The Rationale of SPV in Indian Smart City Development
Kranti Kumar Maurya and Arindam Biswas
Department of Architecture and Planning, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India
Keywords: Smart Cities Mission, Local Government, Guidelines, Municipal Government and Urban Governance Index.
Abstract: Indian cities are largely managed by the Local Governments, empowered by the Indian Constitutional (74th
Amendment) act, 1992. In 2015, the Union Government of India introduced Smart Cities Mission (SCM), in
which 100 cities were selected to be developed as Smart City (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, 2015a).
The Union Government introduced a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) as the implementing agency of SCM
(Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, 2015b). Each one of these 100 cities needed to establish a SPV,
which coordinate this mission. The decision to establish SPVs opens up many pertinent questions regarding
its legitimacy of being an urban institution. SPVs have not been used in overall city administration yet, so in
this area performance of SPVs, are yet to be known. The paper investigates the establishment of SPVs, its
authenticity and its contribution to city development. It checks the legal support of its constitution. The paper
argues about the achievements of the SPVs over the traditional governance process with the help of
governance analysis methods (Urban Governance Index). To streamline the paper, authors have selected (to
investigate) two Indian cities Pune and Varanasi wherever needed. The paper also discusses the historical
context of SPVs, functioning module of SPVs for project planning and implementation. Further, the findings
of the paper suggest that because SPVs are being used for a small pilot area of the cities, enlarging the SPV
mechanism to the level of Local Government may translate into the similar type of governance system.
1 INTRODUCTION
Multi-pronged problems and obstacles continuously
challenge Indian cities. Urbanisation was never at the
forefront of post-independence planned economic
policy regime. The first real effort came in 2005 when
cities were funded for seven years for urban
rejuvenation and infrastructure augmentation.
However, it is hard to decipher the colossal
difficulties amalgamated for centuries with a seven-
year programme. In between urban programmes and
policy shifts its course with the change of
governments. The earlier policies and programmes
were drastically curtailed down to introduce new
programmes. One such urban programme is to
develop 100 Smart Cities across the country. The
‘Smart Cities Mission (SCM) aims to drive
economic growth and improve the quality of life of
people in selected cities by enabling local
development and harnessing technology as a mean to
create smart solutions for citizens (Smart Cities
Mission Statement Guidelines, 2015). The mission
faced many challenges urban management is the
most crucial of them. As a strategic intervention, the
government introduced a new city management tool
to manage Smart Cities, called Special Purpose
Vehicle (SPV) (Ministry of Housing and Urban
Affairs, 2015b). Establishment of SPV raises some
legitimate concern from the administration,
academia, and professionals about their constitutional
legitimacy. The goal of the paper is to study SPVs and
its relationship with the formal urban institutions. The
goal is achieved by adhering to the following
objectives:
i. To review SPV as a tool for city management;
ii. To understand SPVs networking and working
relation with the institutional governance for project
planning and implementation;
iii. To understand SPV’s role and functioning
methods in Indian SCM; and
iv. To identify its potential contribution and
constitutional legitimacy in Indian Smart Cities
development.
The questions underpinning the paper are;
i. What is the historical context of SPVs in city
management?
ii. What are the functioning module of SPV for
project planning and implementation?
Maurya, K. and Biswas, A.
The Rationale of SPV in Indian Smart City Development.
DOI: 10.5220/0007726701430150
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS 2019), pages 143-150
ISBN: 978-989-758-373-5
Copyright
c
2019 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
143
iii. How SPVs become so relevant in the Indian
SCM?
2 SPV AND ITS EVOLUTION
SPV also known as ‘variable interest entities’ or
‘Special purpose entities’ (SPE) or ‘financial vehicle
corporation’ (FVC), is a legal entity (usually a limited
company of some type or a limited partnership)
created to fulfil narrow, specific or temporary
objectives (UNECE, 2015). Companies to isolate the
firm from financial risk typically use SPVs. It may be
owned by one or many entities. SPVs started back in
the 1980s for financial management. The genesis of
SPVs occurred with ‘Junk-Bond King’ Michael
Milken and his firm Drexel Burnham Lambert (Healy
and G.Palepu, 2001).
