FIRST WORLD/ THIRD

WORLD GLOBAL CITY: LONDON AND MUMBAI IN

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE ABSTRACT

The term ‘global city’ first coined by Sassen (1991) is considered to be an important

node in global economic system. However, the concept of global city has evolved in a

complex relation with social, economic and environmental aspects. Implication of the

complex relationship can be seen across the major cities of the world. The study

presents a comparison between one of the most dominant global city regions of First

world and Third world. Firstly, focusing on London and Mumbai, the essay will assess

the past and future trends and identify the main challenges they face socially,

economically and environmentally. Secondly, the essay will use its comparative

perspective to emphasize that the advent of globalization and adoption of neo-liberal

policy making has led to socio-spatial inequalities. ‘Gentrification’ of the society

display similar outcomes in social and environmental context across the two cities. The

essay will also try to address the main challenge of gentrification and its

environmental impact, with the help of established academic researches and relevant

literature.

KEYWORDS :

Global cities, Global city region, globalization, gentrification

INTRODUCTION Sassen (1991) assessed the centrality of the cities in global economy with their impact of the

changes in functioning of the cities upon both international economic activity and urban form.

She identified that cities concentrate control over vast resources with finance and special

service industries restructuring the urban social economic order and concluded that such cities

can be called Global cities(Sassen, 1991).Sassen’s (1991) study identified London, New York,

and Tokyo as major global cities. It may be noted that Sassen study mentions the cities of First

world division. The advent of globalization of trade, production and finance has hit major third

world cities like Mumbai (India), Johannesburg (South Africa) and Sao Paulo (Brazil) and are

undergoing major urban transitions(Segbers, 2007).it will more appropriate to call them

‘Global City Regions’ which was conceptualized by Scott (2001) as new key territorial units in

post fordist Global Economy(Derudder & Witlox, 2008).”The growth of global city region is

crucially conditioned by rescaling of the national frameworks in which they are embedded, and

the rescaling is observed to be induced by new economic geographic strategies of

transnational oriented capitalist firms”(Derudder & Witlox, 2008).

Process of globalization contains a number of undercurrents whose influence can be seen

both in forms of cities as a whole and the forms of built structures within them(Marcuse,

2008).It offers major challenge in environment, demographic, economic, socio-spatial terms

which are interdependent and are mutually reinforcing. The focus on urban agglomeration

economies has a major implication for the territorial demarcation of global cities. Sassen(1991)

argued that ‘this will result in a new geography of centrality that may very well cut across

existing first world, second world and third world divides’(Derudder & Witlox, 2008). Because

of globalization major cities are experiencing wide disparities. This divide between established

socio- economic groups is becoming more pronounced and deeper.

The study presents a comparative perspective of well established first world global city

London(U.K.) with an emerging global city region of third world country Mumbai(India) to

emphasize on environmental, social and economical disparity existing in today’s globalised era.

By highlighting different factors of influences in both the cases the essay will focus on the

social disparity in terms of ‘gentrification’ observed in today’s metropolitan regions. As a result

of the socio-spatial inequality cities are facing major challenges socially and environmentally.

Emphasis will be laid on addressing the question of how the overall socio-spatial disparity

affects society and the capacity to form a healthy urban community, aiming for a common

sustainable future.

THE CITIES

London ,an important global city as per Sassen’s understanding and the capital city of

the United Kingdom is the largest city, urban zone and metropolitan area in the United

Kingdom, and the European Union by most measures. It stands in the top list

of the world cities along with New York(GaWC, 2011). London provides the

principal gateway for international trade and inward investment for the UK

economy. It is also of course a major centre of global finance. It serves as

strategic headquarters for transnational corporations and international

financial institutions. Oxford Economics’ analysis shows London as a dynamic

world city whose population has been rising for 25 years – between 2000 and

2009, London’s population rose by a substantial 7%, outstripping the UK as a

whole by almost a factor of two. This strongly reflects London’s position as

the UK’s leading centre of high value, export-oriented employment(City of

London Corporation Economic Development Office, 2011).Currently its Gross

City Product is estimated at GBP 30556.2530 per capita accounting for almost

20 % of the UK’s national economy with just 12 % of the population. Yet a

core of poverty lingers in inner London, particularly in its eastern and

southern areas (UrbanAge, 2007).

As a centre of media, finance, and other specialized services, London exercises

a powerful influence, not only in UK also but on the rest of the world. As a

world city, its inhabitants are heterogeneous and have major concentrations of both wealth

and poverty. (Hamnett, 2004).

Mumbai, on the other hand is characterized by its high level of global linkage in regional

perspective. It is selected from third world on the basis of global connections with reference to

the presence of globally active specialized service, the capacity to function as a hub and node

and also for its current ability to attract Foreign Direct Investment(Segbers, 2007).The city

houses important financial institutions such as the Reserve Bank of India, the Bombay Stock

Exchange, the National Stock Exchange of India, the Security and Exchange Board of India and

the corporate headquarters of numerous Indian companies and multinational corporations. It

is also home to some of India's premier scientific and nuclear institutes and the Department of

Atomic Energy. The city also houses India's Hindi and Marathi film and television industry. It

contributes 40 per cent of national income tax and 60 per cent of customs duty(Frug,

November 2007).

