
1406 ISA BAUD ET AL.
The instrument we have developed can be
used as a planning and management tool
for this purpose, including the prioritisation
of resource allocation.
Finally, voting patterns for local elections of
councillors indicate that residents see this as
an important channel for making their voices
heard, as the level of voting correlates strongly
with the level of deprivation experienced.
Making the results of GIS mapping of poverty
available to citizens, would make it possible
for residents to see whether the officers and
political representatives are setting targets
which match the situation in their areas.
They can monitor the activities and priorities
set by the Corporation and the city council,
and have information which can help to
minimise political redirection of priorities in
financing to ward-level activities. An essen-
tial ingredient in this process is that infor-
mation is available to all stakeholders and
that professional planners and researchers
support all groups in utilising the informa-
tion according to the right methodological
standards, guaranteeing transparency in the
process.
Notes
1. Moser coined the phrase ‘assets/vulnerability’
framework in her study of poor households
in Latin America; the more commonly used
terminology is the ‘livelihoods’ approach, which
has generally been used to study poverty in rural
areas (Ellis, 1998; de Haan, 2000; Bebbington,
1999; Carney, 1998). An exception to this rule
is the work by Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones (2002)
on urban livelihoods.
2. See the appendix for a further discussion on the
choices of indicators used in the index. Access
to open spaces is ambiguous because it would
require, for example, that households indicate
their distance to the nearest ‘public space’. This
type of information is not available from the
2001 Indian census.
3. Authors such as Ellis (2000) and Chambers
(1992) working in rural areas; and Moser (1998)
and Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones (2002) for urban
areas.
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
4. The index is based on a household perspective
—i.e. opportunities and constraints experi-
enced by household members. This implies
that the institutional context is reflected by
the ‘structures of constraint’ experienced by
households. In the area of employment, for
instance, around 83 per cent of the Indian
workforce work in unregulated employment
—excluding agriculture (Chen et al., 2004).
This means that the risks inherent in low
wages and insecurity of employment are
compensated by the number of family mem-
bers working—i.e. spreading the risks. For
a further discussion of the choices in other
indicators, please see the Appendix.
5. A second paper written since has compared
the results of the index of multiple deprivation
for Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai. The results
from the other cities do not contradict the
findings from Delhi (see Baud et al., 2007).
6. This means that cities with contrasting situ-
ations are more useful for our type of analysis
than cities with high levels of poverty across
the whole population. If the majority of the
urban population is poor, intervention pro-
grammes should be targeted at the city as a
whole.
7. If poverty is widespread throughout cities,
interventions also need to be implemented
across the board.
8. We do not include steps (1) and (8), as this
project was not set up from the beginning with
local government organisations. However,
the results of the mapping exercise are being
discussed with local government officials in
the follow-up to this study.
9. The UNDP has also included a human and
poverty index in the Human Development
Report 2005, and has used the HDI in a new
way by looking at the extent to which the
various indicators of the index have improved
at country level, as well as the inequalities
seen within countries (UNDP, 2005).
10. The IMD 2004 is a weighted area-level aggre-
gation of the specific domains of income
deprivation, employment deprivation, health
deprivation and disability, education, skills
and training deprivation, barriers to housing
and services, living environment depriv-
ation and crime, which resembles the assets/
vulnerability approach that forms the basis of
the research presented in this paper.

11. The national sample surveys are based on fairly
‘thin’ samples, so that disaggregation to within-
city levels is not feasible (Thamarajakshi,
2003).
12. The Census instructions indicate to enumer-
ators that they should include slum areas; they
do so, including slum areas which are not
recognised. They also include people living
on the street; in section B-Enumeration, they
indicate how the ‘houseless population’ is to
be reached.
Houseless population: Houseless popu-
lation too will have to be covered. In some
areas particularly in some cities there may
be considerable number of pavement
dwellers. Arrangements will have to be
made for covering them through a one
night enumeration by appointing special
enumerators for the purpose. During the
general enumeration, the enumerators
should try to locate the areas where there
may be concentration of houseless popu-
lation so that on the census night the
charge officer may make arrangements
for deputing adequate number of enumer-
ators for single night enumeration. Social
workers may also be pressed into service
for this purpose. Adequate arrangements
will also have to be made for protection
and safety of the enumeration agency on
such duty. Policemen accompanying
the enumeration parties on single night
enumeration sometimes had the effect
of driving away the pavement dwellers
to other areas thus missing from enumer-
ation. Policemen should only be kept in
reserve at convenient centres or may patrol
the areas in vehicles in order to meet any
emergency call (http://www.censusindia.
net/census2001/history/censusoperation.
html).
