# CELEBRATING A HALF-TRUTH
India’s recent economic milestone—overtaking Japan to become the world’s fourth-largest economy with a nominal GDP of $4.1 trillion—is undeniably significant. It signals a shift in global economic rankings and places India firmly among the world’s heavyweight economies. As NITI Aayog CEO B.V.R. Subrahmanyam stated in May 2025, “India has crossed $4 trillion GDP in nominal terms. This is a matter of national pride.”
However, this triumph, when viewed through the lens of per capita income, begins to reveal a deep structural imbalance. According to IMF data, while India’s total output has soared, its per capita GDP remains just around $2,880, starkly lower than Japan’s $33,000 or even China’s $13,000 (IMF WEO Database, 2025). As investor and educator Akshat Shrivastava bluntly put it: “Data sets in isolation are useless. Comparing GDP without looking at per capita GDP is misleading.”
This divergence between macro growth and micro reality has real consequences—especially for sectors like urban real estate, which depend not only on aggregate demand but on individual purchasing power. On paper, India’s real estate industry is poised to contribute 13% to GDP by the end of 2025 (KPMG India), yet its urban centres remain among the least affordable housing markets globally. Even as affordability ratios in cities like Mumbai are “approaching optimal thresholds” (JLL India), home loan borrowings have dropped by 35% year-on-year suggesting that rising GDP has not translated into rising access to housing.
In this context, the story of India’s economic rise is not just a tale of expanding output—it is a case study in asymmetric development. This analysis aims to interrogate the disparity between GDP and per capita GDP, and examine its consequences on India’s real estate sector, which today finds itself navigating a market rich in statistics but poor in affordability.
Top 5 Economics: Total GDP vs Per Capita GDP (2025)
COVER STORY
THE GDP SMOKESCREEN – WHAT NUMBERS DON’T TELL YOU
The real measure of prosperity—particularly from a citizen’s standpoint—is not how large an economy is in aggregate, but how wealth is distributed across its population. This is best reflected through per capita GDP. At approximately $2,800 in 2025, India’s per capita GDP places it below more than 100 countries. What’s more striking is that many of these countries either reached this benchmark long ago or have far smaller economies yet ensure higher average incomes per citizen.
Historically, Japan attained this income level as early as the 1960s during its post-war boom, marked by rapid industrialisation, infrastructure development, and disciplined capital investment. South Korea followed in the late 1980s, riding on its export-led industrial growth, technological prowess, and significant investments in human capital. China, India’s closest economic comparator, crossed this threshold around 2008 and has since propelled itself to a per capita GDP exceeding $13,000 by 2025.
India, by contrast, took over three decades after its economic liberalisation in the early 1990s to reach the same benchmark that other Asian economies met much earlier. The delay reflects structural issues, such as weak manufacturing output, reliance on low-productivity informal services, and a sluggish labour market that fails to create high-income opportunities for its burgeoning population.
The global disparity becomes even more pronounced when examining nations with significantly smaller GDPs yet much higher per capita income. Luxembourg, for example,has a per capita GDP of over $140,000 despite a total GDP under $100 billion, supported by a highly educated population, financial services excellence, and robust welfare systems. Similar stories exist in Ireland, Singapore, and Norway, where per capita incomes surpass $90,000, despite their limited population size and smaller economic footprint when compared to India. These countries illustrate that economic prosperity lies not in size, but in smart distribution, investment in people, and institutional quality.
Even more telling is the comparison with countries often considered economically underdeveloped. Vietnam, with a nominal GDP of around $460 billion, manages a per capita GDP exceeding $4,300—well above India’s. Its strategy has centred on attracting manufacturing FDI, skilling its population, and creating export-based growth corridors. Namibia and Botswana, each with GDP’s less than $20 billion, register per capita incomes of $5,000 and $7,800 respectively. These African economies have leveraged natural resource wealth effectively while maintaining macroeconomic stability. Bangladesh, India’s immediate neighbour, nearly matches India’s per capita GDP with a significantly smaller economy. These comparisons challenge the assumption that India’s rise in overall GDP directly translates into higher individual prosperity. The disconnect between total GDP and per capita income is especially visible in India’s real estate sector. While the industry is often hailed for its contribution to GDP—projected to reach 13% by 2025—it operates within a paradox of unmet demand and unaffordable supply. Millions of square feet remain unsold across urban India, even as millions more live in substandard housing. Developers build, but not for the masses. They target the thin upper-income layer that can afford property purchases, while most middle- and lower-income groups are priced out due to stagnant wages, rising land costs, and limited access to affordable housing finance. Recent data supports this distortion. In FY2025, home loan disbursals increased in value, yet the number of borrowers dropped sharply by 35%, signalling that only the affluent few are able to participate in the real estate economy. Affordable housing, which was once the cornerstone of policy ambition, now faces severe headwinds. Rising input costs, shrinking urban incomes, and slow government subsidy disbursals have left both demand and supply sides fractured.