Figure i: Classification

of cities-2010(GAWC,

2011)

Mumbai's business opportunities attract migrants from all over India. According to the

Washington based Population Institute, Mumbai metropolitan region in 2020 will be the

world’s most populous at 28.5 million(Frug, November 2007)(Mohan, 2010) The city emerged

from being a port city, then a manufacturing and lately molded itself as a mega city with

adoption of neo-liberal policies promoted through globalization .Mumbai is If the city host best

of India in terms of being economic powerhouse, showing excellence in arts and fashion, a

large part of population lives on the margins of existence(Patel, 2007).

Both London and Mumbai serves as economic and cultural apex of their country and faces a

varied set of urban challenges. However, common between both cities is the consideration of

restructuring and changes in urban policy to meet the institutional challenges. Policy agendas

are primarily concerned with managing and mitigating the social, economic and environmental

effects of growth. There is almost universal recognition at all levels that it is essential to

incorporate environmental considerations into urban planning and management.

ECONOMIC CHALLENGES London being ‘global city’ and Mumbai a ‘global city region’, spatial and technical

transformation of economic activity plays an important role in both the cases. Industrial re-

composition and shift from manufacturing to service economy forms the economic base in

both the context, however the time period of the shift was different in both the cases. London

experienced the decline in manufacturing sector from mid 1960 and by 1990s almost 50 % of

those employed in the manufacturing sector were working in offices of manufacturing

companies who produce elsewhere(Hamnett, 2004).On the other hand Mumbai ,once a major

manufacturing city of India experienced decline in manufacturing industry in 1980s.Global

Figure ii: DEGREE of global connectedness of South

Asian cities(SEGBERS, 2007)

phase on Mumbai started with liberalization of economic policies by Indian government in

1990s(Patel, 2007).Considering the journey of the two cities in economic context, and the

current recession in unreliable global market the two cities are currently facing major

economic problems

Mumbai had rarely shown any significant positioning in the global perspective until recently.

Globalization of Indian economy was facilitated by liberalization of economic policies in the

early 1990s(Nijman, 2011).After independence, Mumbai (then Bombay) emerged as a major

manufacturing industry with a boom in cotton and textile industry catering to national market.

City’s economy was organically dependent on the fate of textile industries. In 1980s Indian

government adopted autarky policies and began investing in capital-intensive industries like

petrochemicals and engineering neglecting the consumer goods industry of textiles. Profits

from textile industry were re-invested in capital intensive industries. This led to the decline in

textile industries under the increasing dominance of capital intensive sector(Patel, 2007).This

shift in interest of capital and the state led to the textile strike of 1982-83 which resulted in the

closure of mills and displacement of almost 100,000 workers from being millworkers to find

employment in unorganized sector(Patel, 2007).This segmentation was reinforced by the

spatial relocation of decentralized units of industries within the city. Industries with production

of high volume, low-value goods were moved out while high value production was kept in the

city. This process was not of de-industrialization but of spatial re-organization with territorial

expansions(Patel, 2007).From being labor-intensive to capital intensive industrial town the city

faced challenges to cope up with the increase in city’s population demanding for more jobs

and housing. At that time when city’s economy was already service oriented was pulled into

the new global economy as India initiated export-led growth and adopted liberalization

policies in the early 1990s(Patel, 2007).

The decline in manufacture sector supported through globalization led to rise in

unemployment and forced workers to find survival by employment in informal sector(Patel,

2007).In 1976, 27% of the city’s organized labor was employed in textile industries, which

decreased to 12.5 in 1991 .This was accompanied by the growth of informal sector to 65.6% in

1991(Patel, 2007). The last 15 years or so have witnessed accelerating foreign investment in

Mumbai and a rapid increase in the presence of transnational corporations, especially in the

sphere of finance and producer services(Nijman, 2011), Still an unevenness exists in the

internal structure of the city as large parts of the city continue to employ archaic and pre-

global technology which solidifies the foundation of inequality. 2001 census suggests that the

total employment in Mumbai is 4.4 million of which 41% are in secondary sector and 58% are

in tertiary sector. As of 2003, there were more than 7800 large, medium and small-scale

enterprises operating in Mumbai. Mumbai was the first city corporation to adopt the concept

of a development plan under which industrial zones were allowed to be used for residential

and commercial purposes as most textile mills which closed down paving way to residential

and commercial development leading to a boom in construction(Jadhav, 2005).

In the current recession market city’s recent GDP growth is a surprisingly low 2.4 per cent per

annum (1998-2002), this slow down has affected the growth of Maharashtra, since Mumbai

and its surrounding regions contribute over 20 per cent of the state’s GDP. The state’s growth

rate fell from 4.8 per cent per annum in 1994-98 to 4.2 per cent in 1998-2002 when Mumbai’s

growth rate slipped from 7 to 2.4, a period in which the growth rate of India was as much as

5.6 per cent( Bombay First;McKinsey Report, 2003).

