In order to ensure that the selected Census Towns were as representative as possible of the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of Census Towns in their respective states, all settlements were situated with respect to other settlements, using their population, as well as a composite development index of 17 variables and population of the settlement. These 17 variables are male and female literacy, non-farm workforce, child gender ratio, possession of at least one asset, household size, share of households with phones, electricity, television, two-wheelers, access to banking, households using LPG for cooking, houses with burnt brick walls, concrete roofs, flush latrines and tap water within the house.

The site selection for Bihar was done more systematically given the state’s specific characteristics, including a low official level of urbanization, and a high proportion of people living in large villages. A first selection was done at the district level using the following measures of development:

- a. The composite development index developed based on census data for 17 variables, as in other states.

b. A second, additional separate index, utilizing 71 variables in six different groups – Economic, Governance, Infrastructure, Social, Finance, Primary — was built using data from the Bihar Economic Survey. This involved building weighted (generated using principal components analysis) sub-indices for each of the groups and then building a weighted index of the sub-indices.

- c. Third, a rank based on the district domestic product

- d. Fourth, the rural poverty headcount ratio for the district

On each of the above four measures, districts were divided into three groups. The intent was to focus on districts which were in the middle third, across multiple measures.

In addition, given our strategy, the district also had to have a large village, a Class III statutory town (between 20,000 and 50,000) and a census town. Applying the criteria above, three districts, Madhubani, Samastipur, and Paschim Champaran, emerged as likely candidates.

In Samastipur, all the four CTs were in the agglomeration of Samastipur municipality while in Paschim Champaran; all three Census Towns were in the agglomeration of Bettiah. In Madhubani, there are two CTs; of which Madhubani (CT) is part of the Madhubani municipality built-up agglomeration. The other is Satghara. All the three statutory towns, Jhanjharpur, Jainagar and Ghoghardiha, are part of a mixed SA – a collection of settlements whose built up areas are connected and which has both rural and urban settlements. In the last two towns, the town is smaller than the largest village in the agglomeration. Given this, the field sites chosen were Satghara (CT) and the statutory town of Jhanjharpur (Nagar Panchayat). A large village, Simri (pop: 10,846) was the third site.

As in the case of Bihar mentioned above, proximity to a large town was another criterion considered in the selection of the study sites. One of the common perceptions about CTs is that they are in the peri-urban areas of larger towns. However, this is not supported by data. As shown in Table 3, based on the Census data and the methodology devised by Pradhan (2013), Jharkhand and Bihar have a configuration similar to the national average, i.e., around one-third of the new census towns are close to a large city, defined as a class I town in India with a population of more 6