Three Kerala cities in EIU’s fastest-growing cities list – What does this mean?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 22, 2020
The Economist released a list of top-ten fastest growing cities around the world. Three cities from Kerala have featured in the top-ten list – Malappuram, Kozhikode and Kollam. Two broad perspectives have emerged after this announcement. What are those perspectives & where do the numbers come from? Here is a deep dive.
In a recent post, the Economist released a list of top-ten fastest growing cities around the world according to a chart prepared by Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Three cities from Kerala have featured in the top-ten list – Malappuram (1st position), Kozhikode (4th position) and Kollam (10th position). The EIU survey also features Thrissur (13th position), Surat (27th position) and Tirupur (30th position). The total percentage change in the population of each city, based on a 2015-20 forecast, has been outlined in the chart released by EIU. In light of these intriguing numbers, two major perspectives have emerged. While some are lauding this as remarkable growth of smaller cities, others are attributing this growth to increase in the Muslim population in North Kerala.
In light of these perspectives, the purpose of this article is three-fold.
Where do these numbers come from?
Thefindings of the EIU survey were juxtaposed with UN Population Division’s database and publications, as the EIU surveymentions UN Population Division as its source. The Population Division of theUN Secretariat’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs provides analysis ofpopulation trends based on all three components of population change –fertility, mortality and migration. In preparing estimates and projections ofthe urban population, the United Nations relies on data from national sourcessuch as Census and other additional national datasets and reports.
In the World Urbanisation Prospectus 2018, of the UN Population Division, a list of fastest-growing urban agglomerations in 1990-2018 and 2018-2030 has been published, based on population size and average annual rate of change. Four cities from India have featured in the list – Malappuram (4th position), Kollam (18th position), Thrissur (23rd position) and Surat (25th position).
Beforemoving forward, let’s take a look at these frequently used terminologies:
The Geographical Expansion of Urban Agglomerations
In line with UN Population Division’s methodology, the Census 2001 and Census 2011 database is used to track changes in the population and demographic composition of these cities. It is important to note that in the state of Kerala, 13 Urban Agglomerations of 2001 Census continue in 2011 Census also, but with jurisdictional changes as a result of the addition of a number of census towns. These 13 Urban Agglomerations include Malappuram, Kozhikode, Kollam & Thrissur with high numbers of additions in the number of census towns for each of these Urban Agglomerations.
Therefore, it can be established that the geographical expansion of the above-mentioned urban agglomerations has an important role to play in the population growth recorded between 2001 and 2011 Census. This partly explains why the overall change in urban population as noted below, stands particularly high (highest for Malappuram, followed by others). To understand this growth further, each city’s profile has been explained and to understand if there has been any change in the demographic composition. Further, religion-wise population in urban and rural parts of these districts has been compared between Census 2001 and 2011. The primary focus is on two major religious communities – Hindu and Muslims – in order to critically analyse the claims of Muslim population growth in urban areas of North Kerala cities.
Theprofile of Malappuram reveals that while the change in the district’s urbanpopulation is high, the overall change in the district’s population (rural andurban combined) remains low. Both Hindu and Muslim populations have moved outof rural areas and their populations in urban areas have increased manifold(more so for Muslims as compared to Hindus). The demographic composition ofurban Malappuram, in terms of religious composition, has not seen a significantchange between 2001 and 2011, though there is a marginal increase in the shareof Muslims.
Theprofile of Kollam shows that the district’s population (rural and urbancombined) has remained almost stable over the decade (between 2001 and 2011)with a growth of merely 1.94%. Although the change in the district’s urbanpopulation is significant, we can see that both Hindu and Muslim populationshave moved out of rural areas and their populations in urban areas haveincreased manifold (more so for Muslims as compared to Hindus). The demographiccomposition of urban Kollam, in terms of religious composition, has not seen asignificant change between 2001 and 2011. In fact, the share of both Hindus& Muslims has increased in Urban Kollam.
Theprofile of Kozhikode reveals that while the change in the district’s urbanpopulation is relatively high, the overall change in the district’s population(rural and urban combined) remains low. Both Hindu and Muslim populations havemoved out of rural areas and their populations in urban areas have increasedmanifold (more so for Hindus as compared to Muslims). The demographiccomposition of urban Kozhikode, in terms of religious composition, has not seena significant change between 2001 and 2011, with a marginal increase in theshare of Hindus.
Theprofile of Thrissur shows that while the change in the district’s urbanpopulation is relatively high like in the case of other cities in Kerala, theoverall change in the district’s population (rural and urban combined) remainslow. Both Hindu and Muslim populations have moved out of rural areas and theirpopulations in urban areas have increased manifold (more so for Muslims ascompared to Hindus). The demographic composition of urban Thrissur has seen ashift in terms of an increased share of Muslim population (from 11.67% to17.73%), while the share of Hindu population remained almost the same between2001 and 2011.
Theprofile of Surat shows that while the change in the district’s urban populationis high, the overall change in the district’s population (rural and urbancombined) is relatively low. In terms of decline in rural population, Hindusdisplay a comparatively higher decline as compared to Muslims. There is nosignificant decline in Muslim populations in rural area, however, thepopulation of both communities has increased in urban areas. The demographiccomposition of urban Surat, in terms of religious composition, has not seen asignificant change between 2001 and 2011.
What does all this mean for the Bigger Picture of Urbanisation in these
places?
First,the district profiles help us understand the rural-urban dynamics that hastaken shape between Census 2001 and 2011. With rural areas facing a decline inpopulation and urban areas witnessing a sharp rise, the overall population ofdistricts has not registered an unprecedented growth.
Second,there has been no significant statistical change in the demographic compositionof urban areas with respect to Hindu and Muslim populations – in most cases,except for Thrissur, where the share of Muslims increased by around 6%.
Third, in a nutshell, the growth in the urban population of Kerala’s featured cities in the EIU list between Census 2001 and 2011 is a result of geographical expansion and the urban migration from within the district and outside. It cannot be attributed to a growth in the Muslim population.