Performance Assessment of Governance in Indian Smart City Development

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-6099.htm
Performance assessment of Performance

assessment of
governance in Indian smart governance
city development
Kranti Kumar Maurya and Arindam Biswas
Department of Architecture and Planning, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee, India Received 10 April 2019
Revised 4 August 2019
27 November 2019
26 March 2020
Abstract 29 April 2020
Purpose – India is set to develop a hundred smart cities under Smart Cities Mission (SCM). New Special Accepted 30 April 2020
Purpose Vehicles (SPV) established at the city level are developing these cities. Cities around the globe do not
use this system for city development yet. SCM was launched in 2015, and these companies are working in some
of these cities since 2016. This paper is an attempt to investigate the traditional system and SPV system with
global best practices.
Design/methodology/approach – The method for investigation includes developing a framework with the
governance principles (defined by the United Nations Development Programme) and measurement parameters.
By this framework, the performance of these governance systems can be measured/ranked; analysing these
results give the nodal points where one system is better than the other and highlighting features; those can be
incorporated to develop an alternative comprehensive system.
Findings – The new service delivery mechanism (SPV) is still adapting and competing with the traditional
system. There have been some positives as well as some criticism for SPVs in comparison to the traditional
system.
Research limitations/implications – The data for analysis is mostly from secondary sources and
structured official interviews. The cases selected for the analysis are cities from different states of India and
some leading global cities.
Practical implications – Smart cities development is still going on. As the analysis findings suggest, it needs
a more efficient and converged implementation mechanism.
Originality/value – The analysis framework is solely developed for this paper. The paper compares five of
the Indian traditional city development process, SCM implementation strategy and leading city development
processes around the world.
Keywords Governance principles, Smart cities mission, Special purpose vehicle, Urban local government,
Governance performance parameters
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
India is predicted to become 50% urbanised by the year 2030. Urbanisation in India is not an
externally induced phenomenon due to economic growth but an integral part of the overall
growth process. Even though home to a minority citizen, urban India contributes more than
2/3rd of the gross domestic product of the country.
On the one hand, the cities are contributing to the economic upliftment of the country; on
the other hand; it fails to maintain the minimum standard of living and quality of life. Further,
the long-standing quest to achieve equitable and inclusive society, and develop urban
resilience elude Indian cities significantly. Formidable challenges exist in setting the urban
trajectory on a path that is sustainable for the long-term growth (Bhattacharya et al., 2015).
The government considered the Smart Cities Mission (SCM) as one of the answers to these
challenges. The government of India is set to develop 100 cities as smart cities through the
Smart and Sustainable Built
NBCC (India) Limited, formerly known as National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., funded the Environment
research under the project “Framework to manage construction and governance of smart city building © Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-6099
in India”. DOI 10.1108/SASBE-04-2019-0045
SASBE SCM. Much of these developments comes as retrofitting the existing cities rather than the
green-field development. The realisation of a smart city depends on the smart and quick
transformation of ideas on the ground. A combined effort from various actors from the three
tiers of government and several private enterprises are developing the smart cities. However,
all these efforts require superior planning, design and coordination among all these actors.
Otherwise, it is impossible to achieve faster, efficient and superior quality in city development
and management. The governance structure carefully guides planning, construction and
management of smart city development. Smart city guidelines introduced by the government
addresses some specific governance modifications and reforms for its implementation. A new
implementation architecture namely, Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) is established to
implement the SCM. Each city selected to be a part of this mission is required to establish an
SPV to implement smart city projects.
The idea of smart cities development is not an entirely new initiative. New cities such as
GIFT city, Palava and Dholera were the earliest examples of smart city initiatives, developed
with the help of the state governments and private enterprises. The government anticipated
an encouraging response to bolster the country’s economic prosperities through newer
opportunities of investments associated with the SCM. The SCM guidelines consider the
GIFT city as an example for the Greenfield developments.
The focus of this research paper is on assessing smart city implementation mechanism
(Special Purpose Vehicle) in India concerning the traditional governance system in India
(Urban Local Bodies) and international cases (global examples). International comparison
helps the research to understand and compare the Indian cities with that of the global best
practices. Objectives of this article are the following:
(1) To find principles and parameters for the assessment of performance.
(2) To establish a method for comparison of mechanisms.
(3) To assess and interpret the comparison results.
The research paper focuses on the city development processes and considers five cities from
five different states of India to investigate the smart city development process. These cities
are Bhubaneswar in Odisha state, New Delhi in Delhi state, Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh state,
Pune in Maharashtra state and Surat in Gujarat state (Figure 1). Since India has a very diverse
kind of governance, state-wise and considering each one, in particular, is difficult in the
limited research time.
2. Methodology
The paper analyses the governance systems by comparing them on the principles of good
governance. The principles of good governance are assimilated from the report of the
second administrative reforms commission of the government of India. The second
administrative reforms commission was an inquiry commission set up by the president of
India in 2005 to prepare a detailed blueprint to revamp the public administration system.
The primary aim of the commission was to suggest measures for a proactive, responsive,
accountable, sustainable and efficient administration at all levels of the Indian government.
The principles consist of several parameters to assess governance systems (SARC, 2007).
As per the second administrative reforms commission, an institutional set-up that ensures
good governance usually has the following principles: accountability, consensus
orientation, effectiveness and efficiency, equity, participation, responsiveness, the rule of
law, strategic vision and transparency. The principles of good governance can be defined as
the following:
Accountability of decision-makers to the public and other stakeholders.
Performance
assessment of
governance
Figure 1.
Location of the selected
Indian cities for this
analysis
Consensus orientation is a broad mediated consensus for best interests of the public, on
policies and procedures.
Effectiveness and efficiency is the best use of resources.
Equity is equal opportunities to all.
Participation means a voice in decision-making to all directly or indirectly through other
institutions.
Responsiveness for service to all the stakeholders.
Rule of Law is fair legal frameworks and laws.
Strategic Vision includes Long-term plan/vision considering traditional, cultural and
social perspective.
Transparency represents free/open information of processes and institutions directly to
the stakeholders.
SASBE Laws, acts, policies, guidelines, reports and institutional processes are the basis for the
selection of parameters to evaluate types of urban governance. The research considers three
governance types – namely the traditional urban local government as per the 74th
Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) [1], the SCM’s SPV mechanism and the governance
systems of the selected global cities. The cases from India are selected based on their
performance in the SCM, their varied geographical location across India. The performance
indicators are procured from the government’s annual evaluation ranking reports. The
reasons for such selection is to reduce regional biases among the sample cities. The same
criterion is considered to select the global cases.
Additionally, the authors also refer to the relevance to the research area and the strategies
adopted by each city towards becoming smart cities. The selected cities, namely
Bhubaneswar, New Delhi, Pune, Surat and Varanasi, are among the notable performers of
smart city project implementation. The authors selected London (the United Kingdom), New
York (the United States of America) and Johannesburg (South Africa) for comparative
analysis.
2.1 Scales of measurement for this analysis

Scales of measurement refer to how variables/numbers are defined and categorised. Each
scale of measurement poses specific properties that in turn, determine the appropriateness for
the use of individual statistical analyses. The four scales of measurement are nominal,
ordinal, interval and ratio. (Green, 1970)
Authors uses two types of statistical scales: nominal and ratio in this analysis. Most of the
parameters respond to yes or no. Therefore, the scale of measurement for parameters are
dichotomous and nominal. For example, in a sample question that enquire about the
provision for a state spatial planning board with the administrative power to implement
planning policies and reforms for the state, and whether it is the final approving authority for
regional and municipal development plans?
This parameter has two parts. The answer can be yes for both or yes for one or no for both.
If yes is the answer for both parts, then score will be 10. If one part has yes as an answer and
another has no, then score will be five. If both parts’ answer is no, then score will be zero. Some
parameters have numerical values. The ratio scale applies to those parameters. For example,
the parameter that seeks response on the local government’s percentage of own revenues to
the total expenditure, the answer can be in between zero and 100. In this case, the response
can be calculated as a proportion of 10 i.e. 50% gets 5 out of 10. Any value above 100% is
valued as 10.
2.2 Parameters’ selection and scoring methodology

The literature study is the basis for the selection of parameters. The parameter for the
analysis are collated from the literature on governance systems (Nair et al., 2017). The
documents include the United Nations Development Programme report (UNDP, 2015),
United Nations Human Settlement Programme report (UNHSP, 2009), Indian smart cities’
standards (MoUD, 2015c), key performance indicators for smart cities (Bosch et al., 2016),
Smart Cities Ranking for European cities (Giffinger, 2007), smart cities comparisons
(Anthopoulos et al., 2015), alternative approaches for master planning (SPA, 2011), smart
cities performance modelling (Lombardi et al., 2012) and financial health indicators for
municipal corporations.
The parameters are collated from the mix of quantitative and qualitative properties. Each
parameter poses a strong network with the governance systems. The authors shortlist
parameters based on the data availability and quantifiability from the comprehensive list
of parameters generated by the literature study. The data is procured from secondary sources
for the analysis. The authors selectively (in the city of Varanasi and Pune) verified the Performance
secondary datasets with the city officials by conducting semi-structured interviews. The assessment of
values of each parameter are aggregated and normalised by taking the mean of all
the parameters of a particular principle. Crucial parameters are further divided into
governance
sub-parameters.
Table 1 details out the selection of a particular parameter in order of governance
principles. Each parameter refers to one governance principle such as laws, policies,
institutions, institutional processes and implementation. The parameters also consider
existence, hierarchy, timeliness and compliance.
A sample of the scoring methodology is presented in the table below Table 2:
2.3 Data sources for analysis

