2008Unpublished venueOpen access

Multiple dimensions of urban well-being: Evidence from India

S. Chandrasekhar, Abhiroop Mukhopadhyay

Open full text 13 citations

Abstract

This working paper addresses differences in outcomes across households residing in slums and non-slum urban areas of India. We first established that if utility is defined as access to public goods such as water and sanitation, then residents in non-slum urban areas are unambiguously better off than slum dwellers. On the other hand, we found that the distribution of private goods (monthly per capita expenditure and per capita living area) in non-slum areas does not dominate the distribution of these goods in the slums, implying that non-slum residents are not unequivocally better off than slum residents. Since slums are on average poorer than other urban areas, it may be more pragmatic, therefore, to target policies at slum development. However, such policies would fail to reach the poorest residents of non-slum areas in both large and small cities. Our results make the case for a more inclusive policy that targets these groups as well.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This working paper addresses differences in outcomes across households residing in slums and non-slum urban areas of India. We first established that if utility is defined as access to public goods such as water and sanitation, then residents in non-slum urban areas are unambiguously better off than slum dwellers. On the other hand, we found that the distribution of private goods (monthly per capita expenditure and per capita living area) in non-slum areas does not dominate the distribution of these goods in the slums, implying that non-slum residents are not unequivocally better off than slum residents. Since slums are on average poorer than other urban areas, it may be more pragmatic, therefore, to target policies at slum development. However, such policies would fail to reach the poorest residents of non-slum areas in both large and small cities. Our results make the case for a more inclusive policy that targets these groups as well.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This working paper addresses differences in outcomes across households residing in slums and non-slum urban areas of India. We first established that if utility is defined as access to public goods such as water and sanitation, then residents in non-slum urban areas are unambiguously better off than slum dwellers. On the other hand, we found that the distribution of private goods (monthly per capita expenditure and per capita living area) in non-slum areas does not dominate the distribution of these goods in the slums, implying that non-slum residents are not unequivocally better off than slum residents. Since slums are on average poorer than other urban areas, it may be more pragmatic, therefore, to target policies at slum development. However, such policies would fail to reach the poorest residents of non-slum areas in both large and small cities. Our results make the case for a more inclusive policy that targets these groups as well.

Key concepts: Slum, Sanitation, Distribution (mathematics), Socioeconomics, Per capita, Geography, Economic growth, Per capita income

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Multiple dimensions of urban well-being: Evidence from India — Research Paper | ScholarLens