Please do not quote without the authors permission

Social Justice and the City

Before examining the nature of economic interventions in South African cities, it is first important to reflect on the motivation for and results of such action in terms of issues of social justice. Given that cities are the locus for an increasing proportion of the population and are sites characterised by the concentration of ‘institutional thickness’ (Amin, 1999; Gibbs et al, 2001), resources, class disparities and what are often desperate social concerns, it is inevitable that social justice considerations should feature prominently in urban planning, intervention and the assessment there-of. According to van Vliet (2002, p. 31),‘…cities should not only be as engines of growth but also as agents of social justice and environmental sustainability’. In the opinion of Lopez De Souza (2000, p.187) ‘…urban development is …the process of achieving more social justice in the city through changes both in social relations and in spatiality’.
Arguments in favour of the pursuit of social justice feature prominently in the writings of Amin and Graham (1997) and Harloe (2001), who point out that because of the failure of the market to promote the interests of the most marginalised, these groups deserve special attention. This argument finds resonance in emerging debates about ‘pro-poor’ development (Mitlin, 2001) and more specifically the pro-poor policies within urban development (Beall, 2001). In the South African context specifically, a wide-range of policy documents, which are detailed below, emphasize the critical importance of pursuing issues of social justice, community development and what amounts to pro-poor development. According to Visser (2001, p.1675) ‘… Increasingly social justice debates express the post-structuralist need for emancipation and inclusion of the poor, marginalised and oppressed in governance structures’. As South African cities and broader government interventions start making their mark on the socio-economic landscape in South Africa, their impact on society has been interrogated by a range of academics (Beall et al, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; Visser, 2001; Parnell et al, 2002), who have called into question the impact which applied policy is having and have also identified the long-term negative impact which the apartheid legacy is continuing to have on urban redevelopment endeavours (Lemon, 1998).

Decentralizing development

The process of decentralizing decision-making powers over social and economic development from national and provincial tiers of government to the local level has become a hallmark of recent times, such that local government is now being charged to, ‘...fulfill a growing role in regulating the distribution of society’s benefits and burdens’ (Visser, 2001, p1673). As Maharaj and Ramballi (1998) comment, ‘...Throughout the western world, and more recently in the Third World, global economic restructuring, local dependence and competition between localities have shifted the responsibility for economic development from the central state to the local state’ (Maharaj and Ramballi, 1998, p144). The implications of such a shift are particularly profound at a time which is also characterised by enhanced globalisation, since, at one level, this enhances the ability of the local state to position itself on the world stage, to seek international investment and to act as a responsible agent in engaging with development aspirations and achievements. At another level, it might be argued that the central state might be accused of divesting itself of its responsibilities and shifting the burden and possible blame to lower tiers of government (Stockmayer, 1999).

One of the key outcomes of the shift in responsibility to local areas has been the pursuit of clearly defined economic regeneration and growth strategies by local authorities which are seeking to create jobs, promote investment, address economic and development backlogs and endeavouring to make their locality a key node in the global space economy (Demaziere and Wilson, 1996). This ‘local economic development’ is a widely practised strategy internationally, which has gained considerably in stature during an era which is characterised by increasing decentralisation. Five broad categories of such locality-based intervention by local governments have been identified, namely;

• 
  Financial support
  
• 
  Land and building development
  
• 
  Information and marketing assistance
  
• 
  New planning and organisational structures
  
• 
  Training and Employment (Nel, 2001, p1007)
  

As Clarke and Gaile (1998) have noted, applied development initiatives have changed in character over time in response to local, national and global economic and technological shifts. Through the use of the five above categories of intervention, cities are either seeking to reposition themselves on the global stage and/or to re-orientate their local economies such that they become one or more of the following:

• 
  Centres of production
  
• 
  Centres of consumption
  
• 
  Centres of information processing and corporate decision-making
  
• 
  Centres for the reception of central government funds (Rogerson, 2000).
  

Whilst these categories might be characteristic of many cities in the developed world, in the developing world more basic forms of human survival and self-reliance strategies often seem to be more prevalent (Binns and Nel, 1999). As evidence from Latin America and Africa indicates, ‘lower-level’ interventions, which can be broadly classified as ‘poverty-alleviation’ strategies are widespread. These frequently include support for the informal sector, including waste management and recycling and the provision of community-based infrastructure.