13. The ‘dollar a day’ measure introduced by the
World Bank is the best-known example of this
approach.
14. The caloric norms are 2400 calories and 2100
calories per capita per day respectively for
rural and urban areas. Distinctions are also
made between prices at the state level (see
Thamarajakshi, 2003).
15. This type of approach has been discussed
extensively in terms of its methodological
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1407
difficulties (see, for example, Sundaram and
Tendulkar, 2003).
16. See also recent discussions on poverty
monitoring (de Haan and Padhi, 2003).
17. It is not correct either for Chennai and Mumbai
(see Baud et al., 2007).
18. It has also the unique distinction of pro-
viding civic services to rural and urban
villages, Resettlement Colonies, regularised
unauthorised colonies, JJ Squatter Settle-
ments, slum ‘basties’ and private ‘katras’.
19. Few people live in these areas, so they do not
make a difference to the totals. Each of the
two areas excluded, covers only 3 per cent of
the total physical area of the National Capital
District.
20. If the wider agglomeration were to be taken
into account, it would require collecting data
from each municipality separately, dis-
aggregated to the electoral-ward level.
21. In 1995, an Act for Delhi prohibited setting
up a Metropolitan Planning Committee for
Delhi, mandated for all cities.
22. The indicators selected were matched to the
results of our household surveys in three
metropolitan cities: Delhi, Mumbai and
Chennai.
23. Natural capital as a separate type of capital
was not included, because it concerns either
access to basic natural resources such as water
(included in basic services), land (included in
housing) and clean air (not included in the
census, as well as needing measurement at
neighbourhood level), or access to collective
natural capital in the form of green spaces
like parks, etc. Again, these indicators would
need to be measured either at neighbour-
hood level (to establish provision) or the indi-
vidual household’s access to them, which is not
available from the census. In future studies,
this should be an area which is included.
24. The Registrar General (and the local govern-
ment departments providing disaggegated
tables) refuse this information, because they
are afraid that it will be misused to target areas
with high concentrations of such popula-
tions, by groups intent on increasing religious
conflicts.
25. This is not to suggest that SC households do
not have social capital—obviously, they have
social networks within their own caste (jati)
groups (bonding capital). It is to suggest
1408 ISA BAUD ET AL.
that they find it hard to access linking social
capital, which would provide them with access
to networks of people with higher levels of
entitlement. The category of scheduled castes
is the largest group discriminated against—
about 30–40 per cent of the population in
many localities. Therefore, we have captured
the largest group in our analysis.
26. We have not combined it with the number
of marginal workers, as together they would
add up to 100 per cent of the workforce in
each household. Using only the main worker
together with the number of dependents
indicates how far the income of the earners
has to stretch within the household.
27. The census counts workers not at the ‘firm
level’, but at the household level. So respond-
ents working in informal economic activities
are counted when they indicate which job
they carry out (including illegal work, street-
based work and domestically sub-contracted
work).
28. Earlier work in gender studies has made clear
the importance of each person’s contributions
to household income, the pooling systems
and the expenditure systems (Baud, 1992;
Epstein et al., 1998).
29. The Delhi Development Authority constructs
resettlement colonies with no internal toilets,
because the total floor space per household
is limited to 18 square metres (personal
communication).
30. This correlation was also found in Chennai
and Mumbai in our comparative poverty mapp-
ing in those cities (see Baud et al., 2007).
31. Earlier research in Mumbai shows that this
is only very partially the case, with only
6 per cent of the Municipal budget going to
the ward level.
32. Slums are defined in the census as
All specified areas notified as slums by
State or local government under ‘Slum
Acts’, all areas recognised by state and
local government but not designated as
such, and a compact area of at least 300
population or about 60–70 households
of poorly built congested tenements, in
unhygienic environment, usually with
inadequate infrastructure and lacking in
proper sanitary and drinking water facili-
ties (Census of India, 2001).
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
33. Pearson rho correlations ranged from 0.704
to 0.949, significant at the 0.001 level two-
tailed.
34. This correlation is for all wards in Delhi.
35. In only one electoral ward is there a correlation
between high poverty levels and slums—
Harkeshnagar, which is electoral ward 66.
36. It was correlated more specifically with de-
privation in human and social capital.