The data sources for the paper are acts, published reports, policies, guidelines, development
plans (DPs), city government websites, and laws. Following sections details the data sources
used in this assessment. The sources refer to the eight selected cities for development plans,
acts and other official documents listed below.
Development plans
The following development plans have been referred for this analysis:
(1) Bhubaneswar Vision 2030 – Comprehensive Development Plan for Bhubaneswar
Development Plan Area (IITKGP, 2010)
(2) Delhi Master Plan 2021 (DDA, 2007)
(3) Draft Pune Development Plan for Old PMC Limit (2007–2027) (PMC, 2007)
(4) Surat Development Plan 2035 (SUDA, 2017)
(5) Varanasi Master Plan 2031 (VDA, 2011)
(6) The London Plan (GLA, 2015)
(7) One New York (TCoNY, 2015)
(8) Spatial Development Framework 2040 (CoJMM, 2016)
Websites of city governments
Author has referred the following websites of the city government for the data required in
this analysis:
(1) Bhubaneswar – http://bmc.gov.in/ (BMC, 2019)
(2) New Delhi – http://www.ndmc.gov.in/ (NDMC, 2019)
(3) Pune – https://pmc.gov.in/en (PMC, 2014)
(4) Surat – https://www.suratmunicipal.gov.in/ (SMC, 2015)
(5) Varanasi – https://www.nnvns.org (VMC, 2019)
(6) London – https://www.london.gov.uk/ (MoL, 2019)
(7) New York – http://www1.nyc.gov/ (TCoNY, 2016)
(8) Johannesburg – https://joburg.org.za/ (CoJ, 2013)
Town and country planning acts
The following acts are the primary planning and development acts in the respective
eight acts:
SASBE Parameters The rationale for the selection of parameters
1. Ombudsman authorities To look into complaints of corruption and maladministration

