Solved previous year question from the OPSC OAS/OCS Main Examination (General Studies Paper I), with a structured model answer by Strive Edge IAS.
Question
Differentiate between ‘Generative city’ and ‘Smart city’. Describe the feasibility of the best smart city of Odisha.
Model Answer
Introduction
A "Generative city" is a classical urban geography concept (Hoselitz, 1955) describing a city’s economic relationship with its hinterland, while a "Smart city" is a modern policy and technology-driven concept aimed at improving urban service delivery through digital infrastructure — the two operate on entirely different planes of analysis: one economic-functional, the other technological-administrative.
Differentiation between Generative City and Smart City
| Basis | Generative City | Smart City |
|---|---|---|
| Concept origin | Coined by economist Bert Hoselitz (1955) to classify a city’s impact on regional economic growth | A 21st-century urban policy concept; in India, formalised through the Smart Cities Mission (2015) |
| Core idea | A city that positively drives economic growth, innovation, and prosperity in its surrounding hinterland | A city that uses technology, data, and digital infrastructure (ICT, IoT, AI) to improve governance and quality of urban life |
| Basis of classification | Nature of economic linkage between city and hinterland (positive vs extractive/"parasitic") | Level of technological integration in urban infrastructure and service delivery |
| Focus area | Regional development, industrialisation, spread of economic benefits | Efficient governance, mobility, utilities, safety, and citizen services |
| Examples | Jamshedpur (generative, driven by Tata Steel) vs Noida (parasitic, dependent on Delhi) | Bhubaneswar, Pune, Indore, Surat under India’s Smart Cities Mission |
Feasibility of the Best Smart City of Odisha (Bhubaneswar)
- Recognised leadership: Bhubaneswar was ranked number one among the first 20 cities selected under India’s Smart Cities Mission in January 2016, based on financial viability, implementation feasibility, and citizen participation.
- Institutional and financial mechanism: Implementation through the Bhubaneswar Smart City Limited (a Special Purpose Vehicle) with Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation as lead partner has ensured structured project execution and fund utilisation.
- Area-Based Development: The Bhubaneswar Town Centre District project, covering 985 acres around the railway station, was envisioned as a mixed-use, transit-oriented smart district, though several sub-projects under this component saw delayed or incomplete implementation.
- Pan-city technology integration: An Integrated City Operations and Management Centre and hi-tech traffic management systems have improved real-time monitoring of mobility, safety, and municipal services.
- Mobility and connectivity gains: The city has developed a multi-modal railway hub and improved public transport and non-motorised transport infrastructure, enhancing overall urban mobility.
- Implementation gaps: CAG audits have flagged suboptimal progress on some projects, delayed fund releases, and underutilisation of allocated resources, indicating execution challenges alongside the mission’s successes.
- Overall feasibility assessment: While Bhubaneswar’s strong institutional framework, early-mover advantage, and infrastructure gains make it a genuinely viable model, sustained feasibility depends on completing pending Area-Based Development projects and improving inter-agency coordination.
Conclusion
While a generative city reflects a city’s power to spread economic prosperity to its region, a smart city reflects its capacity to deliver efficient, technology-enabled urban living. Bhubaneswar, as Odisha’s flagship smart city, demonstrates strong feasibility through institutional readiness and visible infrastructure gains, though full realisation of its smart city vision requires addressing persistent implementation and coordination gaps.
