Infrastructure and Metropolitanization: Understanding and Comparing the Relationship in Cities in Africa and India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to urban infrastructure, in cities of the developing world is deficient in both coverage and access. Despite the efforts of numerous international, national, provincial and urban agents, these deficiencies persist. In response, recent international and national strategies seek to use comprehensive reform of policy and governance to alter the paradigm of municipal infrastructure development and provision. Metropolitan reforms are a recent reform initiative that seeks to improve infrastructure provision in urban agglomerations. We understand metropolitan reforms, in this paper, to have three drivers – infrastructure, politics and society. This paper will evaluate the dominance of these three drivers for metropolitan reforms. Focusing on select cities of Africa and India, we seek to compare and evaluate these new infrastructure reform and governance arrangements. Africa and India make an appropriate comparison because of broadly similar patterns of infrastructure deficiencies, comparable rates of urban growth, and similar macrolevel approaches to infrastructure reform. At the same time, they have very different political legacies that have produced very different political outcomes in cities. These different political legacies provide an opportunity to understand the extent to which national and urban political differences explain infrastructure outcomes in different cities of the developing world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".