against functionaries of local bodies, both elected members and
officials. To mediate any conflicts between citizens and specific
authorities. (SCoUD&M, 2011)
Accountability Addresses corruption and efficiency issues. Strengthen citizen
participation in governance. (HPEC, 2011)
2. Application of double-entry Double entry accounting system estimates the future generation of
accounting system revenue and expenditure of the Municipality. (MoUD, 2015e)
Double entry accounting system leads to improved financial
management, transparency and self-reliance of the Urban Local
Body (ULB). (MoUD, 2015d)
To enhance the relevance, objectivity, timeliness, completeness and
comparability of the accounting statements. (PEARL, 2015)
3. Public scrutiny process for Public scrutiny creates a powerful incentive for improved
development plans (DPs) performance and a disincentive for poor performance. (MoUD, 2014)
4. Availability of citizens’ charter Citizen charter defines the right of access to basic services.
(Taylor and Halfani, 2004)
Define time-bound responses to community needs. (FV, 2006)
Committed timelines for grievance redressal as per citizens’ Charter.
(MoUD, 2015c)
To bring transparency and accountability. (MoUD, 2015d)
5. Provision of ombudsman for To be a designated neutral facilitator who provides confidential and
service related issues impartial assistance in resolving grievances and disputes.
(TCoJ, 1978)
6. Availability of ombudsman Shall investigate complaints, reports findings and mediates fair
settlements between individuals, group of individuals; and
institutions or organisations. (TCoJ, 1978)
7. Budget variance State of budget management. (Nair et al., 2017)
8. Availability of credit rating Credibility as a trading entity. Credit rating limits the amount of
debt. Credit rating implies financial safety and soundness.
(Bratton and Levitin, 2013)
The impact of the various risks. The quality and timeliness of the
information. (Wagenvoort et al., 2010)
9. Public disclosure of locally Accountability (Corruption: Disincentives and Protection).
elected officials’ income and (Taylor and Halfani, 2004)
assets
10. Availability of the internal To provide with such information and assurances required to
audits in the public domain ensure proper administration of the city affairs and the efficient
conduct of its business. (TCoNY, 2004)
Consensus 1. Participation of parastatals/ Parastatals are answerable to the state government and not to the
orientation agencies/Local Governments municipality, which makes the participation necessary to reduce the
fragmentation of the governance and increases the level of
accountability. (Nair et al., 2017)
Agencies involved in the planning and administration include
ULBs, parastatals, state government agencies and development
authorities, among others. With each agency under a different
leader, the goals of the agencies are often unaligned, which leads the
city to operate in siloes. (WEF, 2016)
2. Availability of Objectives and To ensure there is consistency with other plans. To have a clear
contents in DP understanding of DP. To identify specific priorities and strategic
areas of focus to help achieve the vision. (TRMAQPR, 2017)
3. Integration of sectoral plan Better, support effective urban transformation and local innovation.
Table 1. To bring synergy between projects and save resources.
List of parameters and (Praharaj et al., 2018b)
the rationale behind
their selection (continued )
Parameters The rationale for the selection of parameters
Performance
assessment of
Effectiveness and 1. Functioning DPs Proposals for networked or computable cities. (Andreani et al., 2019)
efficiency 2. Monitoring of ongoing For objectively facing today’s urban challenges. (Marsal-Llacuna
governance
constructions/projects for and Segal, 2017)
possible violations
3. Percentage of own revenues to This parameter measures the level of dependence of the city on other
total expenditure levels of government for revenues to deliver its services to the
public. The balance between own source of income and senior-level
government transfers indicates a city’s viability, independence and
control over its resources. It can reveal a city’s ability to be effective
in financial planning and management. (ISO, 2014)
4. Per capita capital expenditure The extent of the average investment in urban development.
(Eldrup and Schutze, 2013)
5. Provision of 5 years tenure for Ensuring stability. (JnNURM, 2006)
mayor
6. Tenure of commissioner Stability in administration. (JnNURM, 2006)
7. Availability of e-procurement Radical improvement in the efficiency and accountability of
system (including vendor government organisations. E-procurement improves efficiency and
registration) transparency and reduces cost. (Rao, 2013)
8. Availability of single window Enables people to approach a single point of contact to facilitate
civic service centres disposal of all type of applications and grievances concerning civic
services. (Praharaj et al., 2018a)
Ease the permitting process during the start of the project and
execution will accelerate project execution, reduce cost and time
overrun, and improve Intra- and inter-department collaboration.
(WEF, 2016)
9. Timeline of DPs To carry out projects and achieve impact in the short term.
(Ravi et al., 2016)
To monitor the progress. (MoHUA, 2018)
To avoid time overruns. (PIB, 2018)
To make the processing time-bound. (MoUD, 2015d)
10. Authority for Tax collection Self-reliance of the ULBs. (WEF, 2016)
11. Authority for borrowings Financial capacity of the local government. (MoUD, 2015e)
Reforms to strengthen local government. (HPEC, 2011)
12. Authority for investments Annual examination of sinking funds. (OLA, 1956) (TCoNY, 2004)
Asset creation and management. (Vaidya, 2009)
13. Overlapping of Planning Overlapping functions. (WEF, 2016)
boundaries with Administrative
boundaries
14. Availability of common digital Performance measure in spatial planning. (Pollock et al., 2000)
base map of Metropolitan area
Equity 1. Gender representation in local Representation of women involved in local government decision-
government making. The actual influence of women in local decision-making.
(Lange, 2010)
To reveal the underlying source of inequalities. Gender-responsive
social budgeting. (UNDP, 2015)
2. Availability of objective Weaving the policy, the institutions, and the household levels
towards Social development analytically together help in directing attention to inclusive,
(health care, education) pro-poor and evidence-based policymaking that better serves
disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in society. (Holland, 2007)
(continued ) Table 1.
Participation 1. Public participation in plan One of the critical norms of good urban governance. (TERI, 2010)
preparation To ensure obligation of transparent modification of schemes,
including the updated progress local area planning level. Public
participation ensures inclusiveness. (MoUD, 2015d)
Important for more need and demand-based planning process.
(Tindwani, 2015)
To prepare a better development plan following the needs for
ensuring basic facilities. (MoPR, 2016)
To sensitise the public. To improve efficiency and to boost the
performance. (DDA, 2007)
2. Internship opportunities Will provide an opportunity to experience the aspects of Urban
planning and governance. (MoUD, 2018)
3. The election process of the To encourage and support participation, civic engagement. Level of
mayor citizen’s participation. (UNHSP, 2009)
Election process measures the level of civil society participation in
decision-making. (UN-Habitat, 2004)
The involvement just as the participation of the urban population in
decision-making. (Lange, 2010)
4. Citizens participation in the Citizen participation measures the degree of interest and involvement
electoral process of women and men in local elections. (UN-Habitat, 2004)
The percentage of voter turnout highlights the level of urban
representative democracy, reflecting in faith, interest as well as
involvement in the election process. (Lange, 2010)
5. Provisions to modify notified To undertake active consultation with original stakeholders pre and
DPs post plan preparation. (MoUD, 2015d)
6. Mayor’s authority for the Power to the locally elected government. (Ravi et al., 2016)
municipal commissioner/chief
executive’s appointment
Responsiveness 1. Publication of e-newsletter E-governance, digital ULBs (MoUD, 2015b)
2. Publication of Post Demand Municipal tax and fees improvement (MoUD, 2015b)
Collection Book (DCB) Transparency, Accountability and Participation (Nair et al., 2017)
3. Availability of objective Progress in tackling persistent problems of poverty and
towards jobs and economy deprivation. Supports action to tackle problems of unemployment.
(GLA, 2015)
To check/manage migration. (Shukla, 2015)
4. Services of local government The first step towards electronic governance. Contains information
website regarding the city profile, organisational structure, service delivery
benchmarks, annual budgets, tenders, contact details of the
municipal staff. Provides open data and interface for approval of
buildings, water connection, electricity and live traffic updates.
(Praharaj, Han and Hawken, 2018a)
Local government websites offer information, services and access to
mobile apps for residents, visitors and businesses. (Anthopoulos, 2017)
5. Opportunities for volunteerism Strengthening of community-based organisations. Resilient
neighbourhoods/city. (TCoNY, 2015)
6. Appointment of internal auditor Makes a balanced assessment of all the relevant circumstances and
to not be unduly influenced by their interests or by others in forming
judgments. (IIA, 2013)
7. Provision of internal audit Internal auditing is an independent and objective assurance and
consulting activity that is guided by a philosophy of adding value to
improve the operations of the organisation. It assists the
organisation in accomplishing its objectives by bringing a
systematic and disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the
effectiveness of the organisation’s governance, risk management,
internal control. (IIA, 2013)
8. Organisation of citizen Satisfaction with the local authority’s services. (Taylor and Halfani,
satisfaction survey 2004)
9. Urban design standards The guiding framework for development. The basis for cities to
creation or adoption self-assess their as-is condition and for development. To measure
the performance of cities. Essential for steering and assessing the
performance of cities and the quality of life. (MoUD, 2015c)
Table 1. (continued )
Parameters The rationale for the selection of parameters
Performance
assessment of
Rule of law 1. Existence of state planning Formulation of the State Perspective Plan and strategy of spatial-
board economic development of the State. For advising on the delineation
governance
of the region for the planned development. Significant for
constituting the Planning Authorities for Notified Planning Area.
(MoUD, 2015e)
State planning board develops a plan for the entire state.
(Langworthy and Brunt, 2007)
2. Existence of Metropolitan Metropolitan Development Plan. To prepare a draft development
Planning Committee plan for the metropolitan area. (RCUES, 2001)
3. Existence of policies on land To accelerate land acquisition in urban development projects.
pooling (WEF, 2016)
4. Provision of external audits Accountability of local government towards the taxpayers,
integrity, transparency in providing resources. (UN-Habitat, 2004)
5. Constitution of state finance To review the financial positions of municipalities. (MoUD, 2015e)
commissions (SFCs) To review and make recommendations regarding the distribution of
taxes, revenue sharing, grant-in-aid system, issues of local
autonomy between the state and ULBs. (Pandit, 2015)
Bring uniformity in accounting and budgeting at the municipal
level. (MoUD, 2015d)
6. Existence of municipal cadre for To have a minimal capacity to handle essential functions such as
staffing accounting, resource mobilisation, planning and delivery of
essential services. (MoUD, 2011)
To provide the basis for training and building human resource
capability. (Ahluwalia, 2014)
7. Powers of local government Independence of ULBs. (PoI, 1957)
with respect to employees
8. The mayor, an ex-officio For decentralisation and participation. (MoUD, 2015d)
member of the MPC
9. Implementation of local Empowerment of ULBs. Power devolution of urban functions from
government’s functions as per the state to the city. (Praharaj, Han and Hawken, 2018a)
74th CAA Implementation of reforms. To resolve the jurisdictional conflict
between state and local government. Devolution of institutional and
fiscal power to the ULBs. (Ravi et al., 2016)
10. Existence of State Election To monitor the conduct of municipal elections. To superintend,
Commission (SEC) direct and control the preparation of electoral rolls and conduct all
elections to the rural and ULBs. (RCUES, 2001)
11. SECs’ delimitation powers for To conduct an independent and transparent election. (Vaidya, 2009)
wards
12. Timeline for elections of the Ability to perform effectively as a vibrant democratic unit of self-
local government government. (McKinsey, 2014)
13. Approval of the city budget Economic power to the ULBs. Implementation of 74th CAA.
(Janaagraha, 2014)
14. Existence of Community Engaging communities. (MoUD, 2011)
Participation Law (CPL) To institutionalise citizen participation and introducing the concept
of Area Sabha in urban areas. (MoUD, 2006)
15. Existence of ward committees To take municipal governance closer to people. To carry out the
responsibilities concerning the twelfth schedule. (RCUES, 2001)
16. Existence of area sabhas Community participation and transparency. (HPEC, 2011)
For active participation of community into the budget-making
process, monitoring of project implementation. (Vaidya, 2009)
17. Hierarchy of DPs Application of 74th CAA. (MoUD, 2015e)
Identification of planning divisions/planning zones. (NUIS, 2012)
Specific development schemes. (DDA, 2007)
(continued ) Table 1.
Strategic vision 1. Availability of decentralised DP A perspective and a vision for future development. Planning process
approval system and a product which promotes partnership among various
stakeholders in a city (the city government, the private business
sector, civil society, academic and national government agencies) to
analyse growth issues jointly, develop a vision for the future,
formulate development strategies, design programs, prioritise
projects, mobilise resources, implement, monitor and evaluate
implementation. (JnNURM, 2012)
2. Availability of objective-wise To set the future goals for the city. (Bhattacharya et al., 2015)
development priorities
3. Incentives for green buildings Reform for energy and water. (MoUD, 2015b)
Policy for sustainable development. (Osso et al., 1996)
4. Existence of sanitation plan To develop sanitation infrastructure along with generating
awareness in the community. (Praharaj, Han and Hawken, 2018b)
5. Existence of sustainability/ Transformation towards a sustainable city. To provide a holistic
resilience strategy and integrated approach to sustainable development and resilience.
(Ahvenniemi et al., 2017)
6. Existence of comprehensive To be integrated with all development plans bridging
mobility plan transportation projects and statutory land use planning.
(MoUD, 2015e)
7. Provisions to protect historical Aimed at preserving cultural values, assets and resources through
and cultural assets conserving the integrity and authenticity of urban heritage.
(UN-Habitat, 2015)
Culture has historically been a driving force of urban development.
(Duxbury et al., 2016)
8. Availability of objective To promote the green economy measures and the excessive use of
towards environment natural resources containment. Vital in ensuring sustainability in
urban development. (Pinna et al., 2017)
9. Availability of medium-/long- Measurement of the ability of ULBs to manage their finances with a
term fiscal plan long-term perspective. (Janaagraha, 2014)
Transparency 1. Availability of the audited Public disclosure of operation and financial parameters. (JnNURM,
annual financial statements/ 2006)
audited annual accounts in the
public domain
2. Availability of the staffing data Essential aspects of the organisational capacity necessary to enable
in the public domain and promote city initiatives. Transparency in city administration
and management. (Gil-Garcia et al., 2015)
3. Availability of digital Which brings together a structured approach to address e-
governance roadmap governance across central, state and local government to deliver
efficient and quick services to citizens, business and government.
To make all government services accessible to the citizen in the
locality, through standard service delivery outlets and ensure
efficiency, transparency and reliability of such services at
affordable costs to realise the basic needs of the citizen. (Rao, 2013)
4. Availability of action taken Devolution of funds and functions. (MoUD, 2015b)
report on SFC recommendations The distribution of financial resources between the state and the
municipalities. (Ravi et al., 2016)
Financial transparency. (MoUD, 2015e)
5. Existence of Public Disclosure Improving transparency. (MoUD, 2011)
Law (PDL)
6. Conformity in state PDL and Compliance and systematic transparency. (Pollock et al., 2000)
model PDL
7. Application of open data Helps in radical transparency in finances and operations,
standards and principles and systematically provide actionable data. (Pollock et al., 2000)
Table 1. availability
Rationale for Max.
Performance
Parameters selection Data source Scoring method Scale Score assessment of
governance
1. Availability of A perspective
decentralized DP and a vision for
approval system future
i. Approval system development T&CP Act, SCM Check if the towns > 1 Nominal 3–3
for Metropolitan Guidelines, million populations
DP Metropolitan DP, which had metropolitan
Census of India DPs got them approved
by the State
governments. NA for the
towns with populations
< 1 million
ii. Approval system T&CP Act, SCM Check if the MPC exists Nominal 3–3
for Municipal DP Guidelines, MC and approves the
Act, Census of municipal DPs. The
India, Municipal towns with
DP population < 1 million
were checked if the DPs
were approved by the
state government
iii. Approval system MC Acts, Ward(s)/ Check if the wards DPs Nominal 3–3
for ward(s)/local Local Area/ were approved by the
area/ Neighbourhood DP local government
neighbourhood
DP
2. Availability of Helps in DPs The DP must have Nominal 10.0
objective directing mention of (i) key
towards Social attention to development drivers for
development inclusive, the sector – at least
(healthcare, pro-poor, and hygiene systems, health
education) evidence-based care quality and
policymaking coverage, education
quality and coverage,
safety and security and
(ii) quantitative and
qualitative impact/
outcome metrics for each
driver
3. Application of Leads to Municipal Budgets Check the budget to Nominal 10.0
double-entry improved assess if double-entry
accounting financial accounting is followed. If
system management, so, score 10 and if not,
transparency score 0
and self- Table 2.
reliance of the Sample of scoring
ULB methodology
(1) The Orissa Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act (OLA, 1956)
(2) The National Capital Region Planning Board Act (PoI, 1985)
(3) The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (LJD, 1966)
SASBE (4) The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act (GLC, 1976)
(5) The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act (UPLC, 1973)
(6) United Kingdom Town and Country Planning Act (PoUK, 1990)
(7) New York City Charter (TCoNY, 2004)
(8) The City of Johannesburg Municipal Planning By-Law (TCoJ, 2016)
Municipal corporation acts
The following acts are the municipal acts, which mandates the formation of municipal
corporations in the case cities taken in this analysis:
(1) The Orissa Municipal Corporation Act (OLA, 2003)
(2) The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (PoI, 1957)
(3) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (BLC, 1949)
(4) Uttar Pradesh municipal corporation act, 1959 (UPLC, 1959)
(5) Greater London Authority Act 1999 (GLA, 2009)
(6) Local Government: Municipal Structures Act (TPotRoSA, 1998)
(7) Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 2002 (TPotRoSA, 2000)
Others
The following are the other important documents required for data collection in this
analysis:
(1) The Constitution (74th Amendment) The Constitution (7 Amendment) Act, 1992
(2) 14th Finance Commission Report, 2015
(3) Local Governance, an Inspiring Journey into the Future 2007 (SARC, 2007)
(4) State Advertisement Tax Acts
(5) State Election Acts/Rules
(6) State Entertainment Tax Acts
(7) State Lokayukta Acts
(8) State Profession Tax Acts
(9) State Public Services Guarantee Acts
(10) State Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Acts
(11) Results – Election Commission of India (2019) (ECI, 2019)
(12) AMRUT Scheme Website 2019 (MoUD, 2015a)
(13) Swachh Bharat Mission – Urban 2016 (CPR, 2018)
(14) AMRUT – Mission Statement and Guidelines (MoUD, 2015b)
(15) SCM Guidelines
(16) State Finance Commission Reports
(17) London – Localism Act 2011, Freedom of Information Act (2000), Internal Audit Performance
Charter, Local Government Act 1974, Local Government Finance Act 1988, assessment of
Documents of Local Boundary Elections Commission
governance
(18) New York – Documents of Board of Elections in the city of New York/Conflicts of
interest board
(19) Johannesburg – Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Municipal Finance
Management Act 2007, Municipal Demarcation Act 1998, Electoral Commission Act
1996, Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000, Ombudsman Bye-Law
3. Scoring
All parameters have been scored on a range of 0–10, with 10 being the highest (best
performance) that a city system can score. The sub-parameters are being evaluated on
sub-divided scores out of ten to capture various facets of a single parameter. For instance, the
sub-parameters effectively capture the essence of devolution by specifically evaluating cities
on three levels of planning – metropolitan DPs, municipal plans and ward DPs, for the
assessment of ULBs in preparing and implementing DPs. In case, a parameter does not apply
to a city; then it is scored as “Not Applicable (NA)”. The denominator has not included the
weights for the parameters scored NA. For example, the question on metropolitan DP does
not apply to Bhubaneswar because Bhubaneswar does not qualify for a metropolitan area.
Therefore, the score for this question in Bhubaneswar is treated as “NA”. A detailed list of
parameters’ scores is presented in the following Table 3.
All the parameters are dichotomous in terms of scoring; it is either zero or the maximum
score. For the final scores, principles are measured by its mean.
For example:
Accountability ¼ ðX 1 þ X 2 þ X 3 þ . . . þ XnÞ=n
Score for governance in a city 5 mean of all the principles, i.e.