As the name suggests, SPVs are formed for a
special purpose. Therefore, its’ powers are limited to
what might be required to attain that purpose and its
life is destined to end when the purpose is attained.
As per (Cioppa, 2005), When a corporation mentions
itself as the sponsor of a SPV, it signifies that it wants
to achieve a particular purpose, i.e. funding by
isolating an activity, asset or operation from the rest
of the sponsor's business. This isolation is important
for external investors whose interest do such hived-
off assets back, but who are not affected by the
generic business risks of the entity. In the absence of
adequate distance from the sponsor, the company is
not a SPV but only a subsidiary company. Thus SPVs
are housing devices they house the assets
transferred by the originating entity in a legal outfit,
which is legally distanced from the originator, and yet
self-sustainable (Wagenvoort et al., 2010). Figure 1,
shows the creation of a SPV to ensure the functioning
of projects. Prime usages of SPVs till date are
securitisation, risk sharing, financial engineering,
asset transfer, to maintain the secrecy of intellectual
property, financial engineering, regulatory reasons,
property investing etc (Crawford, 2003). SPVs are
also used for sales and purchase contracting,
insurance, raising capital (UNECE, 2015).
Members of a SPV are mostly sponsoring entities
like companies and individuals. A SPV can also be a
partnership firm. Individuals or institutions from
abroad can also sponsor it. A SPV enterprise is
formally registered with a national authority and is
subject to fiscal and legal obligations of the economy.
In terms of organizational form, it makes sense to
have a SPV, own and manage the infrastructure asset
until the investment cost has been recouped (Eldrup
and Schutze, 2013). According to (Bratton and
Levitin, 2013), the SPVs never fully coalesce as
independent organizations that take actions in pursuit
of business goals. They are companies running on
autopilot that serve one purpose - removing assets and
liabilities from the parent company’s balance sheet.
Figure 1: SPV’s financial lifecycle. (Wagenvoort et al.,
2010).
The success of a SPV in dealing with these
conflicts depends on two factors Firstly, the quality
of the legal institutions and laws. Secondly, the
particulars of each relationship and contract affecting
risk perceptions of debt holders. SPV for project
planning and implementation, focus more on project
finance and delivery. Companies have a wider
purpose and may do several things as per the
memorandum of association. However, SPVs are
established for the limited and focused scope of
operation. This is primarily to provide comfort to
lenders who are concerned about their investment.
The alternative to managing the risks of SPVs is
an ethical standard and strict legal support to not to
use them inappropriately. The benefits and the uses of
the SPVs do not justify the risks involved in them to
be misused. Next section throws light on why and
how the SPVs become a tool for project
implementation for India’s SCM.
3 SPV IN INDIA’S SMART CITIES
MISSION FOR PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
Gujarat International Finance Tec (GIFT) City is one
of the first Smart City initiatives in India. GIFT City
proposed to have separate SPVs into specific viable
components for its development. SPVs have been set
SMARTGREENS 2019 - 8th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems
144
up to implement the critical utility components
through major private sector participation such as
district cooling systems limited, water infrastructure
limited, waste management services limited, SEZ
limited, power company limited, ICT services
limited. GIFT City development may have initiated
the idea of SPV mode implementation of SCM.
(Gujarat International Finance Tec-City - Global
Financial Hub)
The erstwhile Planning Commission of India in its
Twelfth Plan (2012 2017) envisioned to create
Smart Cities to address India’s urbanisation
challenges (Bholey, 2016). As the government’s
flagship mission moved from conceptualisation
towards the implementation phase, questions have
arisen regarding the mission (Shahana Chattaraj).