In South Africa, given its rather unique situation as existing between the developed and the developing worlds, both forms of intervention often exist cheek by jowl (Turok, 2001). It is a common sight to have world-class shopping malls and convention centres side-by-side with poverty stricken townships and squatter settlements, in which basic forms of human survival are the main focus. In addition to the pursuit of western-style economic development and growth, South African cities also need to pursue poverty alleviation intervention as well as trying to achieve racial reconciliation and promoting spatially and functionally unified cities which were physically and socially separated by apartheid policies. In the light of its unique situation, it seems that South Africa needs to pursue two very different approaches to local economic development simultaneously, namely; ‘...a market-led approach of business development, which aims to enable local economies to adjust more successfully to macro-economic reforms, ...and a more bottom-up or market-critical approach of community development..., in which the over-riding goals would be those of achieving local self-reliance, empowerment, participation, local co-operation, redefining work and sustainability’ (Rogerson, 2000, p399). The notion of there being two radically differing developmental orientations has profound implications on the nature of local state programmes and their resultant and differing impact on society.

The post-1994 transition and development policy

In response to the country’s legacy of discrimination, denied opportunities and retarded development, the newly elected democratic government launched its Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP)(ANC, 1994) following the elections in 1994. The ANC government stated that, ‘…The RDP is an integrated, coherent socio-economic policy framework. It seeks to mobilise all our people and our country’s resources towards the final eradication of apartheid and the building of a democratic, non-racial and non-sexist future’ (ANC, 1994, p1). Within the urban context specifically, the 1996 National Constitution defined a new developmental mandate for local government, namely that it should become a key catalyst for locally-led social and economic development (ANC, 1996). This concept was taken further in the 1998 Local Government White Paper and supporting legislation, which recognised that, ‘...municipalities face great challenges in promoting human rights and meeting human needs, addressing past backlogs and spatial distortions, and planning for a sustainable future’ (RSA, 1998, p.36).

At local government level, the way forward is conceptualised as being the pursuit of ‘Developmental Local Government’, which is defined as, ‘...local government committed to working with citizens and groups within the community to find sustainable ways to meet their social, economic and material needs and improve the quality of their lives’ (RSA, 1998, p. 17). Local government is required to take a leadership role, involving and empowering citizens and stakeholder groups in the development process, in order to build social capital and generate a sense of common purpose in finding local solutions for sustainability. As Pieterse (2002) comments, ‘…the historical burden on the shoulders of local government is colossal and mounting’ (Pieterse, 2002, p. 1). Local municipalities therefore have a crucial role to play as policy makers and as institutions of local democracy, and are now being urged to become more strategic, visionary and ultimately influential in the way they operate. In the context of post-apartheid development, Minister Mufamadi (2001)argues that, ‘...The very essence of developmental local government is being able to confront the dual nature of our cities and towns, and to deal with the consequences of the location of the poor in dormitory townships furthest away from economic opportunities and urban infrastructure. The solutions to these problems are complex and protracted’ (Mufamadi, 2001,p3). Based on the Local Government White Paper (RSA, 1998), the developmental role of local governments has been enshrined in the key Systems Act (RSA, 2000). In addition, government is currently developing a defined Local Economic Development policy, which is explicitly pro-poor in focus, seeking to ‘…refocus development on the poor’ (DPLG, 2002). This draft policy stresses the concept of sustainable, community-based development and calls for a focus on :