India’s cities thus tell a conflicting tale. On one hand, skyline-altering luxury towers attract investor attention. On the other, middle-class housing projects languish or stall, with developers unable to reconcile cost structures with real demand. Rental yields remain below 3% in most cities—far less than what global investors would consider attractive. Compare that to Singapore and Vietnam, where rental yields hover between 4% and 6%, aided by well-planned rental ecosystems and structured urban policies.
The broader implication is this: while India’s aggregate GDP may impress, its housing realities expose the truth of economic exclusion. Celebrating scale without considering distribution risks constructing an economy that is vertical in form but hollow at the base. If India does not reform its urban development and real estate financing models to reflect income realities, it will continue building towers that few can occupy and neglect communities that desperately need shelter.
Real estate, in this context, is more than just an economic sector. It is a diagnostic tool for the country’s economic model. It reveals where growth is going, and more importantly, where it is not. Until the GDP narrative shifts to reflect the lives of its citizens—measured by per capita prosperity—India’s real estate will remain the loudest echo chamber of its economic inequalities.
INDIA’S GDP THROUGH REAL ESTATE METRICS
India’s real estate sector is not just a casualty of macroeconomic distortion—it is, arguably, the most visible stage upon which the contradictions of India’s economic narrative are performed. Beneath the celebratory headlines of GDP expansion and unicorn valuations lies a sector that has been hollowed out by structural inefficiencies, speculative distortions, and income incongruities.
The residential market is particularly emblematic of this. Despite rising inventory and increased project launches, end-user affordability has sharply declined. The price-to-income ratio in Mumbai now exceeds 11, positioning it among the least affordable cities globally. The average Mumbaikar would need to save their entire post-tax income for a decade—without spending a rupee—to afford an average apartment. In contrast, global cities with much higher per capita income, like Tokyo or Berlin, maintain ratios between 4.5 and 6.9. This is not simply a function of high demand; it is a reflection of a broken supply chain distorted by land premiums, regulatory fees, and speculative capital.
Housing Affordability: Price-to-Income Ratio Comparison (2025)
The illusion of a demand-driven market is further dispelled by inventory data. India’s top seven cities held over 11.6 lakh unsold housing units by the end of FY2025. Despite this glut, developers continue to launch new projects, particularly in high-margin luxury segments. The reason is not hidden-capital chases yield, not occupancy. Real estate in India is no longer driven by household formation or income-linked affordability; it is driven by financial engineering, arbitrage on land conversion, and expectations of regulatory windfall. The middle-class homebuyer has effectively been priced out of the urban core.
On the commercial front, the narrative of India as a booming service economy also conceals spatial dysfunction. While marquee deals are being signed for AI parks, fintech hubs, and IT campuses, the leasing momentum is dangerously bipolar. Vacancy rates in peripheral and mid-grade commercial properties have climbed to unsustainable levels in cities like Chennai, Ahmedabad, and even parts of NCR. These are not marginal markets—they were supposed to absorb the next tier of digital and service economy growth. Instead, what we see is a lopsided development arc: Grade-A spaces in 5–6 key micro-markets thrive while everything outside stagnates or decays.
The result is a bifurcated urban economy. On one side: hyper-engineered, well-funded zones with global aesthetics and access. On the other: fragmented, under-served urban sprawls disconnected from both infrastructure and investment. This kind of urban inequality is no longer merely a socio-economic issue—it is a drag on national productivity. Congestion, long commute times, and dysfunctional housing markets reduce labour mobility and productivity. They also feed discontent.