City governance score ¼ ðAccountability þ Effectiveness þ Participation
þ Responsiveness þ Rule of Law þ Transparency þ . . . Þ=9
Summarized scores are in the following Table 4:

The analysis results in Table 4 suggest that SPVs are not doing very differently than the
traditional local government in the governance performance. SPV is performing better in
some areas than the local governments and vice versa. Global city examples (London, New
York, Johannesburg) are significantly ahead of Indian cities in each governance principle.
Varanasi Municipal Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation are performing weaker in
comparison to the other local governments in the overall results. However, the performance of
all the local governments are very much similar. Among the local governments, the
performance of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation is slightly better than the rest. SPV is
doing well in effectiveness and efficiency, participation, responsiveness and transparency;
and performing weaker in accountability, the rule of law and strategic vision parameters. The
ULBs are weaker in accountability, participation and strategic vision; and are more reliable in
consensus orientation, equity and the rule of law governance principles.
4. Inferences
The analysis identified the areas needing interventions in both the development mechanisms,
the local governance and the SPV structure. The local governance is lagging in keeping pace
with the modern world practices.
Table 3.
SASBE
parameters
Detailed scoring of the
SI. Local governments SPV New Max.
No. Parameters Bhubaneswar Delhi Pune Surat Varanasi system London York Johannesburg marks Principle
1. Ombudsman authorities Accountability

i Corruption Investigation on its own 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
ii Inter-agency disputes resolution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0
2. Application of double-entry accounting system 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
3. Public scrutiny process for DPs 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
4. Availability of citizens’ charter
i Target levels of Service 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 3.3 3.3
ii Timelines for delivery of services 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 NA NA 3.3 3.3
iii Protocols for obtaining relief, where service levels are not met 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 NA NA 0.0 3.3
5. Provision of Ombudsman for service related issues 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
6. Availability of ombudsman 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
7. Budget variance 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
8. Availability of credit rating 5.9 9.1 9.1 7.7 5.6 NA 8.3 8.3 5.6 10.0
9. Public disclosure of locally elected officials’ income and assets 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
10. Availability of the internal audits in the public domain 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Total Marks 40.9 19.1 25.8 39.4 22.3 15.0 78.3 83.3 82.3 100.0
Max. Marks for Particular City 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 40.0 90.0 90.0 100.0
Rating out of 10 4.1 1.9 2.6 3.9 2.2 3.8 8.7 9.3 8.2
1. Participation of Parastatals/agencies/Local Governments NA 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Consensus
2. Availability of Objectives and Contents in DP 10.0 10.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 3.3 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Orientation
3. Integration of sectoral plan 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Total M arks 10.0 30.0 6.7 16.7 16.7 13.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Max. Marks for Particular City 20.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Rating out of 10 5.0 10.0 2.2 5.6 5.6 4.4 10.0 10.0 10.0
(continued )
1. Functioning DPs Effectiveness

