EIU Liveability index: Corporate storytelling

Bengaluru’s unfortunate rank of 146 (out of 173) in the Global Liveability Index 2022 has received mixed reactions from residents and experts. While many seem to agree with the index, some have maintained that Bengaluru is better than the other four Indian cities that have been ranked higher. The parameters considered by the index include stability, culture and environment, healthcare, and infrastructure, of which Bengaluru falls short in the infrastructure score. According to the methodology of the index, “infrastructure” is measured based on the quality of roads, public transportation system, international links, energy provision, telecommunications, water, and availability of good quality housing. While it is true that the city’s infrastructure is less than optimal, poor roads and traffic congestions — as opined by certain writers — are the least of the city’s problems, and there lies the problem with the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) index.

EIU’s idea of ranking cities is not new. Competitiveness of cities is a methodological tool that has always been used to further the neoliberal agenda of capital accumulation and privatisation. Narendra Modi’s Smart Cities Mission, for instance, is one that adopts the idea of competition to secure funding from the private sector.

The parameters on which cities are ranked, as various scholars have pointed out, are not explicitly defined. Neither does the EIU tell us what “culture” or “international links” mean, nor do we understand how they are being measured. The vagueness of the indicators is not accidental or a methodological flaw — the vagueness is, instead, deliberate and by design.

There is no unified meaning prescribed to the EIU parameters. In terms of architecture, “good quality housing” and “road quality”, for instance, are vague terms that can be interpreted by the real estate sector to suit its own interests. Good quality housing brings to mind a certain middle class aesthetic that is slum-free, street-vendor-free, and is populated with high-rises and modern housing.

Thus, in the name of beautification, slums are demolished and land is sold to real estate developers, while the slum occupants are housed in less-than-ideal settlements, if at all. The dispossessed occupants, meanwhile, possess no ownership over the land, and cannot participate in the land market. The real estate developers and local politicians involved in the demolition and resettlement, however, extract massive profits from the project — owing to speculation and increase in neighbouring property prices that occurs with the demolition of a slum.

When EIU talks of “poor quality housing”, it is not talking of marginalised populations and segregation in urban housing. Across the city and especially in Brahmin-dominated areas of North and South Bengaluru, it is common to see boards outside vacant houses that explicitly state that the house will not be rented out to “non-vegetarians,” alluding to both Bahujan-Dalit as well Muslims households. Similarly, when EIU talks of “quality of roads” and “transportation systems”, it considers flyovers and the metro as a necessity for a liveable city, ignoring evidence that proves otherwise.

This is not to say that there is nothing plaguing the city’s roads and transportation systems: marginalised groups face various barriers in accessing public transport. BMTC is one of the most expensive public bus services in the country and is unaffordable for many low-income users. Citizen groups such as the Bus Prayanikara Vedike have pointed out that women, gender minorities, senior citizens, children, and disabled persons face various problems owing to poor bus design and have also expressed concerns about sexual harassment in the bus. But this is not an issue that is captured by the liveability index.

Indeed, it is indices such as these that legitimise projects like the widely critiqued TenderSure in Bengaluru, without having a historical context of the manner in which inequality is constructed in the city.

The liveability index is not a validated research tool and cannot be seen as such — it is part of a larger push towards technocracy and “smartness” in a manner that appeals to middle-class sensibilities. It frames a good city as one that needs “smart” services — smart communication tools, data analytics, machine learning, etc. Cities with a high rank attract private investment, often resulting in exclusionary projects such as Special Economic Zones and Special Residential Zones.

These are zones where multiple trade, labour, and tax regulations are suspended, and where inhabitants are evicted and dispossessed of their land and rights.

“Liveability” needs to be understood in the context of the social, economic, and political processes of development. EIU’s index, however, measures liveability in silos. It is created with the intention of making cities more attractive for private investment, and talks to the Indian elite who aspire for “world-class cities” as a quick-fix for India’s urban issues. It is evident that the EIU index and its ranking system remain neoliberal in their politics. Simply put, the liveability index has less to do with people and more to do with businesses.

(The writer is a researcher and communications professional who works at the intersection of urban studies and public health)