Calcutta qualifies as a megacity by the size of its population, not by the size of its pocket, a study has shown.

The study by the National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER) reveals that average household income in Calcutta grew around 8.5 per cent between 2004 and 2008 while the seven other megacities clocked between nine and 12.8 per cent.

Over 61,000 households in 20 cities were studied. The cities were classified into three categories based on population, household income and consumption expenditure. Calcutta, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad are joined in this club by Ahmedabad and Pune.

The other two clubs are the seven “boomtowns”, defined as high-population and high-expenditure areas, and the five “niche cities”, which have relatively small populations but high spending power.

Calcutta, with an average annual household income of Rs 2.87 lakh (2007-08), is way below the size of the wallet of Delhi and Mumbai by around Rs 1.5 lakh and belongs in the middle rungs. Around 6,000 households across 60 locations in Calcutta were studied.

If, looking at the proliferation of malls and other signs of prosperity, you think Calcutta might have started low for historical reasons but is now racing, think again.

The annual household income growth in the 20 cities averaged 11.2 per cent in the last three years, but Calcutta’s was around 8.5 per cent, lower than even the Indian average of around 9.5 per cent.

A 29-year-old IT professional in the city said: “We get paid at least Rs 1 lakh less than others working at the same level, in the same organisation, in other cities.”

In one economic review after another, finance minister Asim Dasgupta produces growth numbers that are either a step ahead of the national average or at least close to it. In 2006-07, according to government data, Bengal grew 8.81 per cent when the national rate was 9 per cent.

It is accepted wisdom that urban areas have reaped the benefits of post-reform boom more than rural India. But all this growth isn’t reflected in Calcutta moving apace with its peers, the study shows.

The city drops even lower down the order when income is adjusted for cost of living.

Low income has its own vicious consequences. Calcutta spends a higher portion (61 per cent) of its income on household consumption (communication, household and personal products, food, beverages, tobacco, education and recreation, apparel, healthcare, housing and utilities and transport) than Delhi (52 per cent) and Mumbai (44 per cent).

Anindya Sen, professor of economics at IIM Calcutta, said: “Calcuttans end up spending a larger percentage of their income on consumption because their household income is much lower.”

Dhrubojyoti Mukherjee, 39, is an example. “I spend 60 per cent of my salary on food, transport, communication and my son’s education. Five per cent of my forced saving is in insurance, the rest are in schemes like provident fund,” said Mukherjee.

The study confirms the type-casting of the Calcuttan as a conservative investor with some 50 per cent of the households surveyed putting their money in insurance.

“Bengalis treat insurance as an investment product which will give fixed returns. They do not realise there is nothing called fixed return,” said Shibu Das, an investment expert.

Although classified as a megacity, Calcutta belongs with the boomtowns and niche cities, traditional tier II and III cities by household income and spending propensity.

“Calcutta still does not have the spending power for consumerism that a Delhi or a Mumbai has,” said Rama Bijapurkar, a market strategy analyst.