i Availability of Metropolitan DP NA 3.3 0.0 3.3 3.3 NA 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 and Efficiency
ii Availability of Municipal DP 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3
iii Availability of Ward(s)/local area/neighbourhood DP 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 NA 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
2. Monitoring of ongoing constructions/projects for possible violations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
3. Percentage of own revenues to total expenditure 6.1 8.5 9.3 6.7 3.5 NA 4.5 6.6 5.5 10.0
4. Per capita capital expenditure 1.9 0.5 10.0 0.6 0.6 NA 8.0 10.0 9.8 10.0
5. Provision of 5 years tenure for mayor 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
6. Tenure of commissioner 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 NA NA NA 10.0
7. Availability of e-procurement system (including vendor registration) 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
8. Availability of Single window civic service centres 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
9. Timeline of DPs
i Overlapping of Metropolitan DP with municipal DP NA 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0
ii Overlapping of Municipal DP with ward DP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0
10. Authority for tax collection
i Property tax 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 NA NA 2.5 2.5
ii Entertainment tax 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 NA NA NA 2.5
iii Profession tax 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 NA NA NA 2.5
iv Advertisement tax 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.0 2.5 2.5 NA NA NA 2.5
11. Authority for borrowings 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
12. Authority for investments 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
13. Overlapping of planning boundaries with administrative boundaries 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
14. Availability of common digital base map of metropolitan area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
Total Marks 61.3 79.0 68.5 56.5 60.8 68.3 89.2 93.3 79.5 140.0
Max Marks for Particular City 131.7 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0 93.3 140.0 140.0 140.0
Rating out of 10 4.7 5.6 4.9 4.0 4.3 7.3 6.4 6.7 5.7
1. Gender representation in Local Government 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.1 3.9 4.7 4.9 8.3 10.0 Equity
2. Availability of objective towards social development 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
(health care, education)
Total Marks 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 12.1 8.9 14.7 14.9 8.3 20.0
Max Marks for particular city 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Rating out of 10 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.1 4.5 7.4 7.5 4.2
(continued )
Performance
governance
assessment of
Table 3.
Table 3.
SASBE
1. Public participation in plan preparation 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Participation
2. Internship opportunities 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
3. The election process of the mayor 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 NA 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
4. Citizens participation in the electoral process
i Council election 2.2 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.4 NA 2.3 1.1 2.9 5.0
ii Legislative assembly election 2.2 3.4 2.8 3.3 2.8 NA 3.5 2.8 3.6 5.0
5. Provisions to modify notified DPs 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
6. Mayor’s authority for the municipal commissioner/chief executive’s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Total Marks 14.4 16.1 25.5 20.3 30.2 20.0 55.8 53.9 41.5 60.0
Max marks for particular city 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
Rating out of 10 2.4 2.7 4.3 3.4 5.0 6.7 9.3 9.0 6.9
1. Publication of e-newsletter 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Responsiveness
2. Publication of post Demand Collection Book (DCB) 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
3. Availability of objective towards jobs and economy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
4. Services of Local Government website
i Citizen participation 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.7 3.3
ii Basic service delivery 2.8 2.2 2.9 2.8 1.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.8 3.3
iii Schemes and services 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
5. Opportunities for volunteerism 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
6. Appointment of internal auditor 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
7. Provision of internal audit 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
8. Organization of citizen satisfaction survey 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
9. Urban design standards creation or adoption 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 3.0 10.0
Total Marks 47.8 36.9 55.9 44.5 37.8 50.0 86.0 88.0 60.8 90.0
Rating out of 10 5.3 4.1 6.2 4.9 4.2 6.3 9.6 9.8 6.8
(continued )
1. Existence of State planning board 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Rule of Law
2. Existence of Metropolitan Planning Committee NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
3. Existence of policies on land pooling 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
4. Provision of external audits 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
5. Constitution of State Finance Commissions (SFCs) 5.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 10.0 NA NA NA NA 10.0
6. Existence of Municipal cadre for staffing 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
7. Powers of Local Government with respect to employees
i Appointment 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
ii Disciplinary action 0.0 1.7 3.3 3.3 1.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
iii Termination 0.0 1.7 3.3 3.3 1.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
8. The mayor, an ex-officio member of the MPC NA 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
9. Implementation of Local Government’s functions as per 74th CAA 5.3 5.3 8.1 5.3 4.2 5.0 10.0 10.0 9.2 10.0
10. Existence of State Election Commission (SEC) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
11. SECs’ Delimitation powers for wards 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
12. Timeline for elections of the Local Government 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
13. Approval of the city budget 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
14. Existence of Community Participation Law (CPL) 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 NA NA NA 10.0
15. Existence of ward committees 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
16. Existence of area sabhas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 10.0 10.0
17. Hierarchy of Development Plans (DPs)
i Metropolitan DP creation NA 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
ii Municipal DP creation 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3
iii Ward(s)/local area/neighbourhood DP creation 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Total Marks 68.7 100.4 108.1 117.3 94.3 48.3 136.7 126.7 139.2 170.0
Rating out of 10 4.7 5.9 6.4 6.9 5.5 4.0 9.8 9.0 9.3
(continued )
Performance
governance
assessment of
Table 3.
Table 3.
SASBE
1. Availability of decentralized DP approval system Strategic Vision