London is one of most important financial centres of the world identified as global city by

Sassen(1991.Economy of London parallels the analysis of Sassen(1991) of global city as shift

from manufacturing to finance. Hamnett (2004) describes the change in economic structure of

London, “The period from the mid 1960s onwards has seen a dramatic contraction of London

as a manufacturing centre. In 1961 London had 1.45 million manufacturing jobs, 684,000 in

1981 and 359,000 in 1991. In percentage terms, manufacturing has fallen from 34% of total

employment in 1961 to 18% in 1981, 11% in 1991 and 8% in 1998.” With the rapid decline in

manufacturing sector the Hamett (2004) observed the rapid expansion of jobs in service

industries. London became the centre of service employment prominently in banking, finance

and business services. The expansion in service sector from 1981-91 was from 75.6% to 84%

which dominance of banking and finance that grew from 16% to 22.5% of employment

share(Hamnett, 2004).Business services and finance sector became the main driving force of

London’s economy in 1990s with a decline in retail banking. By 1997 finance and business

services accounted for 30.6% of employment that was almost 4 time of manufacturing

industry. Over the period of 1981-1998 employment in real-estate, renting and business

activities grew from 11.6% to 22.1 which was a significant growth. All these changes reshaped

the economy of London. Financialization of capital in which financial firms controlled the large

service firms, a shift in power between firms and workers and firms and government was

observed which led to the uneven development and inequalities in the inner structure of the

city(Marcuse, 2008). As a result there has been a polarization of income distribution and

occupational distribution among the population, with a higher incidence of jobs at the higher

and lower paying ends of the scale and a decline in the numbers of middle-income jobs

associated with the downgrading of the manufacturing sector. This has led to a form of social

polarization which has distinctive image.

With its core focus on global financial services where the global economic downturn

originated, London’s economy suffered significantly in terms of job losses in the current

economic crisis. As per the BRES data for 2009, 192,000 jobs (4.5%) were lost between 2008

and 2009, compared to the GB average of 2.9%. Between 2008 and 2009 auxiliary business

services (not directly in financial services) suffered most in terms of job losses, followed by

construction sector(City of London Corporation Economic Development Office, 2011).

With the advent of globalisation a concentration of ownership and control in the hands of

multinational co-operations was observed. In both the case it was very much evident that the

shift in power relations between firm and worker with business profits induced speedy

executives pay rise causing concentration of high income group affecting labour market. With

the specific outcomes in the case of each city it can be observed that there is diversity in the

impact of economic process strongly influenced by pre-existing local conditions and policies.

SOCIAL CHALLENGES Labor market polarization changes are being observed in the direction of fragmentation,

separation and specialization of functions and uses within the cities(Harper, et al., 2011). As

discussed in the previous section the economic revival of the two cities, new information

economy took its place characterizing the new urban economy and labour market by bi-modal

income distributions separating highly educated high income from low educated low income

service personnel. This change in socio-economic character of city is often expressed spatially,

in new forms of residential segregation, as in the proliferation of gated communities(Nijman,

2011).

Mumbai experienced profound change in the economy which caused significant change in

spatial structure of the city. From being an industrial oriented economy reshaping into capital

intensive and service sector oriented centre surrounded by restructured industrial production

FIGURE III: Greater Mumbai UA and its Constituents: Growth Rates of

Population, 1981-91 and 1991-2011(BHAGAT & SITA, 2010).

dispersed to remote locations, led to the enormous rise in population(Patel, 2007).

The change in job sector in the new global economy created new dimensions with positive

and negative effects. Textile strike of 1982-82 rendered the millworkers unemployed forcing

them to find employment in unorganised sector. This can be identified as the first segregation

on basis of employment as workers began to sink into unemployed and underemployed

categories(Patel, 2007). Spatial re-organisation of capital intensive industries led to the spatial

inequality. The central areas became more important and production moved out into the

suburbs. With the increase in population demand for housing was rising. Closed mills in the

centre of the city became potential site for new residential development and land became the

new marketable commodity. Harris (2008) described the case of Mumbai by quoting Tindall in

an article in dec 1991, for an esteemed Indian newspaper, “the sturdy and handsome factory

buildings now just waiting in Lower Parel for new life and commerce to be breathed into

them” .The prediction made by her proved true as by the advent of new millennium, several

new luxury residential high-rises had been constructed on Lower Parel’s mill-land.Public-

private sector collaboration created a superfluous scarcity which led to the hike in land prices.

Nijman (2011) mentions the spatial inequality as “Global articulations are highly concentrated

in specific areas. Mumbai’s corporate geography displays separate clusters of business activity

with varying degrees of global engagement. South Mumbai, and especially the area around

Nariman Point, has been dubbed the ‘global CBD’ (with mainly finance and producer services)

as distinct from other, less internationally oriented, CBDs Particular upscale residential areas

such as Cumbala Hill (in the south, as well) cater to the expat community and house most

consular offices.”

Concentration of ownership and property prices reinforces inequalities in land and housing.