Debates over implementation gained momentum
amidst calls for closer review of the factors involved
and the need to incorporate learning from previous
such programs (Ravi and Bhatia, 2016). A key
uncertainty that had emerged was the constrained
organizational capability of Indian Urban Local
Bodies to meet the challenges posed by this new type
of development (Praharaj, Han and Hawken, 2018).
Ironically, these questions were fuelled by the
Government of India’s own urban policy assessment
that pointed out political economy factors and
inadequate management capacity as the key
challenges affecting urban reform in India (Strategic
Plan of MoUD for 2011-16). Various well-regarded
global enterprises such as the World Economic
Forum (2016) and the Brookings Institution (Carol L.
Stimmel, 2016) in their assessment on Smart Cities
development in India highlighted that the concept of
a planned urban administration was yet to be
addressed in Indian cities and the current nature of
government silos would pose a major challenge in the
implementation of mega future developments.
The Central Government established the Apex
Committee and High-Powered Steering Committee
(HPSC) that approved SPV’s establishment (Figure
2). These are companies formed by a partnership
between the State and Urban Local Bodies to expedite
the process of development. However, it is yet to be
examined about the process of formation of SPVs and
its impact on empowering the Urban Local Bodies.
Coordination between the conventional forms of
Local Governments and parastatals (infrastructure
delivery agencies) is also a matter of deep
introspection. A SPV function as a nodal
implementing agency for SCM projects.
The SPV is headed by a chief executive officer
(CEO), supported by a board of directors with
representation from the Central Government, the
State Government and the local public utility
providing agencies. The overall idea of establishing
SPVs rather involving Municipal Corporations for
project planning and implementation is to exhibit a
high-performance urban system and bring agility in
strategic decision-making.
Figure 2: SPV’s Establishment for Functioning of SCM.
The Local Governments require approval from the
State Government for various activities, which can be
unilaterally performed by a SPV. It is also noted that
the SPVs can engage with citizens through ICTs
efficiently than the Local Governments. SPVs may
also bypass regular institutional hurdles in
implementing some of its plans. SPVs enjoy relative
freedom to implement and manage the SCM. The
SPVs are authorized to appoint Project Management
Consultants (PMC) for planning, design, develop,
manage and implement area-based projects. SPVs
may take assistance from any of the empanelled
consulting firms and the handholding agencies
approved by the Ministry of Housing and Urban
Affairs, (MoHUA). SPVs need to follow a transparent
and fair process for procurement of goods and
services as prescribed in the concerned State/Local
Government’s financial rules. SPVs may also refer to
the model framework developed by the MoHUA. The
government hopes that Smart City projects will attract
private participation as PPP mode.
The SCM encourages the State Governments and
the Local Governments to delegate the following to
the SPVs as per the SCM guidelines (2015):
-The rights and obligations of the Municipal Council
with respect to the SCM to the SPV;
-The decision-making powers available to the ULBs;
-The approval or decision-making powers available
to the UDD/ULB;
-The matters that require the approval of the State
Government.
The contributions and responsibilities of different
tiers of Government are presented in figure 3.
The Rationale of SPV in Indian Smart City Development
145
Figure 3: Relationship of SPV with 3-Tiers of Government.
Primary responsibilities of SPVs are to plan,
appraise, approve, release funds, and implement,
manage, operate, monitor, and evaluate projects (figure
5). Implementation of projects may be done through
joint ventures, subsidiaries, public-private partnership
(PPP), turnkey contracts, etc. The project cost may be
suitably dovetailed with continuous revenue streams.
SPVs are working with the Local Governments. In
many cases, the Municipal Commissioner of the Local
Government is appointed as the CEO of the SPV.
Some SPVs also appointed Municipal Corporations as
the implementing agency for the projects. Many are
hiring PMCs to implement SCM projects. The SPVs
have a multi-tier structure on its Board, taking
members from each hierarchy of the governance
system of India (figure 4).
Figure 4: The composition of the SPV board.