i Approval system for Metropolitan DP NA 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3
ii Approval system for Municipal DP 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
iii Approval system for Ward(s) local area/neighbourhood DP 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 3.3 3.3 0.0 3.3
2. Availability of objective-wise development priorities 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
3. Incentives for green buildings 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
4. Existence of sanitation plan 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
5. Existence of sustainability/resilience strategy 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
6. Existence of comprehensive mobility plan 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
7. Provisions to protect historic and cultural assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
8. Availability of objective towards environment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
9. Availability of medium-/1ong-term fiscal plan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Total Marks 33.3 36.7 33.3 13.3 8.3 23.3 76.7 76.7 33.3 90.0
Rating out of 10 3.8 4.1 3.7 1.5 0.9 2.8 9.6 9.6 4.2
1. Availability of the audited annual financial Statements audited 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Transparency
annual accounts in the public domain
2. Availability of the staffing data in the public domain 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
3. Availability of digital governance roadmap 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
4. Availability of action taken report on SFC recommendations 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA 10.0
5. Existence of Public Disclosure Law (PDL) 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 10.0 NA 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
6. Conformity in State PDL and model PDL
i Audited financial statement on quarterly basis 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
ii Audited financial statement on annual basis 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 NA 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
iii Service level benchmarks 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 NA 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
iv Particulars of major works 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 NA 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
v Details of plans, income and budget 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 NA 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
7. Application of open data standards and principles and availability
i Annual report of works done last year 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
ii Financial information (budgets) of the corporation and of respective 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
wards
iii Raw and synthesised data on civic works 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
iv Information under Right to Information (RTI) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
v Quarterly audited financial reports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
Total Marks 41.0 12.0 47.0 20.0 28.0 36.0 48.0 48.0 28.0 70.0
Max marks for particular city 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 50.0 70.0 70.0 70.0
Rating out of 10 5.9 1.7 6.7 2.9 4.0 7.2 6.9 6.9 4.0
Local governments Global examples
SI No. Principles Bhubaneswar Delhi Pune Surat Varanasi SPV system London New York Johannesburg Max. marks
1. Accountability 4.1 1.9 2.6 3.9 2.2 3.8 8.7 9.3 8.2 10.0
2. Consensus Orientation 5.0 10.0 2.2 5.6 5.6 4.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
3. Effectiveness and Efficiency 4.7 5.6 4.9 4.0 4.3 7.3 6.4 6.7 5.7 10.0
4. Equity 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.1 4.5 7.4 7.5 4.2 10.0
5. Participation 2.4 2.7 4.3 3.4 5.0 6.7 9.3 9.0 6.9 10.0
6. Responsiveness 5.3 4.1 6.2 4.9 4.2 6.3 9.6 9.8 6.8 10.0
7. Rule of Law 4.7 5.9 6.4 6.9 5.5 4.0 9.8 9.0 9.3 10.0
8. Strategic Vision 3.8 4.1 3.7 1.5 0.9 2.8 9.6 9.6 4.2 10.0
9. Transparency 5.9 1.7 6.7 2.9 4.0 7.2 6.9 6.9 4.0 10.0
Average 5.1 4.6 4.7 4.2 4.2 5.2 8.6 8.6 6.6 10.0
Performance
governance
Summarized scores of
assessment of
Table 4.
analysis
SASBE Many local governments (except Pune in this paper) do not have the roadmap to digital
governance yet. The roadmap to digital governance includes the use of information and
communication technology (ICT) and the availability of these measures on the local
government website. The use of ICT helps citizen directly, and the efficiency of the
governance will improve subsequently.
The vision of local governance for development lacks objective wise priorities such as
quantitative and qualitative metrics for pollution. Only the Delhi master plan has such
measures of the cities analysed in this paper.
Public participation in preparation of the plan is necessary. Local governance fails to do it
at every level of plan preparation. Public participation should be mandated through formal
platforms such as area sabhas/ward sabhas, other means of gatherings and online/digital
platforms too. Providing internship opportunities is also a form of inviting public
participation. The local government website should have information related to the
internships offered. Only Pune local government website has the information related to
internships at their website.
Many cities (except Bhubaneswar) are not allowed to borrow on their own; they need
approval from state/central government. This practice makes them dependent on the state/
central government for their development works. The local government should not require the
approval from state/central government. It should have a debt limitation policy within which
the local government would not require the approval from the state/central government.
Local governments lack in integrating the sectoral plans in the creation of development
plans. The local government should have a committee/process for deliberation and decision-
making where all sectoral public departments and agencies were invited (at least water and
sewerage, traffic, electricity, transport, health and education). In the analysis, only Delhi have
such provisions.
SPV structure has not had a broad vision. It lacks in the comprehensive planning of the
city. SPVs develop plan only for a small area of the city (Area-based development). It does not
prepare the ward level plan as well as the metropolitan level plan. The SCM guidelines do not
mandate to have any ward level committees, which is essential for the implementation of
laws/policies.
SPVs do not have any policies/powers regarding land such as land pooling, land
acquisition, land assembly, town planning scheme, land readjustment. It cannot change the
existing structure of the land. It can only do the development works on the existing, as it is
land parcels.
The global examples are fulfilling most of the parameters on all the governance principles.
Johannesburg has similar scores to the Indian cities on some of the parameters, but overall
performance is better than the Indian cities.
The SCM has diverted the decision-making process from the elected representatives of
city administration to the newly formulated SPV under SCM. By this intervention, the
governing mechanism could become opaque without a robust organisational backbone of the
elected representatives. SCM guidelines enforce municipal governments to delegate rights
and obligations of infrastructure development functions to SPVs. In contrast, for the last
two decades a lot has been invested for uplifting the capacity of municipal corporations in line
with the 74th CAA. This sudden shift in government policy may undermine the entire process
of empowerment of the ULBs. The Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) primarily could manage
infrastructure establishments of a portion of a city and a budget, similar to the municipality
without any accountability to its citizens. Addition of SPVs may reverse the purpose of the
74th CAA of empowering ULBs.
Many of the selected cities under SCM are yet to develop a clear understanding of the
concept of convergence. Various schemes of urban development are being implemented
parallelly in the same city with different priorities.
On the positive side, the SPV driven urban development make the decision making Performance
process faster because it bypasses the existing bureaucratic process of project approval assessment of
process accustomed with the local governments.
The SCM will not transform the whole country neither the entire cities but a small portion
governance
of selected 100 cities. The SCM is a way to develop a part of the cities in the first world city
specifications. This development will be done by attracting investments in the form of FDI
and private investment, which is almost impossible through the traditional processes.
SPVs have stable leadership in the form of CEOs. CEOs have a five-year term (unless
removed from the post or transferred by the Apex Committee) unlike local governments,
where the state governments can transfer the municipal commissioners anytime. This
uncertainty in the tenure restricts the system to work on its own.
Most of the municipalities do not have healthy finances in India, and hopes are higher for
the SPVs to have higher credit ratings. Higher credit ratings allow cities to have greater
access to funding, through fees and the debt market.
The cities do not have adequate number of skilled staffs too. The sanctioned posts are
not updated since long to commensurate with the growth of cities. None of the cities poses
recruitment rules that contain modern job descriptions covering both technical skills and
managerial competencies for each role or position in the municipality. The authority of
mayors/city representatives who are the democratically elected representatives
need further strengthening to develop capable leadership among the local government
cadres.
Lack of citizen participation and non-transparency are the underlined characteristics of
the ULBs, as found in the summarised analysis scores. There are no structured platforms for
citizen participation (such as area sabhas are not present in many cities of India), no coherent
participatory processes (such as participatory budgeting), no citizen grievance redressal
mechanisms and minimal transparency in finances and operations. The lacklustre
governance mechanism has resulted in weak levels of engagement between citizen and
governments. It seems that the usages of information and communication technology and
mobile application will improve citizen participation, accountability and transparency
largely.
Further, the division of responsibilities to various parastatals is also not helping in the
development process. Parastatals are institutions/organisations, which are wholly or partially
owned and managed by the government (either autonomous or quasi-governmental).
5. Conclusion
Development plans are the instrument for economic, equitable, sustainable development of
cities. The town and country planning acts and regulations were enacted long back before
economic liberalisation of India. These acts and regulations are still the conscripting
procedures for the development plans. Since the economic liberalisation, attributes such as
population growth, the urbanisation process, and economic structure have changed a lot, and
yet the governing regulations and acts remained the same. Many states of India have not
implemented the 74th CAA entirely until now, which is needed urgently for the proper
functioning of ULBs. There is a need to mandate the creation of three tiers of DPs at the
metropolitan, municipal and ward levels with nested timelines. These DPs need to have
sectoral plans within them, such as mobility plans, water supply plan. The law needs to
provide for the proper and timely preparation, implementation and enforcement of DPs. It
needs to have performance measures as an integral part, to measure the success of DPs. The
law has to mandate consideration of institutions and institutional mechanisms such as
metropolitan planning committees, planning boards, spatial data centres and others required
for the functioning of the planning framework.
SASBE Cities need a significant amount of capital to invest in not just creating new infrastructure
and catching up on service delivery deficits, but also for revenue expenditure such as
operations and maintenance and hiring of talent. Generally, cities are highly dependent on
state and central government grants. Lack of adequate revenue sources severely constrains
the ability of cities to invest in infrastructure and service delivery. Indian cities need to
address the issues of weak financial sustainability and accountability in its ambition to
become a smart city in future.
In addition, implementation of SCM highly depends on the present status of cities in terms
of social, physical and digital infrastructure. The ICT based smart city development specified
in the SCM objectives requires a basic level of infrastructure and human development
(Praharaj and Han, 2019). Indian smart city models need to restrict manipulation of
population for commercial gains; further, smart city models need to develop operational core
for collaboration with public authorities, businesses and citizen (Praharaj, 2020). These
collaborations enable the smart city system to enhance awareness among population and in
solving the pressing urbanisation challenges (Praharaj and Bandyopadhyay, 2020).
Indian cities have set urban development goals through various programs [SCM, Atal
Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation, Heritage City Development and
Augmentation Yojana, Swachh Bharat Mission (Clean India Mission), and Pradhan Mantri
Awas Yojana] and all of these programs have fixed timelines. The implementation of these
programs lacks the capacity of municipal governments, finances and positive behavioural
change from citizens. SCM is developing a small area of the city as a smart city. Therefore, the
municipal governments have to manage the remaining city area, while SPVs are focused on the
area designated under the smart city program. States need to push for urbanisation reforms
specified in 74th CAA1; local governments are still in need of proper empowerment. Local
governments need to generate more revenue and utilise that on the improvement of
infrastructure because centrally-sponsored development of cities cannot keep up with the pace
of urbanisation in India. The new system of SPV has not shown significant improvement in the
local government’s performance as compared with the traditional local government system yet.
However, it may succeed in future that needs further research and explorations. The new
system is still adapting and developing its network with the local government to perform better.
Note
1. The 74th constitutional amendment act (CAA) is an amendment to the constitution of India. The
amendment was enacted in 1992. The aim of the 74th CAA was to establish local government in
Indian cities by the constitutional provision. It made the establishment of local government
mandatory in all the statutory towns of India. Since 1992, it has been the primary instrument in the
governance of the Indian cities.
References
14th Finance Commission Report (2015), New Delhi, available at: https://smartnet.niua.org/content/
1aa83088-04ef-4e97-be11-9d4d93abc210 (accessed 18 March 2019).
Ahluwalia, I.J. (2014), “Planning for urban development in India”, available at: http://icrier.org/
Urbanisation/pdf/Ahluwalia_Planning_for_Urban_Development.pdf (accessed 25 March 2019).
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Sepp€a, I. and Airaksinen, M. (2017), “What are the differences
between sustainable and smart cities?”, Cities, Vol. 60, pp. 234-245, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.
009, Elsevier B.V.
Andreani, S., Kalchschmidt, M., Pinto, R. and Sayegh, A. (2019), “Reframing technologically enhanced
urban scenarios: a design research model towards human-centred smart cities”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 142, pp. 15-25, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.028, Elsevier.
Anthopoulos, L. (2017), “Smart utopia VS smart reality: learning by experience from 10 smart city Performance
cases”, Cities, Vol. 63, pp. 128-148, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.005, Elsevier.
assessment of
Anthopoulos, L.G., Janssen, M. and Weerakkody, V. (2015), “Comparing Smart Cities with different
modelling approaches”, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide
governance
Web - WWW ’15 Companion. doi: 10.1145/2740908.2743920.
Bhattacharya, S., Rathi, S., Patro, S.A. and Tepa, N. (2015), “Reconceptualising smart cities: a reference
framework for India”, available at: https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/
6b9cb2a72ca68b2c2ab3e98ba4c5e649.pdf (accessed 30 March 2019).
BLC (1949), “Bombay provincial municipal corporations act, 1949 [ act, No. LIX of 1949]”, Bombay
Legislative Council, Maharastra, available at: http://www.janaagraha.org/asics/report/Bombay-
Provincial-Municipal-Corporations-Act-1949.pdf (accessed 26 March 2019).
BMC (2019), “BMC: bhubaneswar municipal corporation”, available at: https://www.bmc.gov.in/public-
disclosure%0Ahttps://www.bmc.gov.in/ (accessed 23 April 2019).
Bosch, P., Bhattacharya, S., Rathi, S., Patro, S.A. and Tepa, N. (2016), “Deliverable 1.4-Smart city KPIs
and related methodology”, available at: http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/D1.4-
CITYkeys_D14_Smart_City_KPIs_Final_20160201.pdf (accessed 19 March 2019).
Bratton, W.W. and Levitin, A.J. (2013), “A transactional genealogy of scandal: from michael milken to
enron to goldman sachs”, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 783-868, doi: 10.
2139/ssrn.2126778.
CoJ (2013), “City of Johannesburg”, available at: https://joburg.org.za/ (accessed 24 April 2019).
CoJMM (2016), Spatial Development Framework, 2040, City of Johannesburg: Department of
Development Planning, Johannesburg, available at: http://www.sapra.org.za/docs/Johannesburg
_Spatial_Development_Framework_2040.pdf (accessed 20 February 2019).
