The Smart Cities Mission of India: Development of Policy, Implementation Difficulties, and Critical Assessment

ABSTRACT:

The Smart Cities Mission (SCM), launched in 2015 by the Indian Government, is an ambitious and resolute initiative to redefine the story of urban governance with the focus on sustainable urban upliftment, the role of technology, and urban competitiveness and livability, making urbanization a developmental opportunity. Although SCM has been designed to facilitate systemic upgradation, area-based upliftment, and competitive federalism, it has come to serve as a counterfactual, public administration and policy reform experiment. With a degree of localized innovations in social, economic, and infrastructure upliftment, there are also transparent public administrative shortcomings, including scanty governance, paltry funding, and limited inclusivity and participation.

The process of the adoption of the SCM initiatives through the Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) impacted the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), demoting the democratic accountability and diminishing the representation of the community. Over six years, SCM has produced a consistent imbalance between purpose-built infrastructures for city objectives and basic social provisions, raising serious issues regarding inclusivity, equity, and sustainability within the urban transformation of SCM.

This article has elicited re-evaluation by way of participation planning, funding of diversity, ensuring better social infrastructure, and the institution’s capacity to transform to smart cities, coupled with recognition of a holistic view of inclusive development and a robust urban ecosystem.

KEYWORDS: Smart Cities Mission (SCM), Urban Governance, Sustainable Development, Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), Policy Implementation, Social Infrastructure.

THE IDEA AND OUTCOMES OF SMART CITIES MISSION.

CONCEPT:

The Smart Cities Mission (SCM) is a government of India policy initiative of urban development, introduced in 2015, that aims to reform and redevelop cities in India by a process of sustainable, people-friendly solutions and a technological system. The key focus of this mission is area-based evolution, and to improve corporal infrastructure, magnify service delivery, and unite smart technology to create cities that are more methodical, elastic, and comprehensive.[1]

SCM is eventually a revolutionary vision that sees cities not just as physical spaces but as official administrative and economic units that are important for India’s success. The progress or virtue of the mission is subject to controlled by, in part, by the continuity of these separate areas of governance, finance, and institutions associated with the development of public administration.[2]

BACKGROUND:

Among the challenges that are confronting urbanization in India are the thriving population, the lack of investments in physical infrustructure, and poor governance systems.. Many past schemes, including the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT), the Megal City Scheme, and after those programs, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), have targeted greet to get better the challenges related to urban pressures only to fall short of full effectiveness driven by siloed interposition schedule, funding limitations, and limited local capacity.[3]

These challenges served as a spur to innovation in the form of the Smart Cities Mission, which was intended as an innovation in urban development in the 21st century, first in urban development by moving from programmes to missions. SCM distinguishes itself from former approaches by using ideas relating to new technologies, sustainable planning, and the new institutional arrangements around the new kinds of governance structures with special-purpose vehicles[4].

Currently, SCM has generated thousands of projects that articulate the aspirations of a global agenda of sustainability, but the results of these projects have been uneven and reveal the continued dislocation between scheme intent and scheme practice. show how India’s approach toward urban policy has evolved from a slow, incremental approach targeted at specific schemes toward a global agenda, such that urban governance is understood as a comprehensive approach.

FINDINGS:

1. Cultural Revision of the Policy Framework of SCM: The high rates of urbanization, the insufficiency of infrastructure, and the lack of focus on outcomes in the earlier projects, such as the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) in 2015, led to the creation of the Smart Cities Mission (SCM). Under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), the SCM was established. It was characterized by the development based on area and competitive federalism, and it involved the localities to offer a proposal for central support.[5]

The executive form was shifting away from the traditional municipalism, and the SCM faced low legislative deliberations. Through Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) set up under the Companies Act, 2013, the SCM moved decision-making powers away from elected Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) into corporate-styled decision-making bodies. Although the goal was to improve efficiency and bring in private investment, it raised questions about their transparency and accountability. The vision of the cities in the form of SCM was therefore anchored on the concept of a technologically advanced and investment-worthy city, but at the sacrifice of inclusion and accountability.

2. Implementation of Smart Cities Mission and Institutional mechanisms: The implementation of SCM was heavily reliant on the central executive, which provided seed funding and oversight of the process. It was assumed that states and local areas would start to access more funding by utilizing municipal bonds, loans, and private financing for many of their projects. By 2024, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) indicated that it had either completed or funded nearly seven thousand two hundred Projects (8,067 projects) across smart mobility corridors, renewable energy parks, and platforms for digital governance, worth about 1.64 Lakh Crore Rupees.[6]

Nonetheless, difficulty arose in to action. To begin with, the models of finance proved cumbersome. Many cities did not have access to financing due to insufficient creditworthiness to issue a bond, nor were they able to entice large private investments. As a final result, the SCM process was delayed and projects stalled in many cities.[7]

Secondly, there was a very rapid development of governance scuffles when Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) were continuously operating without the use of Urban Local Bodies (ULB) circumnavigating the issue of regional democratic responsibility.