Figure 5: Powers and Responsibilities of SPV in Smart City Mission.
SMARTGREENS 2019 - 8th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems
146
Apart from setting up SPVs, aspiring Indian Smart
Cities are forming Smart City Advisory Forum at the
city level aiming to drive collaboration among
various stakeholders and monitoring organisations.
The key role of the advisory forum is to review the
suggestions provided by citizens, prioritize projects
and do a periodic review of the project outcomes.
This nature of consultative structure was never seen
in existence in India’s urban landscape and is
believed to be the beginning of collaborative
governance in Indian cities. Authors have gone
through the cases Varanasi and Bhubaneswar Smart
City to further study from the actual scenarios of the
SPVs.
In Varanasi Smart City SPV board, the Nominee
Director and the Independent Directors represent the
Government of India. The State Government is
represented by the Chairperson of the SPV
(Divisional Commissioner of the Varanasi Division)
and nominees from departments such as PuVVNL,
Jal Nigam, TCPO, RCUES, RTPRC, and Mission
Director of the State. City level representation
includes the Nominee Directors, Technical Directors,
Additional Director (VDA-Vice President) and the
CEO (Municipal Commissioner) of SPV (Figure 6).
Bhubaneswar Smart City is one of the early
establishers of a functioning SPV. The city of
Bhubaneswar has conceived SPV as a master
developer, similar to the context of private townships.
It explores arrangements with builders, technology
vendors and financiers. The organisational structure
of Bhubaneswar Smart City SPV is very different
from the existing SCM guidelines. It is more like an
enterprise structure rather than a bureaucratic board
committee.
Figure 6: Varanasi Smart City SPV Administration.
SPVs and Formal Governance (ULBs) in India
SPV is the project-implementing agency for Smart
Cities Mission, and Urban Local Body (ULB) is the
traditional agency for city development and
management. The comparison (table 1) takes the
example of Pune city for both types ULB and SPV.
The comparison suggests that as SPVs develop a
very small area for Smart Cities, most of the city area
is left to be managed by the ULB. Therefore, states
need to push for implementation of urbanization
Table 1: Comparison of ULB and SPV governance.
Attributes
ULB
SPV
Operation
Area
Municipal Area
A small area for Area-based developments; a
municipal area for Pan City Developments.
Democratic
Inclusion
Democratic inclusion in decision making in form of
councilors.
Mandatory only in form of the advisory
forum; councilors at Smart City board.
Sources for
Capital
Capital for ULB comes from own revenues, Finance
Commission, Central Govt. schemes, municipal
bonds, Central Govt. grants, Loans and PPPs.
SPV have capital from SCM, Central Govt.
Schemes, and Loans (Municipal bonds,
Project level infra bonds, ADB, WB, JICA);
Share Capital, User charges, taxes.
Organizational
structure,
departments,
committees,
etc.
ULBs have various departments such as
administration, engineering, health, ward offices,
social welfare, revenue, emergency services, nature
and environment, information technology.
For example, Pune Municipal Corporation has
two wings, one is administrative wing headed by the
Municipal Commissioner and another is elected wing
headed by the mayor.
There are two major bodies at the municipal level
in Pune- General body and Standing Committee. The
general body takes policy decisions for ULB, which
includes all the councilors and commissioner.
Standing Committee takes financial decisions for the
ULB.
Board of directors take decisions, which is a
smaller body including a mix of people from
the three tiers of government and various
parastatals, which helps in taking quick
decisions.
-Audit Committee; Finance Committee;
Nomination & Remuneration Committee;
Risk Management Committee; Compensation
Committee; Share transfer & Allotment
Committee; Project Management Committee;
Directors; Key Managerial Posts- Chairman,
CEO, CFO, Company Secretary;
The Rationale of SPV in Indian Smart City Development
147
Table 1: Comparison of ULB and SPV governance. (Cont.).
