Networks of urbanization managing relations and thus service provision between inhabitants and the local state differ in means and modes across different socio-economic collectivities and differently urbanized spaces. This issue is often overlooked in discussions about governance, citizen participation and urban development in Indian cities. First, the article outlines an approach for studying the city as a conjecture of various social processes facilitated by various networks and a sociology of structural and cultural holes. Then the article outlines and compares the structure and practices of three different networks of urbanization in Kalyan–Dombivli and Mira–Bhayandar: clientelist, rent-seeking, and cor-porate. These networks render the categorization of these cities as either ‘bourgeois’, ‘subaltern’, or ‘inclusive’ problematic.
AppaduraiA. (2002). Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics. Public Culture, 14(1), 21–47.
2.
ArcherM. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. London: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaudI.S.A.SridharanN.PfefferK. (2008). Mapping urban poverty for local governance in an Indian megacity: The case of Delhi. Urban Studies, 45(7), 1385–1412.
4.
BaudI.S.A.NainanNavtej. (2008). Negotiated spaces for representation in Mumbai: Ward committees, advanced locality management, and middle-class activism. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 483–97.
5.
BenjaminSolomon. (2008). Occupancy urbanism: Radicalizing politics and economy beyond policy and programs. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(3), 719–29.
6.
BerenschotW. (2010). Everyday mediation: The politics of public service delivery in Gujurat, India. Development and Change, 41(5), 883–905.
7.
BurtJ. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
8.
ChatterjeePartha. (2004). The Politics of the governed: Reflections on popular politics in most of the world. Columbia University Press: New York.
9.
GandyM. (2008). Landscapes of disaster: Water, modernity, and urban fragmentation in Mumbai. Environment and Planning, A 40, 108–130.
10.
GhertnerD. Asher. (2011) Gentrifying the state, gentrifying participation: Elite governance programs in Delhi. International Journal of Regional and Urban Research, 35(3), 504–532.
11.
GuptaD. (2007). Mistaken modernity: India between worlds. New Delhi: Harper Collins.
12.
HarrissJohn. (2005). Political participation, representation and the urban poor. Economic and Political Weekly, March12, pp. 1041–1054.
13.
GuptaD. (2006). Middle class activism and the politics of the informal working class. Critical Asian Studies, 38(4), 445–65.
14.
HarveyDavid. (1996). Cities or urbanization?City 1 (½), 38–61.
15.
HellerP.EvansP. (2010). Taking Tilley South: Democratic contestation and citizenship in the Southern Metropolis. Theoretical Sociology, 39(3–4), 433–50.
16.
Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC). (2007). The Kalyan-Dombivli City Development Plan. In association with Subash Patil & Associates.
17.
MahadeviaD. (2006). NURM and the poor in globalising mega cities. Economic and Political Weekly, 5August, 3399–3403.
18.
MannM. (2008). Infrastructural power revisited. Studies in Comparative International Development43, 355–65.
19.
Mira-Bhayandar Municipal Corporation (MBMC). (2008). ‘The Mira-Bhayandar City Development Plan.’ In association with Tandon and Associates.
20.
NainanN. (2006). Parallel universes: Quasi-legal networks in Mumbai governance: Indo-Dutch Programme on Alternatives in Development (IDPAD), New Forms of Urban Governance Conference, Mumbai.
21.
NainanN. (2009). Building boomers and the fragmentation of urban space in Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly, 24May, 29–34.
22.
PachuckiM.BreigerR. (2010). Cultural holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 204–24.
23.
PetersB.PierreJ. (1998). Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration, J-PART, 8(2) 223–243.
24.
RisbudNeelima. (2003). Urban slums reports: The case of Mumbai, India, In: Understanding Slums: Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements.
25.
RobinsonJ. (2005). Urban geography: World cities, or a world of cities. Progress in Human Geography, 29(6), 757–65.
26.
RoyA. (2009). Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–87.
27.
RoyA. (2011). Slum dog cities: Rethinking subaltern urbanism. International Journal of Regional and Urban Research, 35(2), 223–38.
28.
SayerAndrew. (1992). Method in social science: A Realist Approach, 2nd edition.London: Routledge.
29.
TillyC. (2010). Cities, states, and trust networks: Chapter 1 of cities and states in world history. Theoretical Sociology, 39, 265–80.
30.
Dijkvan. (2006). Post-74th constitutional amendment governance in Mumbai: How and to what extent does this brand of decentralization and affirmative action benefit the intended? Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
31.
van DijkTara. (2007). Reservation in India and substantive gender equality: A Mumbai case study. International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities, and Nation, 7(4), 27–42.
32.
van DijkTara. (2011a). Livelihoods, capitals, and livelihood trajectories: A more sociological conceptualization. Progress in Development Studies, 11(2), 101–17.
33.
van DijkTara. (2011b). Agents of change and obstruction: Municipal councillors and urban development in the Mumbai metropolitan region. Human Geography: A New Radical Journal, 4(2), 31–47.
34.
van DijkTara. (2011c). Diverse ‘Rights-to the-City’ Regimes in Urbanizing India. Unpublished manuscript.
35.
van DijkT.BhideA.ShivtareV. (2011). Tales of the toilet block: Local politics wins again? Unpublished manuscript.
36.
van DijkT.de WitJ. (2011). Varieties of agency within the mediated state: A study of Mumbai’s municipal councillors. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Under review.
37.
WeinsteinLiza. (2009). Democracy in the globalizing Indian city: Engagements of political society and the state in globalizing Mumbai. Politics and Society, 37(3), 397–427.
38.
WoodG.GoughI. (2006). A comparative welfare regime approach to global social policy. World Development, 34(10), 1696–1712.
39.
World Bank. (2002). Making services work for the poor. Washington DC: The World Bank.
40.
ZerahM.H. (2008). Splintering urbanism in Mumbai: Contrasting trends in a multilayered society. Geoforum, 39(6), 1922–32.
