Rethinking Karnataka's Dichotomised Development Path

Karnataka is one of India's strongest regional economies, second only to Tamil Nadu in contributing to the country's net domestic product.

- BY DR. M. MAHADEVA

In 2022-23, Karnataka added Rs. 11.9 lakh crore, accounting for 8.55% of the national total. With such robust economic performance, one would expect similar progress in social development. Sadly, this has not been the case.

Despite economic growth, large sections of the population, especially in urban areas, still live in poor conditions. Many families lack access to decent housing, clean water, sanitation, and other basic amenities. The gap between prosperity and deprivation is growing, and needs urgent attention.

Poverty in the Midst of Growth Economic success should translate into better social conditions. But in Karnataka, many poor families continue to live in poverty traps, with little access to safe and secure living conditions. The reality for thousands includes inadequate housing, open defecation, polluted surroundings, and poor access to drinking water and electricity.

Urban slums remain widespread, with insufficient public spending and weak political will preventing lasting solutions. Efforts made since the 1970s to develop slums and build inclusive cities have had minimal impact. In fact, the number of slums has increased in recent years.

Urban planning and governance have failed to keep up with rapid urbanization, and the dream of a slum-free Karnataka remains distant.

Nearly half of Karnataka's population now lives in urban areas. However, urban growth has been uneven. Class 1 cities, which have populations above one lakh, have grown rapidly, while smaller towns and cities have lagged behind. This skewed urbanization creates intense pressure on infrastructure and basic services in larger cities.

Another concerning trend is the rise of urban outgrowths, which are areas that emerge due to the spillover of economic activity. These outgrowths are often underdeveloped and poorly serviced, reflecting both the push from lack of rural opportunities and the pull of city-based employment.