CPR (2018), “Swachh Bharat mission (urban), AFD-centre for policy research- workshop on valuing waste
or wasting value”, available at: http://164.100.228.143/sbm/home/#/SBM?encryptdata5eK991
SygGmWSDYgRmBkHb2rLvDc8JhBbWQJ4DvWFwOSMDzA0JUywZZrxlmt1RUmQ1PjPDb1q
gEwGYSjc8cBDWCk8DzqKKw3O11Nc4hLIjbY%3D (accessed 15 May 2019).
DDA (2007), “Master plan for Delhi - 2021”, available at: https://dda.org.in/tendernotices_docs/aug120/
ReportofMasterPlanforDelhi-2021(updatedincorporatingnotificationstill31stDecember2018)01012
018.pdf (accessed 2 April 2019).
Duxbury, N., Hosagrahar, J. and Pascual, J. (2016), “Why must culture be at the heart of sustainable
urban development?”, available at: http://www.agenda21culture.net/sites/default/files/files/docu
ments/en/culture_sd_cities_web.pdf (accessed 5 April 2019).
ECI (2019), “Results - election commission of India”, available at: https://eci.gov.in/statistical-report/
election-results/ (accessed 26 April 2019).
Eldrup, A. and Schutze, P. (2013), “Organization and financing of public-infrastructure projects”,
available at: https://www.pka.dk/globalassets/aktuelt/nyheder/dokumenter/opp_main.pdf (accessed
27 March 2019).
FV (2006), City Development Plan for Varanasi (JNNURM), Varanasi, available at: http://www.
indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/varanasicitydevelopmentplan.pdf (accessed 10 April 2019).
Giffinger, R. (2007), “Smart cities: ranking of European medium-sized cities”. doi: 10.1016/S0264-
2751(98)00050-X.
Gil-Garcia, J.R., Pardo, T.A. and Nam, T. (2015), “What makes a city smart? Identifying core
components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization”, Information
Polity, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 61-87, doi: 10.3233/IP-150354.
GLA (2009), “Greater london authority. United kingdom: British parliament”, available at: https://
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/contents (accessed 24 April 2019).
GLA (2015), The London Plan (FALP), London, available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/
files/london_plan_march_2016_malp_-_frontispiece_and_ch1_context_and_strategy.pdf
(accessed 3 April 2019).
SASBE GLC (1976), “Gujarat town planning and urban development act. Gujarat, India: Gujarat legislative
council”, available at: https://townplanning.gujarat.gov.in/Documents/Gtpud amd1.pdf (accessed
24 March 2019).
Green, J.A. (1970), “Introduction to measurement and evaluation”. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40812-5_1.
Holland, J. (Ed.) (2007), Tools for Institutional, Political, and Social Analysis of Policy Reform, Tools for
Institutional, Political, and Social Analysis of Policy Reform, The World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-0-
8213-6890-9.
HPEC (2011), “Report on Indian urban infrastructure and services”, available at: http://icrier.org/pdf/
FinalReport-hpec.pdf (accessed 14 March 2019).
IIA (2013), “Model internal Audit activity charter”, available at: https://na.theiia.org/standards-guidance/
PublicDocuments/ModelInternalAuditActivityCharter.pdf (accessed 4 April 2019).
IITKGP (2010), “Bhubaneswar vision 2030-comprehensive development plan for Bhubaneswar
development plan area”, available at: https://www.bda.gov.in/bda/departments/planning-
department (accessed 14 April 2019).
ISO (2014), “Sustainable development of communities: indicators for city services and quality of life,
ISO”, available at: www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso_members.htm (accessed 31 March 2019).
Janaagraha (2014), “Annual Survey of India’s city systems, Janaagraha”, available at: http://janaagraha.
org/asics/images/Annual-Survey-of-Indias-City-Systems-2014.pdf (accessed 12 March 2019).
JnNURM (2006), “Sample checklist for the ‘urban reforms agenda’ under JNNURM”, available at:
http://jkhudd.gov.in/pdfs/Srinagar_Reforms.PDF (accessed 21 March 2019).
JnNURM (2012), “City development plan of Pune city - 2041, volume I. Pune”, available at: http://
punecorporation.org/informpdf/CDP/Executive_Summary-RevisedCDP.pdf (accessed 13
April 2019).
Lange, F.E. (2010), Urban Governance - an Essential Determinant of City Development?, World Vision
Institue for Research and Development, University of Bonn. doi: 10.4135/9781848608375.n21.
Langworthy, A. and Brunt, C. (2007), “Local area planning project”, Development September, pp. 1-30,
available at: https://nios.ac.in/media/documents/316courseE/E-JHA-30-10A.pdf (accessed.10 April 2019).
LJD (1966), “The Maharashtra regional and town planning act. India: law and judiciary department,
government of Maharashtra april 2019”, available at: https://dtp.maharashtra.gov.in/sites/
default/files/1.MRTPACT1966ENGLISHAMENDEDUPTO26NOV2015.pdf (accessed 7 April 2019).
Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H. and Yousef, W. (2012), “Modelling the smart city performance”,
Innovation, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 137-149. doi: 10.1080/13511610.2012.660325.
Marsal-Llacuna, M.L. and Segal, M.E. (2017), “The Intelligenter Method (II) for ‘smarter’ urban
policy-making and regulation drafting”, Cities, Vol. 61, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.006.
McKinsey (2014), “Building smart cities in India”, available at: https://www.niua.org/sites/all/files/
consultation-workshop/McKinsey_BuildingSmartCitiesinIndia.pdf (accessed 25 March 2019).
MoHUA (2018), “Twenty-second report: demand for grants (2018-2019)”, available at: http://164.100.47.
193/lsscommittee/UrbanDevelopment/16_Urban_Development_22.pdf (accessed 13 April 2019).
MoL (2019), “Mayor of london”, available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/ (accessed 24 April 2019).
MoPR (2016), “Rural area development plan formulation and implementation (RADPFI) guidelines”,
available at: https://www.panchayatgyan.gov.in/documents/30336/143331/RADPFIþDecþ01%
2C2017þDrþVþMadhavaþRao.pptx/02e83d55-3b1d-4d5c-a0bc-2e22b345e7f1 (accessed 19
March 2019).
MoUD (2006), “JnNURM - modified guidelines (Sub-mission for urban infrastructure and governance”,
available at: http://urban.bih.nic.in/Docs/UIG-Guidelines.pdf (accessed 24 March 2019).
MoUD (2011), “Strategic plan of ministry of urban development for 2011-16”, available at: http://
admin.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Strategic_Plan_draft_new%5B1%5D.pdf.pdf
MoUD (2014), “Draft concept note on smart city scheme”, available at: http://164.100.47.193/intranet/ Performance
SMARTCITIES.pdf (accessed 24 March 2019).
assessment of
MoUD (2015a), “AMRUT scheme website”, available at: http://amrut.gov.in/ (accessed 26 April 2019).
governance
MoUD (2015b), “Atal mission for rejuvenation and urban transformation (AMRUT) - mission
statement and guidelines”, available at: http://amrut.gov.in/writereaddata/AMRUTGuidelines.
pdf (accessed 24 April 2019).
MoUD (2015c), “Standards for smart cities: a measurement tool for cities in the smart cities mission”,
available at: http://smartcities.gov.in/content/innerpage/others.php (accessed 3 March 2019).
MoUD (2015d), “Urban and regional development plans formulation and implementation (URDPFI)
guidelines - volume I”, available at: http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/URDPFIGuidelines
Vol.I.pdf (accessed 23 March 2019).
MoUD (2015e), “Urban and regional development plans formulation and implementation (URDPFI)
guidelines - volume II A and II B”, available at: http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/
URDPFIGuidelinesIIA-IIB(1).pdf20 (accessed April 2019).
MoUD (2018), “India smart cities Fellowship (ISCF) and internship (ISCI) program launched to provide
opportunity to youth to work in the domain of urban planning and governance”, Press Information
Bureau, pp. 1-7”, available at: https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid5180467 (accessed
18. April 1BC).
Nair, V.A., Vachana, V.R. and Rao, S. (2017), “Annual survey of India’s city-systems- shaping India’s
urban agenda”, available at: http://www.janaagraha.org/asics/report/ASICS-report-2017-fin.pdf
(accessed 20 August 2019).
NDMC (2019), “New Delhi municipal council”, available at: https://www.ndmc.gov.in/ (accessed 24
April 2019).
NUIS (2012), “Tool kit for formulation of master plans”, available at: http://www.tcpomud.gov.in
(accessed 29 March 2019).
OLA (1956), “Odisha town planning and improvement act. India: Odisha Legislative Assembly,
doi: 10.1360/zd-2013-43-6-1064.
OLA (2003), “The Odisha municipal corporation act. India: Odisha legislative assembly”, available at:
http://www.ielrc.org/content/e0338.pdf (accessed 23 April 2019).
Osso, A., Gottfried, D., Walsh, T. and Simon, L. (1996), “Sustainable building technical manual”, Public
Technology, New York, p. 292, available at: https://pdhonline.com/courses/g240/Buiilding_
Systems_and_IAQ-Sustainabledesignmanual.pdf (accessed 29 April 2019).
Pandit, S. (2015), “Urban infrastructure”, doi: 10.4135/9781412963930.n595.
PEARL (2015), “Urban reforms in Indian cities”, available at: https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/
files/resources/NIUA-PEARLGoodPracticesUrbanReforms.pdf (accessed 24 April 2019).
PIB (2018), “First Apex conference for smart city CEOs gives fillip to the pace of progress of smart
city mission projects AFD launches Programme to fund smart city projects: 100 million euro
made available to finance 30 – 80 selected projects”, available at: https://pib.gov.in/newsite/
PrintRelease.aspx?relid5179284 (accessed 14 April 2019).
Pinna, F., Masala, F. and Garau, C. (2017), “Urban policies and mobility trends in Italian smart cities”,
Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 9 No. 4, doi: 10.3390/su9040494.
PMC (2007), “Draft Pune development plan for old PMC limit (2007-2027) j Pune municipal
corporation”, available at: https://pmc.gov.in/en/draft-development-plan-old-pmc-limit-2007-
2027-published-us-311-mrtp-act-1966 (accessed 24 April 2019).
PMC (2014), “Pune municipal corporation”, available at: https://www.pmc.gov.in/ (accessed 24
April 2019).
PoI (1957), “The Delhi municipal corporation act. India: parliament of India”, available at: https://mha.
gov.in/sites/default/files/DMC-Act-1957_0.pdf (accessed 21 March 2019).
SASBE PoI (1985), The National Capital Region Planning Board Act, Delhi, available at: Parliament of India
http://ncrpb.nic.in/pdf_files/Act1985.pdf (accessed 19 March 2019).
Pollock, A.S., Durward, B.R., Rowe, P.J. and Paul, J.P. (2000), “What is balance?, Clinical
Rehabilitation”. doi: 10.1191/0269215500cr342oa.
PoUK (1990), “United Kingdom town and country planning act. United Kingdom: parliament of United
Kingdom”, available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/contents (accessed 24
April 2019).
Praharaj, S. (2020), “Development challenges for big data command and control centres for smart cities
in India”, in Biloria, N. (Ed.), Data-driven Multivalence in the Built Environment, S.M.A.R.T.
Environments, Springer, Switzerland AG, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, pp. 75-90.
Praharaj, S. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (2020), “Understanding the open data challenge for building
smart cities in India”, in Hawken, S., Han, H. and Pettit, C. (Eds), Open Data - Open Cities,
Springer Nature, Singapore, pp. 359-382.
Praharaj, S. and Han, H. (2019), “Building a typology of the 100 smart cities in India”, Smart and
Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 400-414, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-04-2019-0056.
Praharaj, S., Han, J.H. and Hawken, S. (2018a), “Towards the right model of smart city governance in
India”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 171-186, doi: 10.2495/SDP-V13-N2-171-186.
Praharaj, S., Han, J.H. and Hawken, S. (2018b), “‘Urban innovation through policy integration: critical
perspectives from 100 smart cities mission in India’, City”, Culture and Society, Vol. 12 June
2017, pp. 35-43, doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2017.06.004.
Rao, V.R. (2013), “A framework for unified digital government: a case of India”, Journal of
E-Governance, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 35-55, doi: 10.3233/GOV-120329.
Ravi, S., Durward, B.R., Rowe, P.J. and Paul, J.P. (2016), “Building smart cities in India”, doi: 10.1201/
b18827.
RCUES (2001), “History of urban local bodies”, Lucknow, available at: http://www.rcueslucknow.org/
states/CompendiumofUrbanData(UttarPradesh)/5IntroductionHistoryofULBs.pdf (accessed 13
March 2019).
SARC (2007), “Local Governance- an inspiring journey into the future”, doi: 10.4135/9781446200964.n20.
SCoUD&M (2011), “Report of the working group on urban strategic planning”, available at: http://
planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/hud/wg%7B_%7Drep%7B_%7DUrban
%7B_%7DWG.pdf (accessed 26 March 2019).
Shukla, P. (2015) Sharma, P. and Rajput, S. (Eds), Smart Cities in India, Springer, New Delhi, doi: 10.
1007/978-3-319-47145-7.
SMC (2015), “Surat municipal corporation: demographics”, available at: https://www.suratmunicipal.
gov.in/TheCity/Demographics (accessed 24 April 2019).
SPA (2011), “Alternative approaches to master plan”, Delhi, Vol. I, pp. 1/1-9/18.
SUDA (2017), “Development plan 2035. Surat”, available at: https://www.sudaonline.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/03/SUDA-DP-2035-report-final-22.02.2017.pdf (accessed 27 March 2019).
Taylor, P. and Halfani, M. (2004), “Urban governance index, conceptual foundation and field test
report”, available at: papers3://publication/uuid/4B833808–137D-4037-A51F-BBE1F82E9C7F
TCoJ (1978), “Ombudsman by-law. Johannesberg, South Africa”, available at: https://www.joburg.org.
za/about_/Documents/OmbudBy-law PUBLISHED.pdf (accessed 29 April 2019).
TCoJ (2016), “Municipal planning by-law”, The City of Johannesburg, the Republic of South Africa: The
city of Johannesburg, doi: 10.1126/science.202.4366.409.
TCoNY (2004), “New York city charter. United States of America: the City of New York”, doi: 10.4135/
9781412973816.n105.
TCoNY (2015), One New York, NY, available at: https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/ Performance
2018/04/OneNYC-1.pdf (accessed 30 April 2019).
assessment of
TCoNY (2016), “Welcome to NYC.gov j city of New York”, available at: http://www1.nyc.gov/ (accessed
24 April 2019).
governance
TERI (2010), “Enhancing public participation through effective functioning of Area Sabhas”,
available at: http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/TERI_Sabhas_Report28.pdf (accessed
23 April 2019).
The Constitution (74th Amendment) Act (1992), available at: http://moud.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/
files/74th_CAA13.pdf (accessed 21 April 2019).
Tindwani, S. (2015), “Public participation in urban planning with respect to 74th CAA and JNNURM
Reforms: a case of Gujarat”, available at: http://spa.ac.in/writereaddata/Session2aMsShashitindwani
.pdf (accessed 27 April 2019).
TPotRoSA (1998), “Local Government: municipal structures act”, Republic of South Africa: The
Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, available at: http://www.demarcation.org.za/site/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/Local-Government-Municipal-Structures-Act-as-on-8-April-2009.pdf
(accessed 22 March 2019).
TPotRoSA (2000), Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, The Parliament of the Republic of South
Africa, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa, available at: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/
pdf/saf93030.pdf (accessed 22 March 2019).
TRMAQPR (2017), “Structure planning, the resource management act quality planning resource”,
available at: https://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/node/1134 (accessed 7.October.2017).
UN-Habitat (2004), “Urban governance index: conceptual foundation and field test report april 2019)”,
Conceptual Foundation and Field Test Report August, pp. 1-65, available at: papers3://
publication/uuid/4B833808-137D-4037-A51F-BBE1F82E9C7F accessed 9.
UN-Habitat (2015), “4 – urban culture and heritage”, Habitat III Issue Papers, Vol. 2015, pp. 0-8,
available at: https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-4_
Urban-Culture-and-Heritage-2.0.pdf (accessed 29 April 2019).
UNDP (2015), “Governance assessments and governance indicators in the arab region”, available at:
https://www.undp.org/content/dam/rbas/doc/DemGov/Chapter2_Governance_Assessments_
Governance_Indicators_Social_accountability_changing_region_Report_English_Gov_Week_
Cairo_March_14.pdf (accessed 13 April 2019).
UNHSP (2009), “Urban indicators guidelines. ‘Better information, better cities’ – monitoring the habitat
agenda and the millennium development goals - slums target”, available at: https://www.ine.pt/
ngt_server/attachfileu.jsp?look_parentBoui5143216309&att_display5n&att_download5y
UPLC (1959), The Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council,
Lucknow.
UPLC (1973), “The Uttar Pradesh urban planning and development act. Uttar Pradesh, India: Uttar
Pradesh Legislative Council”, available at: http://www.lawsofindia.org/pdf/uttar_pradesh/1976/
1976UP19.pdf (accessed 7 April 2019).
Vaidya, C. (2009), “Urban issues, reforms and way forward in India, economic affairs”, available at:
https://dea.gov.in/sites/default/files/Urbanissues_reforms.pdf (accessed 6 April 2019).
VDA (2011), “Varanasi master plan 2031”, available at: https://vdavns.com/varanas-master-plan-2031-
ZR.aspx (accessed 24 April 2019).
VMC (2019), “Varanasi municipal corporation”, available at: https://www.nnvns.org/ (accessed 24
April 2019).
Wagenvoort, R., Engel, E., Fischer, R. and Galetovic, A. (2010), “Public and private financing of
infrastructure”, in Strauss, H. (Ed.), EIB Papers, Economic and Financial Studies Division,
European Investment Bank, Luxembourg, pp. 1-146, available at: https://www.eib.org/
attachments/efs/eibpapers/eibpapers_2010_v15_n01_en.pdf (accessed 19 April 2019).
SASBE WEF (2016), “Reforms to accelerate the development of India’s smart cities: shaping the future of
urban development and services”, available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Reforms_
Accelerate_Development_Indias_Smart_Cities.pdf (accessed 21 April 2019).
About the authors