South Mumbai, Marine drive areas are centres of capital accumulation with land prices almost

70 times to the suburbs of Bhyander(Patel, 2007). Along with the social inequality As a result

of hike of land prices and increasing demand of housing slums mushroomed in suburbs of

Mumbai. Presently almost 6% of the city’s land houses more than 50% of its population(Patel,

2007). With rise of unemployment in manufacturing sector paralleling with rise of employment

in unorganised sector created a situation of deprivation and poverty not only in terms of

earning but also in terms of housing, health and education. On the other hand Mumbai saw

increase in jobs associated with producer services. Mumbai can be now perceived as city of

extreme contrast (Patel, 2007).

What is interesting in case of Mumbai is that the elites and the subaltern are not always

geographically separated. High-rises apartments, elite residential areas often have a backdrop

of mass housing, slums and shanties. Such proximity of disparity in terms of opportunity,

services and social welfare dramatizes the process of globalization(Hoskote, 2007)

As discussed in the previous section London shifted to service based economy with its

deindustrialisation inducing decline in manufacturing industry(Hamnett, 2004) .Hamnett

(1994) presents a good critique of the Sassen’s(1991) theory of globalisation inducing

polarisation by describing the case of London to be more of ‘professionalization’ rather than

polarization here ‘professionalization’ refers to change and dominance in occupational

structure(Hamnett, 2004). Hamnett (2004)observes “the changes show consistent long term

growth in the professional and managerial non-manual labour force, stability in the junior and

intermediate non-manual group and sharp declines in both the absolute size and proportions

of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled groups” Ruth (1962) first observed the social disparity in

urban form of London and coined the term ‘gentrification’. Changes in occupational and

earnings structure impacted the housing market and the socio-spatial structure of London

since then. As a result widespread gentrification of societies was observed as worker class was

no longer able to afford good quality residential spaces in inner city of London which was

increasingly dominated by the professional and managerial classes. The social consequences of

gentrification led the rollback of less skilled, the unemployed, the poor and ethnic minorities

who have been steadily concentrated into the remaining inner London as they were no longer

able to afford the place(Hamnett, 2004). Harris (2008) draws a very clear picture of process of

gentrification in London by quoting Tindall (2006) from her 2006 book about Bankside, an

inner London area with a recent history as an industrial rather than a residential area.

“what were originally the ‘mean streets’ and ‘dark dirty alleys’ of waterside Thames are now

extremely expensive real-estate, a cosmopolitan ribbon worlds away from the drab hinterlands

behind them “

With the advent of globalisation and concentration of CBD’s and boom in the employment of

finance and banking sector jobs, London experienced a massive population rise resulting In

increasing demand of housing. With the existing social disparity and concentration of major

finance centres average property prices in London have risen dramatically in recent years: “by

almost 100% from 1995-2001, but in the prestigious central London boroughs of Kensington

and Chelsea, average prices rose by 152% and in Tower Hamlets, the borough which contains

many of the new Docklands luxury apartments, prices rose by 160%. There have also been

above average increases in most of the inner London boroughs while in suburban outer

London, prices rose more slowly. On the other hand, social rented housing has become

increasingly dominated by the economically inactive, the low skilled, the unemployed and a

variety of minority groups. As a result, the housing market in London has become increasingly

socially polarised between an affluent owner occupied sector and an increasingly

impoverished social rented sector”(Hamnett, 2004). Similarly, certain ethnic groups are

disproportionately concentrated in social housing(Hamnett, 2004).

The urbane spaces of affluent society amidst marginalised spaces not only demonstrate new

forms of power in Mumbai and London(Harris, 2008). The gap between the high and lower

earners has steadily risen. Gentrification and inequality in socio-spatial structure are results of

playing out of land market forces and real estate along with the consequence of local policies

which were made with an aim of positioning these cities as an attractive site for investment

and global competition for capital (Harper, et al., 2011).

ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES Interdependence of human and natural systems has affected the environment in a negative

way with the advent of globalization. Dependency and stress on economic policies and

negligence of environmental aspects has resulted in an alarming situation of current concern

of Climate change. Consumption of natural assets, overexploitation of natural resources and

decrease in landscape are results of negative urban development. The challenge is to find ways

to move towards more efficient, resilient and integrated urban form that places less demand

on natural environment(Harper, et al., 2011).

Migrating population in Mumbai has created wider set of environmental problems for the city.

Expansion of trade and commerce attracted large number of people, which resulted in

increase in demand of dwellings. As discussed in the previous section rise in the employment

in unorganized sector and imbalance in the society forced growth of slums in Mumbai. Many

settlements lacks even basic infrastructure like water, sanitation and legal electricity

connections. Lack of sanitation facilities, lack of drinking water, increased incidence of cholera

and other diseases became major issues of concerns. Lack of appropriate recycling system and

infrastructure adds to the problem. Another crucial issue is of lack of efficient transport system

in the city. Existing rail and road network fail to effectively keep pace with traffic growth

leading to heavy congestion. Inadequate road network and maintenance creates traffic

bottlenecks. Existing traffic infrastructure contains network of road and flyovers and also local

train system stretching across the city(Patankar, et al., August 2010). Commuters from suburbs

show a distinct preference for trains, but the affluent prefers to use their own vehicles

resulting in the massive growth in the number of vehicles. Increased stock of automobiles has

created numerous environmental problems related to air pollution. With economic

development the set of city’s environmental problems keeps changing. In recent year’s city is

more vulnerable to the threats posed by climate risks, such as, sea level rises, storms and

floods. Much of the new settlements have occurred along the coastal areas of greater

Mumbai, which are low lying and flood plain. In July 2005, Mumbai, India, was struck by

cyclone that dumped 94 centimeters of rain in 24 hours, and leaving more than 1000 dead,

mostly in slum settlements(BBC, 2005).