The speculative mindset has infected not just investors but policymakers. Real estate is treated as a fiscal cow—where premiums, duties, and stamp taxes provide budgetary filler for municipal and state deficits. In Mumbai, these transaction costs now form over one-third of the total cost of a home. The state monetizes approvals; developers capitalize future appreciation; and homebuyers are left underwriting the inefficiency. The end result is an urban housing ecosystem that is financially extractive, not economically productive.
Most troublingly, policy interventions have been reactive rather than structural. Credit-linked subsidies, marginal interest rate cuts, and piecemeal affordability missions have failed to address the core bottlenecks—urban land policy, legal clarity of title, and excessive compliance costs. The affordable housing push, once touted as a national mission, has slowed dramatically amid fiscal fatigue and declining developer interest.
India’s real estate sector does not reflect the ambitions of a $4 trillion economy. It reflects the limitations of a $2,800-per-capita one. The skyline may rise, but its foundation—income elasticity, affordability, spatial equity—remains deeply fractured. Unless India re-engineers its urban growth paradigm from financial speculation to functional inclusivity, real estate will continue to showcase the dangers of growth divorced from distribution.
COVER STORY
DEVELOPER STRATEGIES IN A DISCONNECTED ECONOMY
As India’s real estate market expands in physical form, it is simultaneously collapsing in coherence. The sector today operates in a self-contained bubble—one that responds more to the choreography of capital markets than to the real income terrain of Indian households. This disconnect has created a new breed of developer strategy: one that treats GDP as the demand signal, while conveniently ignoring the absence of per capita purchasing power.
In the wake of India’s $4 trillion headline GDP, developers have begun projecting housing demand upward based on aggregate wealth rather than stratified, income-linked analytics. This top-down assumption has led to an inversion of supply logic. The fastest-growing segment of launches between 2023 and 2025 has been in the premium and upper-mid categories—homes priced upwards of ₹1.2 crore. This might seem rational in a rising economy, until you realize that over 60% of urban families earn less than ₹12 lakh annually, and only 10% have the borrowing capacity to fund such purchases.
Demand vs Supply for Homes Under ₹80 Lakh in India (QI 2025)
This dissonance is most clearly visible in the skyline of Gurugram, where glistening towers along Golf Course Extension Road and New Gurgaon lie partially lit at night, their occupancy rates trailing their sales numbers by years. Developers banked on capital appreciation, not end-user absorption, creating ghost corridors of locked capital and idle concrete. A similar pattern can be seen in Noida, where a number of large-format luxury projects were launched in 2020–22, with unit sizes and ticket prices aimed at a demand segment that never truly existed.
In the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, the disconnect takes on a more spatial character. Mega-townships in Navi Mumbai, Bhiwandi, and Kalyan—developed with bullish assumptions around infrastructure projects like the Trans-Harbour Link or Metro corridors—have failed to generate sustained buyer momentum. Delays in public transport execution, coupled with excessive pricing at launch, have trapped these projects in a state of suspended momentum. The buyers who could afford to live there won’t commute; the buyers who could
Cost Breakdown of a 600 sq.ft Affordable Unit in Mumbaicommute can’t afford to live there.
This pattern is not simply the result of miscalculation—it is systemic. Developers operate within a framework where land prices are speculative, financing is premium-linked, and regulatory compliance is front-loaded. The cost of holding a project is high, the cost of pricing low is higher. With land acquisition averaging ₹30 lakh and statutory premiums adding another ₹33 lakh, a typical residential unit in Mumbai already incurs over ₹80 lakh in fixed overheads. Construction finance, costing an additional 10–13%, raises the pre-construction burden sharply. Add actual construction costs of ₹18 lakh for a standard 600 sq.ft unit, and the base project cost exceeds ₹1 crore even before sales, marketing, or profit margins are added. Further loading comes from stamp duty, registration, GST, labour cess, and metro surcharge—adding another 10–12%. In effect, the non-negotiable cost structure ensures that “affordable housing” in Mumbai is not just commercially unviable—it’s structurally incompatible with the city’s approval and land regime.
Worse, policy itself exacerbates the problem. Credit and capital flow freely for luxury and mid-premium projects backed by top-tier brands. Meanwhile, affordable housing projects languish in regulatory bottlenecks and financing blind spots. The infrastructure-led growth model has led to land banking around speculative corridors rather than existing urban centres, resulting in poor last-mile readiness and over-priced promise zones.