Vision
To provide and maintain civic services (supply of
water, electricity, road maintenance, sewerage
disposal, sanitation, parking, taxes and fees
collection). Urban planning including town planning,
Regulation of land use and construction of buildings,
Planning for economic and social development.
The vision of the SPV is to provide Smart
City components in the Smart City area.
SCM objectives are to provide water
supply, electricity, education and health
services, safety and security, housing,
environmental sustainability, urban transport.
Functions
Constitution of special committees or joint
committees. Joining with a cantonment authority or
any local authority. Sanctioning of the acceptance, or
acquisition of immovable property; Sanctioning the
taking of any property on lease for a term exceeding
three years.
Adoption of the budget; Determination of rates of
taxes; To vary or alter the budget estimates; Tax
imposition; To abolish or alter a tax; Taxes
consolidation; To abandon or sanction the scheme
with or without modifications submitted to it by the
Development Committee; To determine whether the
establishment of new private markets shall be
permitted in the City or in any specified portion of the
City.
The company plan, implement, manage and
operate the Smart City development projects.
The key functions and responsibilities of the
Company include:
Approval and sanctioning of projects,
technical appraisal, execution, mobilization of
resources, third-party review and monitoring,
capacity building, timely completion, review
of activities of the mission including budget,
implementation of projects, and coordination
with other missions/schemes, Incorporation of
joint ventures and subsidiaries and enter into
public-private partnerships including with
foreign entities as may be required for the
implementation of the Smart Cities Mission.
Determine and collect user charges.
reforms from 74
th
CAA, Local Governments are still in
need of proper empowerment. The Smart Cities
Mission Statement & Guidelines and The Companies
Act mandate SPVs. Whereas Urban Local Bodies are
directed by many laws and acts. The major difference
is the organisational structure, capital sources and
functioning method.
4 EVALUATION OF ULBS AND
SPVS WITH THE HELP OF
URBAN GOVERNANCE INDEX
(UGI)
Authors took two cities for the purpose of comparison
Pune and Varanasi. City selection is based on data
availability and relevance to the topic. Both of these
cities are listed in SCM and have Municipal
Corporations as ULB. Data for Municipal
Corporations are mostly available on their websites
and reports. However, Authors also visited the cities to
verify the available data and get unavailable data.
Authors did structured interviews of the city officials
in both the cities. Pune Smart City has established a
SPV, Pune Smart City Development Corporation
Limited (PSCDCL) for the governance. Varanasi
Smart City has also established a SPV, Varanasi Smart
City Limited for governance. PSCDCL is the only
Smart City SPV that has published annual reports and
various other data regarding the works of the same. So,
for the SPV governance, authors have data of PSCDCL
and for ULBs, authors have data of Pune Municipal
Corporation (PMC) and Varanasi Municipal
Corporation (VMC).
Urban Governance Index is an index developed by
the United Nations for the measurement of governance
as per governance principles. It has 4 indicators and 18
parameters (UN-HABITAT, 2004). A detailed
background data collection and empirical calculations
have been done. A summarized result of the evaluation
is in table 2.
The scores show that Municipal Corporations are
working better than the newly established SPVs. The
data for SPVs have not been available in exact formats,
which can account for a little loss in scores but not to
the high impact. SPVs establishments are new so data
have been available for only 1-2 years. For the more
reliable and accurate empirical databased study, we
need to wait for some years, but as per status, SPVs are
behind the ULBs in performance.
For the purpose of UGI, authors modified and
interpreted the relevant and comparable SPV data in
place of ULBs. For example, SPVs have Director,
CEO, CFO and Company secretary as the key
positions in place of or equivalent of Mayor, Deputy
Mayor etc. There is no councillors and no elections in
place so, no voter turnout. This is not a Municipal
Corporation so, no mayor. All the members on board
are selected from the various organisations. SPVs are
to implement a mission; therefore, there is no citizen
charter or published performance delivery standards,
SMARTGREENS 2019 - 8th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems
148
Table 2: Urban Governance Index, Indicators and
Parameters, Summarized Scores.