In case of London high land values, continuous price hikes and the inability of supply to keep

pace with rising demand have made housing one of the most difficult hurdles to the city’s

continued growth. It is a key factor determining Londoners’ well being, landowners are

burdened by housing costs and prospective first time buyers’ face increasing difficulties in

accessing home ownership(Kanai, 2005). London may be one of the world’s greatest cities, yet

its physical environment does not live up to this reputation(Burdett, 2005).The growth of

London city has created environmental problems. The inner city faces problems such as noise

and air pollution from traffic, litter, problems of waste collection, graffiti, derelict buildings

(housing/factories) and wasteland. The suburbs and rural-urban fringe deal with problems like

noise and air pollution from traffic on main roads leading to city centre and loss of Greenfield

sites due to urban sprawl. Lack of open spaces and increase in density is creating an unhealthy

environment which fails to pertain to standards of a global urban metropolitan settlement.

Public transport is expensive, unreliable and dirty which discourages its use which results in

traffic congestion increasing the level of air and noise pollution in the city. To add to the

challenge, there is widespread concern especially at the level of local councilors that

intensification of land should not compromise public amenities, such as open and green spaces

or the river, and that intensification can lead to town-cramming and over-development(Kanai,

2005).London’s relationship with its public domain is changing. The new culture reflects not

only the pervasive presence of a younger and more international population, but also a new

attitude to London’s old public realm. Historically, London’s public spaces have been

residential squares, or larger parks. The city’s current imagination of public realm encompasses

spaces that are less green and more densely occupied; a shift in lifestyle that is threatening.

GENTRIFICATION AS A MAJOR CHALLENGE ’Gentrification’ the term first used by sociologist Glass (1962) in her survey of new aspects of

urban change in London can be defined as an segregation of urban areas when residential

shifts, urban planning, and other phenomena affect the composition of a neighborhood

In the context of transformations due to globalization, cultural and social differences intersect

and, in the process, produce new landscapes of urban inequality(Arapoglou, 2012). Formation

of new typologies and large developments in the central city and other central locations and

their fringes; concentration of ethnic areas and social housing and a global style of architecture

and design of public spaces are among some of the prominent changes(Marcuse,

2008).Agglomeration economies, the benefits of being near other activities in the same

business sector, remain important and lead to the substantial clustering of business activities

both inside and outside the central city of metropolitan areas. Advent and embracing of

globalizing policies by nations has produced a class of elites that are reminiscent of gentry in

early days of feudal system. Their importance is increasing with their income which results in

their residential locations to be more clearly identified and separated(Marcuse, 2008).

It has been identified in the previous section of the paper that implications of the changing

industrial, occupation and earnings structure of both London and Mumbai has resulted in the

disparity in for the housing market, residential segregation and gentrification.

London is a prototypical global city of diversity(Arapoglou, 2012).Arapoglou (2012) describes

the three distinct perspectives in theorizing the relationship between diversity and inequality

stem from London’s transformation into a global city with brevity. He mentions the first being

a critical multicultural perspective shaped by the emergence of British cultural studies during

the 1970s. The second is a politico-economic analysis of housing and labour market

inequalities, which offered a basis for the discussion of polarization within global cities. The

third is centered on the issue of ‘super diversity’ and the challenges of understanding space in

relational terms (Arapoglou, 2012). Hamnett(1996) argued that changes in socio spatial

structure of London is characterized by growth of middle class strata and ‘professionalization’.

According to evidence from the 1990s, the privatization of the housing system had a complex

effect on residential segregation(Arapoglou, 2012). Arapoglou (2012) describes “a growing

trend involving ethnic minority suburbanization was associated with improved access to home

ownership, whilst an increase in the social and private rented housing of ethnic minorities in

inner London ran parallel to the growth of native white home ownership”(Arapoglou, 2012).

This is crucial, at the local or micro level, segregation has risen between wealthy home owners

in one street, and low skilled, unemployed, low income council tenants a few blocks away. The

contrasts in income and wealth are now sharper at the micro scale, even though they are

lower at the wider geographical scale. Rich and poor, once almost invisible to one another by

virtue of their residential segregation, are now highly visible. This has brought with it greater

social tensions(Hamnett, 2004).

Mumbai’s economy is striking in its intricate mixtures of pre-industrial, industrial and post-

industrial modes of production. New urban politics driven by neoliberal ideologies in the early

1990’s paved the way polarization in Mumbai. It still has a large-scale manufacturing sector

and even the preindustrial era lives on in the ever-present use of human muscle-power among

large portions of the low-income labor force(Nijman, 2006). Most of the people working in this

mode use their residence as for the manufacture of goods and rely of that infrastructure, thus

access to housing is very critical for employment and survival(Patel, 2007). Housing, a major

marker of class, and changes in housing affordability reflects changes in the city’s class

structure(Nijman, 2006). Cityscape can be observed to be shaped by a contrast between rents

and increasing real estate prices creating hybrid spaces in which owners, tenants, illegal

tenants, and pavement dwellers can be found in the same neighborhood(Hoskote, 2007).