37. Our paper comparing Delhi with two other
metropolitan cities finds that it holds true for
them as well.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of the Indo-Dutch Pro-
gramme on Social Sciences is gratefully acknow-
ledged. Such long-term financing of collaborative
programmes is an essential ingredient of build-
ing up international research networks between
North and South.
References
Baud, I. S. A. (1992) Forms of Production and
Women’s Labour: Gender Aspects of Indus-
trialisation in India and Mexico. New Delhi:
Sage Publications.
Baud, I. S. A. (2002) North–South research
partnerships: an institutions approach, in:
J. Bouma and H. Opschoor (Eds) North–
South Research Co-operation: Comprehensive
Approaches to Development and Innovation,
pp. 51–88. Amsterdam: KNAW.
Baud, I. S. A., Pfeffer, K. and Sridharan, N. (2007)
Mapping urban poverty for local governance
in three Indian mega-cities. Paper presented
to the Conference on New Forms of Urban
Governance: Cases and Perspectives from India,
International Institute for Asian Studies,
Amsterdam, January.
Baulch, R. (1996) Neglected trade-offs in poverty
measurement, IDS Bulletin, 27, pp. 36–43.
Beall, J. (2002) Living in the present, investing
in the future: household security among the
poor, in: C. Rakodi and T. Lloyd-Jones (Eds)
Urban Livelihoods, A People-centred Approach to
Reducing Poverty, pp. 71–87. London: Earthscan
Publications.
Bebbington, A. (1999) Capitals and capabilities:
a framework for analyzing peasant viability,

rural livelihoods and poverty, World Develop-
ment, 27(12), pp. 2021–2044.
Beinat, E. and Nijkamp, P. (1998) Multicriteria
Evaluation for Land Use Management. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic.
Beteille, A. (1983) Equality and Inequality. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Beteille, A. (2003) Poverty and inequality,
Economic and Political Weekly, 38(42), pp.
4455–4464.
Bigman, D. and Fofack, H. (2000) Geographical
targeting for poverty allevation: an intro-
duction to the special issue, The World Bank
Economic Review, 14, pp. 129–145.
Boyle, P. and Alvanides, S. (2004) Assessing de-
privation in English inner city areas: making the
case for EC funding for Leeds city, in: J. Stillwell
and G. Clarke (Eds) Applied GIS and Spatial
Analysis, pp. 111–136. London: Wiley.
Breman, J. (1986) Of Peasants, Migrants and
Paupers: Rural Labour Circulation and Cap-
italist Production in West India. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Breman, J. (2004) The Making and Unmaking
of an Industrial Working Class: Sliding Down
to the Bottom of the Labour Hierarchy in
Ahmedabad, India. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Carney, D. (1998) Implementing the sustainable
rural livelihoods approach, in: D. Carney (Ed.)
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Con-
tributions Can We Make?, pp. 3–23. London:
Department for International Development.
Cavill, S. and Sohail, M. (2004) Strengthening
accountability for urban services, Environment
and Urbanization, 16(1), pp. 155–170.
Census of India (2001) Metadata and brief
highlights on slum population (http://www.
censusindia.gov.in/Metadata/Metada.htm).
Chen, M. A., Vanek, J. and Carr, M. (2004) Main-
streaming informal employment and gender
in poverty reduction: a handbook for policy-
makers and other stakeholders. Commonwealth
Secretariat, London (http://www.wiego.org/
publications/Mainstreaming%20Informal%
20Employment%20and%20Gender%20in%
20Poverty%20Reduction.htm).
Davis, B. (2000) Choosing a method for poverty
mapping. Working Paper, FAO, Rome.
Deichmann, U. (1999) Geographic aspects of
inequality and poverty (www.worldbank.org/
poverty/inequal/index.htm).
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1409
Deolalikar, A. (2005) Attaining the Millennium
Development Goals in India: How Likely and
What Will It Take to Reduce Infant Mortality,
Child Malnutrition, Gender Disparities and
Hunger-Poverty and to Increase School Enroll-
ment and Completion? Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
DETR (Department of Environment, Transport
and the Regions) (1998) Index of local depriv-
ation: a summary of results. DETR, London.
DETR (2000) Measuring multiple deprivation at
the small area level: the indices of deprivation
2000. Regeneration Research Summary No. 37,
DETR, London.
Devas, N. (2004) Urban Governance, Voice and
Poverty in the Developing World. London:
Earthscan.
