Left-Behind Places and the Challenge of Social Infrastructure
Introduction The concept of “left-behind places” has gained increasing attention in academic and policy discourse. These are regions excluded from the economic dynamism and prosperity of major metropolitan centers, which benefit from agglomeration effects and concentrated political power. To overlook such regions is to diminish their inherent potential for economic and social contribution.
India’s growth narrative is marked by large-scale infrastructure investment and rapid progress. Yet, this progress has often been undermined by fragmented and poorly organized urban planning. Instead of reducing inequality, many planning efforts have deepened divides between the “haves” and “have-nots,” fueling social and political tensions. Understanding the historical causes, lived experiences, and diminishing returns associated with left-behind places is therefore central to reimagining development strategies.
Community Cohesion and Urban Development Community cohesion plays a critical role in shaping urban development outcomes. A lack of shared identity and absence of strong “moral communities” erodes the capacity to produce stories that nurture personal and collective identity. These stories are not trivial—they provide the cultural resources necessary for “radical hope,” enabling the rebuilding of social infrastructure.
The redevelopment of Parel in Mumbai is a striking example of uneven growth. Once a historic textile mill hub, Parel has undergone chaotic transformation into a patchwork of elite enclaves and lower socio-economic groups. This redevelopment, largely unplanned, has disrupted community cohesion, undermined local identity, and reinforced spatial inequalities.
Why Interventions Have Fallen Short Although the challenges of left-behind places are recognized, many interventions have failed to deliver meaningful outcomes. A major reason is the neglect of the affective dimension—how people feel about where they live and how this shapes their lived experiences. Addressing only the physical or economic aspects of development, while ignoring civic assets, community engagement, and connectivity, produces shallow results. The emotional life of communities carries both intrinsic and instrumental value. Belonging and attachment embody distinctive identities and values shaped by history. These foster self-esteem, strengthen social connections, and provide resilience against existential threats. Conversely, neglect and abandonment generate grief, resentment, and distrust—conditions ripe for withdrawal and susceptibility to populist politics.
Policy Frameworks and the Role of NITI Aayog In this context, NITI Aayog—the apex policy think tank of the Government of India—seeks to foster cooperative federalism and catalyze bottom-up economic development. Its agenda emphasizes: Targeted attention to vulnerable sections of society that risk being excluded from economic growth. Collaboration and partnerships among state governments, local communities, and institutions to ensure bottom-up planning. Evaluation and monitoring of program implementation, including the identification of resources needed to maximize effectiveness and delivery. These objectives align closely with the international literature on remaking social infrastructure, as highlighted in Social Infrastructure and Left Behind Places (Tomaney, Blackman, Natrajan et al., Routledge Press). The book documents the successful long-term regeneration of County Durham (UK) through community-focused strategies, underscoring lessons relevant for India. Pitfalls in Current Approaches Despite good intentions, policy interventions often falter due to: Lack of long-term commitment. Imposition of top-down priorities that fail to reflect local realities. Limited transparency and accountability. Faulty cost-benefit evaluations that undervalue intangible benefits. Competitive bidding processes that pit local organizations against one another, duplicating efforts and wasting scarce resources. These shortcomings highlight the need for devolved governance structures and the development of registers of social infrastructure assets to inform better strategies.
Mumbai – A case in point – Parel’s Transformation Industrial past: Known as Girangaon (“the village of mills”), Parel was a thriving textile hub in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with dense working-class housing in chawls. Chaotic redevelopment: Following mill closures, large plots were sold individually to private developers. Unlike planned hubs such as Nariman Point or Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), this led to piecemeal growth—luxury towers rising amid decaying infrastructure and insufficient open space.
Consequences: The result has been a deeply unequal and congested neighborhood, where unplanned regeneration has displaced community cohesion.
Recent corrective measures: Initiatives such as Local Area Plans (LAPs), new metro connectivity, and integrated transit hubs aim to bring coherence to the area. However, these remain layered onto a landscape shaped by decades of uncoordinated growth.
Key Recommendations Re-centering community: Place, neighborhood, culture, stories, and memory must be embedded into policy design, as they are integral to remaking social infrastructure. Redefining measurement: Traditional cost-benefit analysis inadequately captures intangible benefits. New methods—combining quantitative and ethnographic approaches—are required to assess the real value of social infrastructure. Resource allocation: Greater discretion should be given to local governments to allocate resources according to community priorities. Long-term commitment: Sustained investment, transparency, and accountability are necessary to avoid the repeated cycles of neglect and resentment that perpetuate inequality.
Conclusion The regeneration of left-behind places requires more than physical infrastructure. It demands rebuilding community cohesion, recognizing affective dimensions of belonging, and embedding cultural narratives into policy frameworks. Parel’s trajectory—from industrial hub to chaotic redevelopment to tentative efforts at planned renewal—serves as a cautionary tale. Unless development strategies embrace community identity and intangible assets, India risks repeating cycles of exclusion and uneven growth, perpetuating the very divides it seeks to overcome.