Harris (2008) studies comparative gentrification detailing the two areas; Bankside, London and

Lower Parel, Mumbai. In his study he concludes that gentrification is not simply the product of

global capital. Pulic policy plays an important role in the two different geographical contexts.

He says that firstly, often gentrification is the result of the concerted efforts of the commercial

and political elites on political parties to roll back the opposition force to gentrification. In the

case of Mumbai it is a major political force called Shivsena . In London it can be observed that

the post-1982 political emphasis on the housing and employment needs of the area’s working-

class neighbourhood clashed sharply with the Conservative national government’s new

market-led approach to the regeneration of inner London and its former docks(Harris,

2008).Secondly Harris(2008 ) mentions that the increase in flow of capital forced restructuring

of urban policies having priorities towards financial market drifting away from the social

aspects. Lastly he mentions that the gentrification in the two cities can be observed to be

accelerated by the city’s policy of regeneration of rundown marginalized area by offering

speculative developments. This further affirms the area as a significant gentrified area(Harris,

2008).

Gentrification of areas in Mumbai has led to the growth of slums which contributes to an array

of environmental problems. they are overcrowded, lack of ventilation without any proper

facility of services .Slum dwellers constantly deal with the issue of in-migration pressure ,no

sewerage facility, lack of water and sanitation facilities. These slums are dominates the city

and are centre of unhealthy and highly polluted environment which have become a part of

Mumbai landscape .Mumbai is a home to ‘dharavi’, Asia’s largest slum(Patel, 2007).Mumbai

may need a new conception of spatial planning to handle and alleviate these inequalities.

Harris (2008) identifies the importance of the role played by public policy rescaling towards

gentrification. He further identifies the gap in the research focusing on gentrification that

“Nevertheless, as well as considering how public policy has mediated Lower Parel and

Bankside’s gentrification, it is also crucial to consider the resultant effects on more

marginalized users of the two areas. This is something that has been notably lacking from

gentrification research”. He further mentions Paton (2007) and states “It is only by considering

the range of socio-spatial, political and cultural impacts that practical responses to

gentrification can be assessed and formulated”. The practical politics of gentrification need to

be understood as contingently realized across different global contexts(Harris, 2008).

Policies with the consideration strategies for fighting segregation contribute to social

cohesion(Cassiers & Kesteloot, 2012). Cassiers & Kesteloot (2012) mentions the theories

relating to restricting of policies of Forrest and Kearns, (2001).

“Firstly there are strategies trying to reduce the problematic outcomes of segregation without

attempting to change spatial patterns themselves to any significant degree (for example, by

creating economic participation programs or by providing public transport between areas of

unemployment and areas with job opportunities). Secondly, there are strategies targeting

decline in spatial segregation and an increase a in social mix via housing policies (attracting

higher-income households to poorer neighbourhoods, as well as moving poorer households

out of disfavored areas). Finally, there are more encompassing programs that target specific

areas, in order to reintroduce them within the urban economic tissue”.

Success or failure of socially cohesive policies depends as much upon the effectiveness of the

policies themselves as on the recognition of local features(Cassiers & Kesteloot, 2012).But

before its application, urban planners and policy makers need to assess the behavior of its

local actors. It has been observed that the major challenges the above mentioned cities are

facing is of the process of urbanization, which induces population growth in these cities. The

unprecedented magnitude of urban growth has engendered debate about whether less

developed countries and their large cities can accommodate the current volume of urban

growth(Brockerhoff, 2000). It has become very necessary to understand the trend of

population growth. This affects the social, environmental and economical behavior of a city in

greater sense. There is no evidence of a threshold population size beyond which cities

generate more negative than positive effects for their countries(Brockerhoff, 2000).

Urban population change is most commonly described by two measures: the level of

urbanization, and the rate of urban growth(Brockerhoff, 2000). As policy maker and urban

planner it is very necessary to understand the population growth trends, to know peoples’

demographic behavior. Understanding whether urban populations are growing more from

births or in-migrants, for instance, helps planners anticipate the needs of children and adults in

urban and rural areas with respect to education, housing, employment, and other

services(Brockerhoff, 2000).In case of London, challenges are arising less from population

growth than from changes in the composition and distribution of urban populations. The

demographic structure of urban populations also indicates the demand for jobs now and in the

future(Brockerhoff, 2000).Thus understanding the demographics is an important aspect

towards policy making for a sustainable social growth.

It is very necessary to understand ‘Urban Morphology’ of a city and responding to the

demographic and economic pressures that are causing rapid urban growth is very important.

The design of city streets, buildings and spaces plays an important role in securing the livability

and flexibility of urban environments that are undergoing intense processes of change(Frug,

November 2007).The spatial structure of Mumbai reveals an intense and compact

arrangement of buildings and structures, “containing and compressing the open ‘white’ spaces

that constitute the public realm of the city. The central area in Mumbai shows how dense

urban blocks are arranged efficiently along main streets and side alleyways”(Frug, November

2007). Slums have proliferated and congestion, pollution and increase in water problems. The

situation is likely to worsen over the next decade with an expected population increase of over

two million(McKinsey, 2003). Better understanding of the urban form helps in understanding

the varying capacity of different street grids and block layouts to accommodate change in a

resilient way(UrbanAge, 2007).