Drèze, J. and Sen, A. (2002) India: Development
and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dupont, V. (2000) Delhi, Urban Space and Human
Destinies. Delhi: Manohar.
Ellis, F. (1998) Household strategies and rural
livelihood diversification, Journal of Develop-
ment Studies, 35(1), pp. 1–38.
Ellis, F. (2000) Rural Livelihoods and Diversity
in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Environment and Urbanization (2004) Special
Issue: Participatory Governance 16(1).
Epstein, T. S., Suryanarayana, A. P. and Thim-
megowda, T. (1998) Village Voices: Forty
Years of Rural Transformation in South India.
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Goetz, A. and Gaventa, J. (2001) Bringing citizen
voice and client focus into service delivery.
Working Paper No. 138, Institute of Develop-
ment Studies, University of Sussex.
Haan, L. de (2000) Globalization, localization
and sustainable livelihood, Sociologia Ruralis,
40(3), pp. 339–365.
Haan, L. de and Padhi, A. (2003) Monitoring
poverty in Orissa, Economic and Political Weekly,
38(50), pp. 5243–5246.
Harris, R. and Longley, P. (2004) Targeting clusters
of deprivation within cities, in: J. Stillwell and
G. Clarke (Eds) Applied GIS and Spatial Analysis,
pp. 89–110. London: Wiley.
Harriss, J. (1982) Character of an urban economy:
‘small-scale’ production and labour markets
in Coimbatore, Economic and Political Weekly,
17(23/24), pp. 945–954, 993–1002.
1410 ISA BAUD ET AL.
Harriss, J. (2001) Depoliticizing Development:
The World Bank and Social Capital. New Delhi:
Left Word.
Harriss, J. (2005) Political participation, represen-
tation and the urban poor: findings from re-
search in Delhi, Economic and Political Weekly,
40(11), pp. 1041–1054.
Henninger, N. and Snel, M. (2002) Where are
the Poor? Experiences with the development
and use of poverty maps. World Resources
Institute Washington, DC, UNEP/GRID-
Arendal, Arendal, Norway (http://pdf.wri.
org/wherepoor.pdf).
Holstrom, M. (1984) Industry and Inequality:
The Social Anthropology of Indian Labour.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ITC (International Institute for Geo-information
Science and Earth Observation (2005) ILWIS
version 3.3. ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Janssen, R. (1992) Multi-objective Decision Support
for Environmental Management. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic.
Krishna, A. (2003) Falling into poverty: the other
side of poverty reduction, Economic and Pol-
itical Weekly, 38(6), pp. 533–542.
Krishna, A. (2004) Understanding poverty: the
stages-of-progress method, Economic and
Political Weekly, 39(39), pp. 121–136.
Kundu, A. (1993) In the Name of the Urban Poor:
Access to Basic Amenities. New Delhi: Sage.
Kundu, A. and Mahadevia, D. (2002) Poverty
and Vulnerability in a Globalising Metropolois
Ahmedabad. New Delhi: Manak Publishers.
Labbate, G., Jamburia, L. and Mirzashvili, G.
(2004) Improving targeting of poor and extremely
poor families in Georgia: the construction of
poverty maps at the district level. United Nations
Development Programme, Georgia.
Lemma, T., Sliuzas, R. and Kuffer, M. (2006) A par-
ticipatory approach to monitoring slum condi-
tions: an example from Ethiopia, Participatory
Learning and Action, 54, pp. 58–66.
Limaco, J. (1997) Multicriteria Analysis. Berlin:
Springer Verlag.
Malczewski, J. (1999) GIS and Multi-criteria
Decision Analysis. New York: John Wiley and
Sons Inc.
Masser, I. (2001) Managing our urban future:
the role of remote sensing and geographic
information systems, Habitat International,
25, pp. 503–512.
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
McGee, R. and Brock, K. (2001) From poverty
assessment to policy change: processes, actors
and data. Working Paper No. 133, Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Mitlin, D. and Satterthwaite, D. (Eds) (2004) Em-
powering Squatter Citizen: Local Government,
Civil Society and Urban Poverty Reduction.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Moser, C. (1998) The asset vulnerability frame-
work: reassessing urban poverty reduction stra-
tegies, World Development, 26(1), pp. 1–19.
Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Sha, M. K. and Petesch,
P. (2000) Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear
Us? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
NCAER (National Council of Applied Economic
Research) Consumer market demographics in
urban India. NCAER, New Delhi.