Thirdly, certain mass ingesting technologies favoured less-resourced and smaller cities, which could not even routinely run integrated systems like command-and-control centers. Fourthly, federal inequalities were also found with more affluent states like Maharashtra and Gujarat quickly developing their SCM projects and other states, especially poorer ones, finding it harder to put the requirements into practice.

Nevertheless, there are some prominent innovations that demonstrate the promise of the Mission. Bhopal. Indore, for instance, developed an integrated command centre to offer a common platform to increase municipal services, and Indore solved the problem of solid waste and environmental impacts by implementing the waste-to-energy program. These are lone examples of how innovation at scale could be.[8]

3. Effect’s Evaluation of Smart Cities Mission:

Results of the Assessment of the Mission offer a double-faced combination. On one hand, the SCM motioned a new direction for urban notions with respect to urban contesting among cities and an improved framework in small pockets within regions. Improved services articulated for energy savings with respect to street lights, or embracing some platform of e-governance, were put in place to improve service delivery and offer cost savings.[9]

In contrast, constraints to efficacy were present. This was true for about 30 percent of projects completed, as they experienced delays in implementation, either from the lack of financing or land acquisition, or the low level of state capacity.[10] The Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) was an expedient venture to implement, yet tended to abhor municipal ownership and capacity to the long-term advantage of the democratic local government. Equity and participation, also, were never achieved to the full extent. In case the citizen involvement existed, it often included only the opportunities to provide proposals when it came to the selection of the project and lacked the intended collaborative relationship.

Thus, it can be said that SCM has achieved partial success. he mission has allowed localized innovations but constructed islands of development of cities instead of an actual change in the urban paradigm. The most urgent remaining mission issues have been the lack of financial viability, the ability to govern, and inclusiveness that reflects the needs and voices of the local populations.

SELF-ANALYSIS OF SMART CITIES MISSION

1. Inclusivity and Citizen Contribution: The framework of the Smart Cities Mission (SCM) is citizen-centric, but inclusivity has not been successful. Contribution was mainly through online consultations in the development of the proposals, which excluded marginalized populations who did not have digital access. This allowed for the citizen consultation, but not citizen engagement, as the urban elite directed the priorities of the projects while informal settlements remained unrepresented. This is the reason why, although there has been some movement toward equity, outcomes have been inequitable. Investments in smart lighting and surveillance have benefitted middle-class neighborhoods while slum dwellers and migrant workers remained outside of the geographic purview of the mission.[11]
2. Socio-economic effect of SCM: These effects are visible at the local level. For example, digitalized governance platforms like the initial democratic initiatives in Pune improved service delivery and efficiency. Indore’s waste-to-energy initiative further created local jobs and environmental benefits, exemplifying the operational potential for harmonizing a technology-based innovation with development objectives more broadly.[12]

Nevertheless, at the systemic level, the socio-economic transformation has not happened. In particular, public affordable housing, health, and education infrastructure are fairly limited in comparison to road, surveillance, and ICT-enabled infrastructures. This imbalance indicates the policy preference for capital-intensive projects over investments in basic social services.[13]

It can be that SCM has generated ‘islands of progress’, which evidence urban modernity, but do not address deeper inquisitiveness. Benefits like energy savings, efficient mobility, etc., are critical, but without complementary social infrastructure, these are likely to remain divorced from urban fragmentation and cannot ensure more inclusive growth.

3. Sustainability and long-term result: sustainability has been addressed only in pieces through green mobility and renewable energy, but much of the city’s capacity for smaller cities is likely technical capacity to sustain, raising questions about the viability of these charges over time.[14] Additionally, substantive reliance on Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) and private-financed projects may exacerbate the lack of institutional strength at the municipal level and increase fiscal risk.

From a critical stance, SCM’s enduring impact may be in its policy paradigm rather than any tangible outcomes it may have achieved. SCM has ushered in an ethos of inter-city competition with commitments that provide benchmarks to measure performance. However, without a greater emphasis on equity or citizen engagement, it may simply perpetuate greater divides among urban populations into well-resourced and technologically supported islands of urban livability, while abandoning those in the periphery.

The aforementioned data support modest socio-economic fairness but partial progress in sustainability and inclusion. The SCM highlights the contradictions of modern policy that seeks to engage in operating at both a global level and a grassroots level, but utilizes means such as public-NOARs, techno-centric solutions to urban inequality, and select-based competition that prioritize efficiencies over justice. If the field of urban policy is not positioned to recalibrate its logic, the mission to address local inequality may only serve to guarantee that inequality is sustained.