Indicators
Parameters
Max.
PMC
VMC
PSCDCL
Effectiveness
Local government
revenue per capita
0.35
0.32
0.22
0.28
Local government
transfers
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.15
The ratio of
mandatory to actual
tax collection
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.00
Published
performance
standards
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.25
Total
1.00
0.72
0.50
0.68
Equity
Citizen charter
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.30
The proportion of
women councillors
0.25
0.25
0.17
0.10
The proportion of
women in key
positions
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
Pro-poor pricing
policy
0.35
0.15
0.15
0.15
Total
1.00
0.50
0.52
0.65
Participation
Elected Council
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.00
Election of Mayor
0.15
0.08
0.08
0.00
Voter turnout
0.25
0.14
0.13
0.00
People’s forum
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Civic Association
(per 10000)
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
1.00
0.57
0.56
0.20
Accountability
Formal publication
of contracts,
tenders, budget and
accounts
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Control by higher
levels of
government
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
Anti-corruption
commission
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
Disclosure of
personal income
and assets
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.00
Regular
independent audit
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Total
1.00
0.70
0.70
0.50
1.00
0.62
0.57
0.48
SPVs rather have annual reports. There are no elected
officials as of SPVs, so disclosure of income and assets
become void. As per the guidelines, SPVs should collect
taxes in its area, but none of the SPVs collects taxes yet.
The delegation of tax collection powers from Local
Government to SPV has not happened yet.
5 CONCLUSION
SPVs for the implementation of SCM can be seen as
a development of a collaborative system to engage
urban stakeholders and citizen in the decision-making
process (Praharaj, Han and Hawken, 2018). In an
attempt to strengthen this system, it can be observed
that this system is sidestepping the democratic
process of local self-government by replacing them
with a more capitalistic business-oriented entity
(Exiner, 2012). Since 1992, the government has been
trying to implement the 74th CAA for uplifting the
capacity of the Municipal Corporations;
establishment of SPVs is showing the loss of
confidence in Municipal Corporations and
demeaning the efforts of two decades.
Many of the SPVs are working with a similar
workforce as of the Municipal Corporations.
Therefore, how the SPVs will manage to deliver the
expected urban transformation is yet to be seen.
Setting up a SPV can also be seen as an attraction
point for the private shareholding, but until now, none
of the SPVs has private shareholding, which tells that
SPVs have been failed to attract the trust of the
external investors; though, external organizations
have been part of the SCM in form of project
consultants and project implementers.
With SPVs in place, the State government has a
say in local affairs, which may interfere with Local
Governments’ independence. SPVs have a very small
part of the city; beyond this area, Municipal
Corporation has to function as earlier. Some of the
selected cities in SCM already have a better
mechanism to work towards Smart Cities in form of
ULBs. The inclusion of these cities in the SCM is
creating conflicts in their process of working. The
accountability of SPVs is questionable because there
is no mandatory public and democratic
representation. Without any clear accountability to
the citizen, SPVs may function irrationally for
revenue generation. SPVs are established for
objective development and efficient decision-
making, which is also a subject of local politics.
Therefore, bypassing democratic inclusion may not
contribute to success. Convergence is also one of the
SCM ambitions, but there are no clear guidelines for
it. How two schemes under a city, working in
different areas converge, is yet to be seen.
Indian cities are dysfunctional which largely
implies the lack of infrastructure. To develop
infrastructure investment is required, which cities
were not able to get on their own, earlier. By
establishing the SPVs, these cities can attract
investment; because, it is an independent body from
The Rationale of SPV in Indian Smart City Development
149
Municipal Corporations, working on a much smaller
area to achieve first world specifications. SPVs have
stable leadership, which makes it stronger in terms of
governance. The size of the area for SCM is another
positive for the success of SPVs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
NBCC (India) Limited, formerly known as National
Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., funded the
research under the project ‘Framework to manage
construction and governance of smart cites building
in India’.