Noble, M., Wright, G., Dibben, C. et al. (2004) The
English indices of deprivation 2004 (revised).
Report to the Office of the Deputy Prime Min-
ister. Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, London.
Noble, M., Wright, G., Smith, G. and Dibben, C.
(2006) Measuring multiple deprivation at the
small-area level, Environment and Planning A,
38, pp. 169–185.
Orford, S. (2004) Identifying and comparing
changes in the spatial concentrations of urban
poverty and affluence: a case study of inner
London, Computers, Environment and Urban
Systems, 28, pp. 701–717.
Petrucci, A., Salvati, N. and Seghieri, C. (2003) The
application of a spatial regression model to the
analysis and mapping of poverty. Environmental
and Natural Resources Series No. 7, FAO,
Rome.
Planning Commission, Government of India
(2001) India: National Human Development
Report 2001. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Rakodi, C. with Lloyd-Jones, T. (Eds) (2002)
Urban Livelihoods, A People-centred Approach
to Reducing Poverty. London: Earthscan
Publications.
Saith, A. (2005) Poverty lines versus the poor:
method versus meaning, Economic and Pol-
itical Weekly, 40(43), pp. 4601–4610.
Satterthwaite, D. (1997) Urban poverty: recon-
sidering its scale and nature, IDS Bulletin,
28(2), pp. 9–23.
Satterthwaite, D. (2004) The under-estimation
of urban poverty in low and middle-income

nations. Working Paper No. 14, Poverty
Reduction in Urban Areas Series, International
Institute for Environment and Development,
London.
Schenk, H. (2001) Living in India’s Slums: A Case
Study of Bangalore. New Delhi: Manohar.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York:
Anchor Books.
Sharifi, M. A., Herwijnen, M. van, Toorn, W. van
den (2004) Introduction to multiple criteria
decision analysis. International Institute for
Geo-information Science and Earth Observ-
ation, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Sharma, K. (2000) Rediscovering Dharavi: Stories
from Asia’s Largest Slum. Australia: Penguin
Books.
Sivaramakrishnan, K. C., Kundu, A. and Singh,
B. N. (2005) A Handbook of Urbanization in
India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Streefkerk, H. (1981) Too little to live on, too much
to die on: employment in small-scale indus-
tries in rural South Gujarat, Economic and
Political Weekly, 11 and 25 April, pp. 721–728,
769–780.
Sundaram, K. and Tendulkar, S. (2003) Poverty
in India in the 1990s: an analysis of change in
15 major states, Economic and Political Weekly,
38(14), pp. 1385–1393.
Tendulkar, S. D. (1983) Economic inequality in
an Indian perspective, in: A. Beteille (Ed.)
Equality and Inequality: Theory and Practice,
pp. 98–113. Delhi: Oxfrod University Press.
Thamarajakshi, R. (2003) Growth and poverty
in India in the 1990s, Economic and Political
Weekly, 38(17), pp. 1721–1725.
UNDP (United Nations Development Pro-
gramme) (2005) Human Development Report
2005. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wit, J. de (1996) Poverty, Policy and Politics
in Madras Slums: Dynamics of Survival,
Gender and Leadership. New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Appendix
The Census data which comprise the basic dataset
used in this study, cover all income categories and
are therefore uniquely suited to compare differ-
ences across income categories. Thus, it is not
limited by a sole focus on low-income or slum
areas. However, it was not designed with the
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
MAPPING URBAN POVERTY IN DELHI 1411
qualitative approach to poverty which we have
used in mind. In order to design the poverty
index for this study, the census was scanned for
indicators which would contribute to an under-
standing of each of the types of capital forming
part of livelihood strategies. In order to validate
the indicators used, fieldwork-based household
surveys were carried out in each of the cities
concerned (Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai) and
were analysed to select those indicators from
the census which distinguish best between the
income groups. This follows the pattern of pov-
erty mapping which is followed by the inter-
national agencies, such as the World Bank and
the UNDP (Henninger and Snel, 2002). It fol-
lows the qualitative UNDP approach, based on
an index composed of different types of capital/
deprivation, which are aggregated into a multiple
deprivation index. This approach was preferred
to the World Bank approach, which is based
on “expenditures and small area estimation”
(Henninger and Snel, 2002, p. 10). In Britain, a
similar approach has been used for identifying
small areas of poverty within Britain (see Noble
et al. 2006).