RECOMMANDATIONS:

1. Promote Accountable Democratic system: To promote legitimacy and transparency, Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) should resume their expanded role in managing special purpose Vehicles (SPVs) under their jurisdiction.
2. Increase Financing Options: Broaden financing options, reduce the high reliance on private investment, and establish issues for pooled municipal bonds, viability gap fund, and fiscal arrangements at the state level to constrain state-to-state and other hostile regional decisions.
3. Aligning Sustainability and Developing Human Resources: Sustainable initiatives like renewable energy projects, green mobility & and waste-to-energy projects should be distributed evenly across both large and small cities. In conjunction with this, the mission must initiate implementation of longer-term municipal capacity building programmes to ensure that, at the local level, there is not only technical capacity but also economic viability. Completing the task is essential for meeting SDG 11 (sustainable cities, communities) and climate resilience in urban development.
4. Promote Extensive Citizen Participation: In addition to online discussions, offline structured forums, and participatory forums, such as ward committees and neighbourhood congregations, should be set up. The latter can give rejected and dismissed people, such as refugees and slum dwellers, a genuine platform to restate project priorities to ensure that citizen participation is meaningful rather than tokenistic.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, it can be said that the SCM has revolutionary potential; it must refocus and attend to equity, participatory governance, and resilience, while institutional capacity, diversification in funding, social infrastructure, and sustainability agendas require focus. To transform city governance through competitiveness, sustainability, and technology in some places, smart cities’ missions have driven local innovation that enhances service delivery and infrastructure development, yet the Mission is crippled by limited availability of capital resources, weak governance, and irregular participation.

The model of dependence on SPVs has sidelined Urban Local Bodies, diluted democratic obedience, and extricated the citizens. Further, the scheme focuses on capital-intensive infrastructure rather than essential social services, has deepened inequities, creating “islands of development” instead of transformations to address underlying needs. In the end, the Mission’s success is not based upon the technological display, but can be defined by an inclusive and citizen-based, sustainable urban ecosystem in which efficiency is balanced with social justice.

REFERENCES:

2015. Aijaz, R., & Hoelscher, K. 2015. India’s Smart Cities Mission: An Assessment (Observer Research Foundation), Issue Brief No. 124.
2016. MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS. 2024. Smart Cities Mission progress report. Government of India.
2017. Saha, A. 2020.The socio-political relevance of the Indian smart cities mission: A Critical Analysis. The National Geographical Journal of India. https://www.bhu.ac.in/Images/files/apala(1).pdf.
2018. Jawaid, M. F., & Khan, A. R. 2020. The Smart City Mission in India and prospects of improvements in the urban environment. IOP conference series: Materials Science and Engineering.
2019. Nigam, P., S. 2024.Smart Cities Mission in India: A study. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/5/27160.pdf.
2020. World Bank. 2020. India: Smart Cities Mission mid-term review. World Bank. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/d67ef885fc1c5b4ca43cf4465b3e7241-0310012025/original/Urban-Resilience-India.pdf.

[1] Aijaz, R., & Hoelscher, K. (2015). India’s Smart Cities Mission: An assessment (Observer Research Foundation, Issue Brief No. 124).

[2] Nigam, P. S. (2024). Smart Cities Mission in India: A study. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research.

[3] Aijaz, R., & Hoelscher, K. (2015). India’s Smart Cities Mission: An assessment (Observer Research Foundation, Issue Brief No. 124).

[4] Saha, A. 2020.The socio-political relevance of the Indian smart cities mission: A Critical Analysis. The National Geographical Journal of India.

[5] Aijaz, R., & Hoelscher, K. (2015). India’s Smart Cities Mission: An assessment (Observer Research Foundation, Issue Brief No. 124).

[6] Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. (2024). Smart Cities Mission progress report. Government of India.

[7] World Bank. (2020). India: Smart Cities Mission mid-term review. World Bank.

[8] Nigam, P. S. (2024). Smart Cities Mission in India: A study. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research.

[9] Aijaz, R., & Hoelscher, K. (2015). India’s Smart Cities Mission: An assessment (Observer Research Foundation, Issue Brief No. 124).

[10] World Bank. (2020). India: Smart Cities Mission mid-term review. World Bank.

[11]Aijaz, R., & Hoelscher, K. (2015). India’s Smart Cities Mission: An assessment (Observer Research Foundation, Issue Brief No. 124).

[12] Nigam, P. S. (2024). Smart Cities Mission in India: A study. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research.

[13] Jawaid, M. F., & Khan, A. R. (2020). The Smart City Mission in India and prospects of improvement in the urban environment. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.

[14] World Bank. (2020). India: Smart Cities Mission mid-term review. World Bank.