Miciukiewicz, et al., 2012 mentions Andreotti et al. (2012) and suggest to trace the

relationships between local welfare policies and social cohesion by looking at local welfare

systems as tools for the distribution of welfare services and economic opportunities he further

suggest that social cohesion, especially in difficult urban socio -cultural environments, is also

fostered through inclusive and innovative education and training systems. “The field of

education and education policy has been thoroughly studied as a pathway to social cohesion

with respect to the distribution of skills and thus economic opportunities to individuals, as well

as with regard to processes of collective identity formation”(Miciukiewicz, et al., 2012).

We have seen how disregarding environmental issues has a significantly damaging effect on

cities and urban settlements. For a city to grow and develop in the long term, it cannot

disregard its environment as it cuts across all sectors. Cities are more vulnerable to climate

risks due to its floods, climate change and global warming. A city’s environmental credentials,

and therefore its marketability, are strengthened if prospective investors can see that

sustainable resource use has been factored into the city development strategy, especially the

cost of known restraints such as finite water supplies, energy costs, the economic and job-

creating potential of eco-efficient industries The city budget may benefit from environmental

policies which encourage recycling and produce income from the sale of recyclable resources,

while at the same time needing less landfill space. Energy efficiency can reduce municipal

spending. Eco-efficiency can result in lower operating costs for local businesses, giving the city

a competitive advantage. An integrated environmental policy also works to reduce

environmental hazards especially those which affects the urban poor(Alliance, et al.,

2007).Steps should be taken to reduce the current exceeding levels of noise and air pollution.

Good supply of fresh and clean water and waste management ensures healthy and better

environment for citizens.

Need for affordable housing is one of the major concerns in London as well in Mumbai. Policies

for provision of affordable housing are crucial issue because rent is the top cost burden in the

transition from welfare to work in inner cities. Increased federal mortgage insurance, for

example, can encourage homeownership while making inner-city communities more livable,

stable, and safe(Brockerhoff, 2000).Steps should be taken to ensure better living conditions

and urban planners should ensure upgradation of existing slums and prevent formation of new

slums forced by constant migration pressure in the two cities.

If megacities are the engines of the global economy, economy, it is the transport network that

keeps those engines working efficiently. When roads and railways seize up, or when ports and

airports become overloaded, the cost to the economy is high(GlobeScan & Hazel, n.d.).To cope

up with growing population efficient Mass transit system is required. Without effective mass

transit systems, cities like London are unlikely to prosper(Travers, 2005).

Lastly, better governance is a vital step towards better cities. “An optimistic perspective

maintains that any urban area with good management and governance capabilities can absorb

large population increments without diminishing human welfare or the quality of the

environment”(Brockerhoff, 2000). The key to success is a “commitment to adopt policies that,

among other things, maintain infrastructure, increase productivity of the labor force, and

alleviate poverty”(Brockerhoff, 2000). In addition to appropriate management, good

governance is particularly important to the well-being of urban residents(Brockerhoff, 2000).

CONCLUSION By emphasising on the impact of social, economic and environmental issues on contemporary

cities across First world and third world division regardless of levels of national economic

development, it was found that in a city is much a product of its economic and social

processes(Hoskote, 2007) Economic and social structure bears a large scale of momentum as

any shift of restructuring in these context reshapes the entire city.

Global City and an emerging global city region witnessed restructuring and shift in economic

policies, but at different time period .What is striking here is the similarity of consequence

irrespective of the time periods regardless of their difference in level of economic

development. Socio-spatial inequalities and gentrification of the society can be observed in

both cities. Both London and Mumbai can be identified as magnets for trade, culture,

knowledge and industry, but on an unprecedented scale. In varying forms, they face hugely

complex social and environmental challenges.

To achieve the opportunities for human and economic development that these cities can

afford, while improving their many problems, will require the development of innovative

infrastructure solutions and new approaches to metropolitan governance. This in turn allows

a more diverse basis for imagining equitable urban futures(Douglass, 2000). It will require a

concerted and coordinated effort of the Government, the Private Sector and its citizens to

remove the obstacles to foster development towards making these cities a nationally and

internationally desirable destination for living, business and investment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bombay First;McKinsey Report, 2003. Vision Mumbai Transforming Mumbai into a world-class

city, Mumbai: Bombay First;McKinsey Report.

Alliance, C., UNEP & ICLEI, 2007. Liveble cities: The Benefits of Urban Environmental Planning,

Washington D.C.: The Cities Alliance, 2007.

Arapoglou, V. P., 2012. Diversity, inequality and urban change. European Urban and Regional

Studies, 3(19), p. 223–237.

BBC, 2005. Maharashtra rains leave many dead. [Online]

Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4717999.stm

[Accessed 10 12 2012].