The following section describes the way the
household surveys were carried out and the
selection process of indicators from the results
of the surveys.
The household surveys were carried out in
electoral wards selected through a stratified
sampling system, in which the aim was to select
wards with a mixed-income population. A basic
differentiation was made between areas with
high-income groups (HIG), middle-income
groups (MIG) and low-income groups (LIG) from
authorised and unauthorised slums. Unauthor-
ised slums were specifically selected for the sur-
vey in order to incorporate households which
access services, infrastructure and employment
through non-formal means.
In each city, two major areas were selected,
from within which electoral wards were further
selected. In Chennai, the survey was conducted
in Zones 1 and 9 (in four wards 3, 13, 133 and 141).
Of the total 10 Zones, these two Zones were
selected on the basis of their characteristics—
Zone 1 in the north of Chennai is characterised by
industrial activities and lower-income areas and
Zone 9 in the south of Chennai is characterised
by increasing middle-class development. The
1412 ISA BAUD ET AL.
criteria for selecting the wards was their mixed
character, with wards being included with more
or less equal distribution of all income categories.
Basic information about the wards was gathered
through discussions with the Zonal Officers
about ward characteristics; the areas for survey
were selected on the advice of ward officers and
councillors and knowledgeable experts. A total
of 640 households were interviewed, equally
distributed across categories in each city.
In Delhi, two zones were selected; one more in
the central zone of Delhi and the other in the east
part of Delhi. In each of the four wards, 160 house-
holds (7,8, 28 and 33 or Okhla and Srinivaspuri,
Keshavpuram, Rohini)) were selected, with
equal numbers across income categories, based
on a random selection of households through
the electoral list. A total of 640 households were
interviewed.
In Mumbai, two administrative zones were
chosen with a diversifi ed population; M-east
and F-south. Within those two zones, specific
electoral wards were chosen for the household
survey, with a total of 600 households. The
selection of the electoral wards was based on
prior knowledge and studies by TISS and IDPAD
project staff, in conjunction with knowledgeable
local administrative officials.
The second step was to select criteria for our
index from each of the types of capital or areas
of deprivation, which discriminated across all
household groups found in the city surveys and
on which information could be found in the
2001 census.
In terms of human capital, the census provided
information on education and employment, but
not on health issues. In order to indicate health
indirectly, we calculated the dependency ratio—i.e.
between the number of working members and
those who do not work (too young, too old, too
ill, unable to find work). For education, we used
the indicator of illiteracy. For employment, the
indicator could be directly derived from the census
data. The criteria of dependency and education
were measured by use of a constructed scale, in
line with the results of the household surveys
across the three cities.
In terms of physical capital, ownership of the
house was not used, because ownership was
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE on November 27, 2008
View publication stats
found both among slum households and in
high-income groups. The type of house owned
of course was very different, but the categories
of housing found were rather varied across
cities, which made it difficult to derive a clear
indicator from this factor. In Chennai, the use
of apartments was much higher among middle-
and high-income groups (MIGs, HIGs), whereas
in Delhi, apartments were much less commonly
found. Therefore, an indicator indicating the
extent of overcrowding was chosen as an alter-
native. The indicators relating to basic services
(water, sanitation and electricity) were the next
set of criteria for physical capital. The household
surveys showed that the majority of households
across categories have electricity, with the excep-
tion of poor households in unauthorised slums.
Therefore this indicator was included in our
index. The criteria of no indoor sanitation and
households using community handpumps were
the items which discriminated best between slum
household groups and other neighbourhood
groups.
Finally, financial capital contains two types of
item. The census provides only access to banking
services as a criterion, so this was used. However,
it concerns formal services, which do not reflect
properly the methods used by many households
for obtaining credit. The extent of financial cap-
ital is also reflected by the ownership of capital
goods, either through full ownership or suffici-
ently established credit for hire-purchase. The
household surveys included five types of capital
goods; the results were analysed and the item
which discriminated most between all groups
was selected. The five types included two types
of telephone, cars, bicycles and motorised
scooters. The last one was selected; information
on households assets was available from the 2001
census for the first time.
Several criteria from our index are not the
‘classic’ criteria of income or consumption pat-
terns. The difficulties of analysing with any degree
of reliability income and consumption patterns
(or converting those to money-metric terms) led
us to choose criteria which are less susceptible
to over or underestimation by respondents and
discriminate across all households in different
types of neighbourhood (see Saith, 2005).