- community based development

- linkage development

- human capital development

- infrastructure and municipal services provision

- economic leak-plugging, and

- retaining and expanding local economic activity (Bond 2001).
The dichotomy between the pro-poor focus of this policy and the economic growth mandate detailed in World Bank (2002) documentation on LED finds resonance with the division between pro-market and pro-poor development alluded to by Rogerson (2000). Whilst the legal and policy imperative in South Africa matches the social responsibility of promoting socially appropriate development, it is however questionable whether the resources and commitment are always in place, at local government level, to achieve these ideals. It is imperative that such provision is made, for as Rogerson (2000) comments, ‘...in terms of the mandate of developmental local government the establishment of pro-poor local development strategies is therefore critical and central for sustainable urban development as a whole, particularly in dealing with the apartheid legacy of widespread poverty’ (Rogerson, 2000, p405). Whilst such a vision is clearly appropriate and in line with international principles of devolution and decentralization, unfortunately, the devolution of power without a commensurate allocation of human and financial resources, particularly in smaller centres, to meet these new responsibilities represents a serious barrier to progress and by implication affects the ability of local government to impact meaningfully on issues of social justice.
The principle of the devolution of power to communities, and by implication to their elected representatives, is a key feature of the African National Congress government’s policy, which reinforces popular participation in local affairs and development. The Reconstruction and Development Programme (ANC, 1994), which provides a broad statement of developmental objectives, argues that, ‘...development is not about the delivery of goods to a passive citizenry. It is about active involvement and empowerment’ (ANC, 1994, p.5). Evolving government policy reflects committed efforts to make such principles a reality. These principles have been entrenched in the Constitution (RSA, 1996a), which reinforces the place of local government in society, and which requires it to, ‘...encourage the involvement of communities and community organizations in matters of local government’ (RSA, 1996a, p.81). In further supporting these principles, the Systems Act (RSA, 2000) places particular emphasis on community involvement in local government decisions, such that local authorities are now obligated to establish mechanisms to enable communities to participate in the affairs of a municipality (RSA, 2000; Nel and Binns, 2001).
At another level, in line with political and economic agendas around the world, and in spite of internal opposition from unions and community groups, the South African government has firmly wedded itself to a neo-liberal economic agenda. In terms of the key macro-economic policy document - the ‘Growth, Employment and Redistribution’ (GEAR) strategy (RSA, 1996b) - government argues that it needs to be pro-active in laying the basis for market-driven economic expansion and growth. The strategy details the role of government as being that of facilitating market expansion, with local government having a key role to play in stimulating economic development through investment in infrastructure, ‘to crowd in private investment and boost short-term economic performance’ (RSA, 1996b, p.7).
Local government’s status and its potential development role have been further enhanced through a commitment to the principle that local government is not merely the lowest tier of government, occupying a subordinate position, but rather that it is a distinctive ‘sphere’ of government, occupying a unique and important position within South African society. These principles are spelled out in the Constitution (RSA, 1996a), and are reinforced in the Local Government White Paper, which states that, ‘...government in South Africa is constituted as national, provincial and local spheres of government. These three spheres are distinctive, interdependent and interrelated. Local government is a sphere of government in its own right, and is no longer a function of national or provincial government. It is an integral component of the democratic state’ (RSA, 1998, p. 37).
In order to accelerate pro-active and developmentally-orientated planning, the 1995 Development Facilitation Act (RSA, 1995) was passed to streamline the planning process. Given the enormity of the poverty backlog in the country, a ‘Local Economic Development Fund’ programme was launched by national government in 1999, specifically to fund local government-led poverty alleviation projects (Binns and Nel, 2002). Further, since 2000 (RSA, 2000) all local governments are expected to embark upon what has been termed ‘Integrated Development Planning’, which has been defined as, ‘...A participatory approach to integrate economic, sectoral, spatial, social, institutional, environmental and fiscal strategies, in order to support the optimal allocation of scarce resources between sectors and geographical areas and across the population in a manner that provides sustainable growth, equity and the empowerment of the poor and the marginalised’ (DPLG, 2000, p15). In essence, according to the Department of Provincial and Local Government, the IDP is, ‘...conceived as a tool to assist municipalities in achieving their developmental mandates’ (DPLG, 2000, p21), and as a planning and implementation instrument to bring together the various functions and development objectives of municipalities. Future government funding allocations to local governments will be determined by the nature of planning and development priorities identified in such plans (Binns and Nel 2001).
Since 2001, national government has also been developing what it calls an ‘Urban Renewal Strategy’, ‘...to realise the vision of socially cohesive and stable urban communities with viable institutions, sustainable economies and universal access to social amenities’ (DPLG, 2001, p1). The three identified foci of this strategy are to be:

1. 
   Upgrading informal settlements
   
2. 
   Inner city regeneration
   
3. 
   Old neighbourhood regeneration.
   

Within the context of national urban development and regeneration, national government has clearly achieved some quite dramatic achievements in a relatively short time. By 2000, the fragmented apartheid city structure had ceased to exist, at least administratively, with separate racially-based local authority areas and associated separate wealthy and poor areas having been welded together to form so-called ‘uni-cities’, in an effort to redress previous imbalances and demonstrate a commitment towards a more equitable sharing of resources. The effect of this major reorganisation process is that, ‘…South Africa’s new Unicity authorities face a formidable list of competing priorities and attention’ which needs concerted and distinctive economic and social interventions (Turok and Watson, 2001, p.119). These administrative changes were subsequently reinforced by the 2000 local government elections, which brought to a close the transition phase in local government, and which saw a significant reduction in the number of local authorities from 843 to 284. This represented a targeted move to combine historically privileged and disadvantaged areas (both urban and rural) under single unitary authorities, in an effort to promote the sharing of resources, cross-subsidization and the establishment of economically and administratively viable local government entities (Sutcliffe, pers. com., 2001). It is a matter of debate as to whether the marginal local authorities might now be burdened with proverbial millstones whilst the new high-profile uni-cities have been positioned in a different league. South Africa’s key ‘uni-cities’, both Metropolitan Councils and secondary city Local Municipalities, are shown in Table 1. The national significance of these large cities is clearly illustrated by the fact that nearly 70% of the national GDP is generated by the six metropoles, which have 58% of the national urban population. The largest 10 urban areas contain 68% of the urban population and the largest 16 contain 77% (StatsSA 2000, SA Explorer, 2001). These cities will undoubtedly become a national focus for many key developments, decisions, investment and attempts to redress the apartheid legacy.