REFERENCES
Bholey, M. (2016) ‘India’s Urban Challenges and Smart
Cities: A Contemporary Study’, Scholedge
International Journal of Business Policy & Governance
ISSN 2394-3351, 3(3), pp. 1738. doi:
10.19085/journal.sijbpg030301.
Bratton, W. W. and Levitin, A. J. (2013) ‘A Transactional
Genealogy of Scandal: From Micheal Milken to Enron
to Goldman Sachs’, Southern California Law Review,
86, pp. 783869.
Carol L. Stimmel (2016) Building Smart Cities in India.
Cioppa, P. (2005) ‘The efficient capital market hypothesis
revisited: Implications of the economic model for the
united states regulator’, Global Jurist Advances, 5(1).
City, G. (2016) Gujarat International Finance Tec-City -
Global Financial Hub. Available at: http://www
.giftgujarat.in/ (Accessed: 28 August 2018).
Crawford, P. J. (2003) ‘Special Purpose Entities’,
Finance/Investing/Accounting. Graziadio Business
Review, 6(2), pp. 14.
Eldrup, A. and Schutze, P. (2013) Organization and
Financing of Public -Infrastructure Projects.
Exiner, R. (2012) Good Governance Guide. Available at:
http://www.goodgovernance.org.au/.
Healy, P. M. and G.Palepu, K. (2001) ‘The fall of Enron’,
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(Dec 17), pp. 30
36. doi: 10.1257/089533003765888403.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2015a) Prime
Minister launches Smart Cities, AMRUT, Urban
Housing Missions, PIB. Available at: http://pib.
nic.in/newsite/archiveReleases.aspx (Accessed: 12
February 2019).
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2015b) Special
Purpose Vehicles (SPV) to implement Smart Cities
Project, PIB. Available at: http://pib.nic.in/newsite
/archiveReleases.aspx (Accessed: 12 February 2019).
MoUD (2011) Strategic Plan of MoUD for 2011-16.
Praharaj, S., Han, J. H. and Hawken, S. (2018) ‘Towards
the Right Model of Smart City Governance in India’,
International Journal of Sustainable Development and
Planning, 13(2), pp. 171186. doi: 10.2495/SDP-V13-
N2-171-186.
Ravi, S. and Bhatia, A. (2016) For Smart Cities to Succeed,
Strengthening Local Governance Is a Must, The Wire.
Available at: https://thewire.in/politics/smart-cities-to-
succeed-need-to-strengthen-local-governance
(Accessed: 13 February 2019).
Reforms to accelerate the development of India’s smart
cities shaping the future of urban development &
services (2016). Available at: http://www3.weforum
.org/docs/WEF_Reforms_Accelerate_Development_In
dias_Smart_Cities.pdf.
Shahana Chattaraj (2017) Are ‘Smart Cities’ enough for
India?, IGC. Available at: https://www.theigc.org/
blog/are-smart-cities-enough-for-india/ (Accessed: 13
February 2019).
Smart Cities Mission Statement Guidelines (2015).
Available at: http://smartcities.gov.in/upload/upload
files/files/SmartCityGuidelines(1).pdf (Accessed: 6
June 2017).
UN-HABITAT (2004) ‘Urban Governance Index’,
Conceptual Foundation and Field Test Report,
(August), pp. 165. Available at: papers3://publication
/uuid/4B833808-137D-4037-A51F-BBE1F82E9C7F.
UNECE (2015) ‘Chapter 4 - Special Purpose Entities’, in,
pp. 3965.
Wagenvoort, R. et al. (2010) Public and private financing
of infrastructure: Evolution and economics of private
infrastructure finance. 1st edn. Edited by H. Strauss.
European Investment Bank: Economic and Financial
Studies.
SMARTGREENS 2019 - 8th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems
150