census towns and statutory towns more generally. More curiously, it may also be so for villages close to census and statutory towns. It would appear that for smaller statutory towns, the level of public investment in service provision is not high (see Khan 2014 for an example) and investment in private infrastructure such as septic tanks may well be higher in census towns, due to higher incomes and no expectation of public investment. In such a situation, the demand for statutory status often is associated with a demand for the town to become administrative headquarters, e.g., a block headquarters or, in the case of Jhanjharpur, a district headquarters.

From the earlier discussion on urban status, it is not clear whether the level of services in statutory towns is distinctly and visibly better than census towns. This is also a finding that is seen in these sites, though with significant variance. Functions that are entrusted to ULBs like solid waste management are at least staffed to be carried out, though actual delivery may vary. Most of these settlements, with the exception of West Bengal, are not staffed to provide services. In Bihar, one observed defunct water supply schemes in all three sites, where expenditure on infrastructure is rendered infructuous.

Some of these results from the qualitative fieldwork may be specific to poorer states, and in more developed states, the monetization of land may, inter alia, play a more central role and can trigger a potential for capital surplus later invested in more productive activities.

# **_Is Bihar different? Pair-wise comparison_**

The lack of association between status and service provision may be specific to Bihar, as illustrated by comparison of Simri and Satghara as well as Satghara and Jhanjharpur. The purpose of this comparison was to illustrate the position of a large village, a census town and a statutory town with regards to their governance and their economic structure. Our results show that these three types of settlement cannot be seen as being on a linear continuous process from rural to urban. First, in terms of its employment structure, Jhanjharpur’s percentage of male employed in nonfarm activities is closer to Simri, at below 50 percent as compared to 81% in Satghara. In this sense it is among the few STs that do not meet the census criteria. Jhanjharpur is worse than Simri and much worse than Satghara in terms of electricity access. This is surprising since electricity is publicly provided as compared to septic tanks, which are based on private individual investments. In terms of overall service provision, the statutory town, Jhanjharpur is closer to Simri than Satghara, which is far better serviced. If services define a form of urbanity (or urban quality of life), then the census town is much ahead of the statutory town in this instance. In other words, the reason for Jhanjharpur becoming a NP either is linked to its higher population (pop: 30,590 people) or to other governance processes, e.g., the presence of the block headquarters (which is not the case with Benipatti, for example).

In Simri, people clearly see themselves as part of a rural settlement and the most dominating caste still owns large tracts of land. In addition, its connectivity is very limited as compared to Satghara and Jhanjharpur, which constrains its expansion as a node for non-farm activities. It is worth speculating as to whether the intense demand for urban status by parts of the Satghara population is related to this situation of non-farm work and better services, while Simri, being of similar administrative status and population size, has no such demand. The caste dynamics of Bihar is also evident in the divide between the bazaar (market) and basti (settlement). The demand for urban 30