This distortion is deepened by a structural failure to read time velocity. Developers assume that aspirational buyers will rise into premium brackets over time. But income mobility in India is slow, uneven, and uncertain. The consequence is a buildup of inventory that remains out of sync with real-time affordability. According to recent data, 71% of housing demand across Tier 1 cities in 2025 was for units priced below ₹80 lakh, yet only 38% of new supply catered to that band. This is not a shortfall—it is a systemic misallocation of capital.
The real tragedy is that the development machinery is not broken—it is just misdirected. India’s developers are among the most resourceful, resilient, and risk-taking entrepreneurs in the economy. But they are caught in a system that rewards verticality over viability, projections over people, and capital flow over community logic. Until this strategic lens is recalibrated—from GDP-scale optimism to per capita-grounded realism—the housing market will continue to build skylines that few can live in and suburbs that few can reach.
HDI (2023) – Regional Comparison (Ranked by HDI Value)
THE URBAN MIDDLE CLASS IS SHRINKING, NOT RISING
India’s economic success is increasingly told in aggregate terms. Yet, in the shadows of this success, a quiet crisis is unfolding among the very class once heralded as the engine of its urban growth story: the middle class. Contrary to the celebratory tone surrounding GDP expansion, real estate figures are sending a more sobering message. Homeownership, long considered the defining rite of middle-class arrival, is slipping out of reach. The middle class is not rising with GDP; it is being edged out of the property market it helped build.
Average Monthly Salary by City (USD Equivalent)
Let the numbers speak. According to the Reserve Bank of India, household financial savings as a percentage of GDP dropped sharply from 11.5% in FY21 to just 5.1% in FY23—the lowest in over 40 years. Meanwhile, inflation has steadily eroded disposable income. Urban CPI-based inflation hovered between 6% and 7.5% for much of FY22 and FY23, with food and transport costs showing disproportionate spikes. Combine this with a 250-basis point increase in home loan interest rates since 2022, and EMIs for an average ₹50 lakh loan have risen by ₹6,000–₹7,000 per month.
What this means on the ground is stark: urban professionals earning ₹60,000–80,000 per month, once the target demographic for housing finance, are now being priced out of the primary market. Knight Frank India reports that home purchases in the ₹40–80 lakh bracket declined by 18% across the top 8 cities in 2024, despite increased launches. Simultaneously, rental inquiries surged by nearly 30%, marking a clear behavioural pivot from ownership to occupancy.
Even more telling are the shifting ownership patterns. Census 2011 placed urban homeownership at 69%. By 2023, that figure is estimated to have dropped below 63%, with cities like Bengaluru, Mumbai, and Hyderabad showing ownership rates below 55%. In parallel, over 52% of new urban housing demand is now concentrated in the rental market, a trend unseen in Indian cities a decade ago. This is not a passing phase; it is structural displacement.
At the heart of this shift is a betrayal of economic momentum. Wages have stagnated. According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), real wage growth for urban salaried workers was nearly flat from 2016 to 2023, with many sectors even reporting negative wage growth after adjusting for inflation. The top 10% of earners captured over 56% of total income growth during this period, further skewing affordability.
The psychological toll of this shift is harder to quantify but equally profound. Homeownership is not just a financial goal in Indian middle-class culture; it is an identity anchor. The home is where social capital is accumulated, where future security is built, and where generational wealth begins. For many young urban Indians, this aspiration has become a moving target—perpetually deferred by volatile jobs, rising costs, and an unresponsive housing supply.
This emotional erosion is now bleeding into economic behavior. Middle-class families are deferring marriage, postponing children, and extending shared rental tenures. The sense of financial progress has been replaced by a reality of survival economics. The aspirational India that policymakers championed is now opting out of asset creation.
Real estate developers, meanwhile, continue to misread the moment. Housing supply in 2024 was skewed toward units priced above ₹1 crore, which accounted for 42% of new launches but less than 15% of active demand. Affordable housing, defined at ₹25–40 lakh, saw a drop of nearly 28% in new inventory. This imbalance is not just poor planning—it reflects an economy out of sync with its social base.