Kranti Kumar Maurya is a Doctoral Scholar in the Department of Architecture and Planning, IIT
Roorkee, India. His current research area is framework building for smart city building and its
management in India. He post-graduated in Urban and Rural Planning from IIT Roorkee, India (2016).
He graduated in Architecture from Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh, India (formerly known as Uttar Pradesh Technical University) (2014). Kranti Kumar Maurya is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: kmaurya@ar.iitr.ac.in
Arindam Biswas is a Graduate from the University of Tokyo and an expert on urban and regional
planning. He is a recipient of the DAAD Fellowship and MEXT Scholarship. Presently Dr Biswas is
working as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Architecture and Planning, IIT Roorkee, India.
His ongoing research focuses on urban policy and governance, smart city, “cluster” and networking in
urban region, urban informality, and resilience. In addition to journal articles, and conference
publications, he has also co-edited two books. He is serving as occasional reviewer of Area Development
and Policy, Development in Practice, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Urban Design International,
and World Development.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Performance Assessment of Governance in Indian Smart City Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Assessment of Governance in Indian Smart City Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

Performance assessment of Performance

2.1 Scales of measurement for this analysis

2.2 Parameters’ selection and scoring methodology

2.3 Data sources for analysis

1. Ombudsman authorities To look into complaints of corruption and maladministration

Score for governance in a city 5 mean of all the principles, i.e.

Summarized scores are in the following Table 4:

1. Ombudsman authorities Accountability

1. Functioning DPs Effectiveness

1. Availability of decentralized DP approval system Strategic Vision

About the authors

You might also like