Bhagat, R. B. & Sita, K., 2010. Population Change and Economic Restructuring in Mumbai,

Mumbai: Urban Design Reaserch Institute.

Brockerhoff, M. P., 2000. An Urbanizing World. Population Bulletin, September, 55(3), pp. 3-39.

Burdett, R., 2005. Changing Values:Public life and urban spaces. London, Urban Age:The

London School of Economics;Alfred Herrhausen Society.

Cassiers, T. & Kesteloot, C., 2012. Socio-spatial Inequalities and Social Cohesion in European

Cities. Urban Studies, 49(9), pp. 1909-1924.

City of London Corporation Economic Development Office, 2011. London’s Competitive Place in

the UK and Global Economies, London: City of London.

Derudder, B. & Witlox, F., 2008. What is a'World Class' City? Comparing conceptual

specifications of cities in context of global urban network. In: M. jenks, d. Kozak & P. Takkanon,

eds. World Cities and Urban Form, Fragmented, polycentric, sustainable?. Oxon: Routledge, p.

11.

Douglass, M., 2000. Mega-urban Regions and World City Formation:Globalisation, the

Economic Crisis and Urban Policy Issues in Pacific Asia. urban studies, 37(12), pp. 2315-2335.

Frug, G., November 2007. Urban India:Understanding the Maximum City;A ‘Rule of Law’ for

cities. Mumbai, Urban Age:The London School of Economics;Alfred Herrhausen Society.

GaWC, 2011. The World According to GaWC 2010. [Online]

Available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2010.html

[Accessed 11 06 2013].

GlobeScan & Hazel, M. M., n.d. Megacity Challenges:A stakeholder perspective, s.l.: Siemens

AG.

Hamnett, C., 2004. Economic and Social Change and Inequality in Global cities :The case of

London. The Greek Review of Social Research, Volume 113, pp. 63-80.

Harper, T. L., Hibbard, M., Costa, H. & yeh, A. g.-O., 2011. Rising to Global Challange. In: T. L.

harper, M. hibbard, H. Costa & A. g. yeh, eds. Dialoges in Urban and Reagional Planning. Oxon:

Routledge, pp. 1-11.

Harris, A., 2008. From London to Mumbai and Back Again:Gentrification and public policy in

comparative perspective. Urban Studies, pp. 2407-2408.

Hoskote, R., 2007. Versions of postcolonial Metropolis, Competing Discourses on Bombay's

image. In: K. Segbers, ed. The making of Global City Regions. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins

University Press, pp. 258-278.

Jadhav, N., 2005. Economic Renewal of Mumbai City:Opportunities and Constraints. Mumbai,

International Conference on Urban Renewal : Learnings for Mumbai.

Kanai, M., 2005. Accomodating Growth or Conflict?Housing and urban neighbourhoods.

London, Urban Age:The London School of Economics;Alfred Herrhausen Society.

Marcuse, P., 2008. Globalisation and the forms of cities. In: M. Jenks, D. kozak &

PattarananTakkanon, eds. World Cities and Urban Forms Fragmented,polycentric, sustainable?.

Oxon: Routledge, p. 25.

McKinsey, 2003. Vision Mumbai II:Transforming Mumbai into a world-class city,A summary of

recommendations, Mumbai: A Bombay First – McKinsey Report.

Miciukiewicz, K. et al., 2012. Introduction Problematising Urban Social Cohesion:A

Transdisciplinary Endeavour. Urban Studies, 49(9), pp. 1855-1872.

Mohan, D. S., 2010. Notes from Fringes:A Brief Note on Mumbai Metropolitan Region,

Mumbai: Urban Design Reaserch Institute.

Nijman, J., 2006. Mumbai’s Mysterious Middle Class. International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research, 30(4), p. 758–775.

Nijman, J., 2011. Mumbai as a global city: a theoretical essay, s.l.: s.n.

Patankar, A., Patwardhan, A., Andharia, J. & Lakhani, V., August 2010. MUMBAI CITY REPORT.

Bangkok, International Workshop onClimate Change Vulnerability Assessment and

UrbanDevelopment Planning for Asian Coastal Cities.

Patel, S., 2007. Mumbai the mega city of a poor country. In: K. Segbers, ed. The making of

Global City Regions. USA: The John Hopkins University Press, pp. 65-84.

Sassen, S., 1991. The Global City. 1st ed. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Segbers, K., 2007. Global Politics and Making of Global City Regions. In: K. Segbers, ed. The

making of Global City Regions. Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, pp. 1-26.

The Museum of Architecture, B. U. o. T. & London, D. f., 2010. Urban Planningin Berlin,

London,Paris and Chicago1910 and 2010. Berlin;London: City Visions 1910 | 2010.

Travers, T., 2005. Bringing London Together:Transport and mobility. London, Urban Age:The

London School of Economics;Alfred Herrhausen Society.

UrbanAge, 2007. Urban Age City Data. Mumbai, Urban Age:The London School of

Economics;Alfred Herrhausen Society.

Woodward, R., 1995. Approaches towards the study of social polarization in the UK. Progress

in human Geography, 1(19), pp. 75-89.

Yedla, S., 2006. Dynamics of environmental problems in Mumbai, Mumbai: Springer-Verlag.