India is thus producing more renters than owners, more strugglers than strivers. In a country that adds 12 million urban dwellers annually, this housing inversion poses both a social and economic risk. If the middle class is unable to participate in the real estate economy, it disconnects from wealth creation altogether. This is not simply a housing issue—it is a collapse of the post-liberalisation promise of upward mobility.
Unless the centre of gravity in urban planning, real estate finance, and policy discourse shifts decisively toward restoring affordability and enabling ownership. India’s economic narrative will become increasingly hollow. A growing economy with a shrinking middle class is not a success story; it is a system failure in disguise.
Urban Homeownership Rates in India and Major Cities (2011 vs 2023 Estimate)
THE DANGER OF CELEBRATORY DEVELOPMENTS AND ECONOMICS
India’s recent rise to the fourth position in the global GDP rankings has been widely celebrated as a sign of arrival—an emblem of an economy on the march. But beneath the surface of this macroeconomic triumph lies a disturbing asymmetry. India also ranks approximately 125th in per capita income and 147th on the United Nations Human Development Index (UNHDI, 2023). These rankings are not footnotes; they are the missing context. They reveal a nation whose scale is expanding faster than its substance, where volume is being mistaken for vitality.
This dissonance is not academic. It plays out in physical form across India’s urban landscape. In Mumbai, towering luxury apartments stand adjacent to slums that lack basic sanitation and drinking water. In Gurugram, business parks with LEED-certified facades operate within minutes of neighborhoods still struggling for piped water and power stability. Urban India is developing not as an integrated organism but as an uneven patchwork of gated affluence and infrastructural neglect.
Consider the numbers: India’s urban population is projected to cross 600 million by 2036, adding nearly 300 million people in two decades. Yet, the World Bank estimates that 35% of India’s urban population still lives in informal settlements. Despite massive investments in smart cities and metro projects, basic urban infrastructure—waste management, sewage, public housing—remains critically underfunded. Government data suggests that over 18% of urban households do not have access to tap water within their premises, and more than 20% rely on shared or community toilets.
This infrastructural vacuum is not just a function of inadequate planning; it is the result of a development logic that rewards spectacle over systems. The focus remains on ribbon-cutting announcements, elevated flyovers, and marquee real estate launches, while the fundamentals of human development—health, education, sanitation, housing—are reduced to budgetary footnotes. It is entirely possible in today’s India to have a city that hosts international investment summits while half its workforce lives in unauthorized colonies.
This dual-speed urbanism breeds more than inequality; it breeds instability. When cities grow without coherence, they become fragile. When investments cluster around enclaves and ignore peripheries, the social contract breaks down. Migrants move into cities faster than infrastructure can absorb them, resulting in overstretched transit systems, unaffordable housing, and rising informality in labour and living. A city can have GDP growth of 8% and still produce discontent if that growth is spatially and socially exclusionary.
India’s macro indicators may signal scale, but the lived reality on the ground tells a different story. GDP does not measure the availability of clean air or the dignity of a home.
It does not capture the opportunity gap between a gated community and the pavement just outside it. To build cities that are truly engines of growth, India must stop mistaking construction for development and investment for inclusion.
This is the danger of celebratory economics: it creates a feedback loop of self-congratulation while masking structural decay. It elevates vanity metrics while the foundations of equitable progress are left to crumble. And it tells a story of success that few people are actually living. If India is to realise its demographic dividend and urban potential, it must replace this illusion with intent. Cities must be built not just to be counted in rankings, but to count in the lives of those who inhabit them.
The true test of India’s economic rise will not be whether it can reach $5 trillion GDP by 2028, but whether it can make its growth visible in the daily dignity of its citizens. Until then, India may continue to climb the economic ladder—but it will do so with millions still left standing at the bottom.
About The Author
Titto Eapen is the Founder and Chief Editor of Urban Acres – A Think Tank of Urban Built Environment. He is also the curator of the V30 Conclave and Dialogues, where India’s leading urban thinkers, developers, and policymakers converge to reimagine the future of the built environment.
Through thought-provoking reports like High Premium Regime & Mumbai’s Losing Sheen and The Blueprint for New Bollywood City, Titto brings a sharp, investigative lens to urban transformation. His work consistently challenges status quo narratives, spotlighting stories that are sustainable, equitable, and future-ready.
Titto Eapen
Founder & MD
Urban Acres
