Evaluating development regions in the South African space economy¶
Harmse, Alet (2009). Evaluating development regions in the South African space economy. PositionIT (March 2009), Application/Technical section.
| Type | journal article |
| Scope | Post-1994 South African economy |
| Method | descriptive quantitative |
| Period studied | 2001–2006 |
| Regions | South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape, Limpopo, Gauteng |
| Themes | inequality poverty unemployment, bantustans removals influx, transition post apartheid, demography urbanisation, methods data sources |
| Citation key | harmse2009 |
Argument¶
Harmse uses 2001 census data on 16 socio-economic variables for 249 municipal units to demarcate South African development regions, following Friedmann's core-periphery model of development regions. She finds a small, wealthy core and a large, poor 'special problem' region, many of whose districts lie in or next to former homelands. She overlays the 15 presidential nodes of the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme (ISRDP) on this map and shows the nodes largely, but not fully, target the poorest areas. She argues that local municipalities or wards, rather than district councils, should be used for national-scale targeting of poverty alleviation. The article is a short GIS-oriented applied piece, not a historical study.
Evidence and method¶
2001 census data by municipality (Stats SA) on 16 variables for 249 spatial units (6 metropolitan areas, 12 district management areas, 231 local municipalities); the ISRDP/ISRDS documents; Fair (1965) for the 1960 core-periphery demarcation; and the author's earlier ERSA policy paper (Harmse, Blaauw and Schenck 2008).
Findings¶
-
The 2001 demarcation used 16 census variables for 249 spatial units, applying Friedmann's development-region model. (p. 2)
The demarcation was based on 249 spatial units (six MAs, 12 DMAs, and 231 LMs) and data on 16 variables
-
Income is highly concentrated in the small core region, while the special problem region earns very little. (p. 2)
In 2001, 69,2% of the total income of the country was earned by people living in the core region compared to only 2,07% in the special problem region.
-
The core is densely populated on a small land area, whereas the special problem region holds a larger population share on more land. (p. 2)
The core region housed 38% of the country's population on just 5,45% of the land area, while the special problem region housed 15,39% of the population on 9,86% of the area.
-
Formal employment is almost absent in the special problem region. (p. 2)
In 2001 an average of only 0,54% of the total number of people living in the special problem region were formally employed, compared to 21% of all the people in South Africa.
-
Per capita income in the special problem region was a small fraction of the national average. (p. 2)
The per capita income in the special problem region was only R114.10 per month in 2001
-
The special problem districts are concentrated in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. (p. 2)
The districts in the special problem region are concentrated in KwaZulu Natal (23 districts) and the Eastern Cape (13 districts)
-
Special problem districts are linked to former homelands and have been peripheral since 1960. (p. 3)
Many of these districts are part of or adjacent to areas that were homeland areas in the previous dispensation and suffered from apartheid spatial policies.
-
The ISRDP nodes only partly match the special problem region: 17 poor local municipalities were left out. (p. 4)
17 LMs located within the special problem regions have not been included in the ISRDP nodes
-
The author concludes that smaller spatial units should be used for national-scale development or poverty analysis. (p. 5)
relevant smaller spatial units such as LMs or even wards within such municipalities, rather than DCs, should be used for the analyses of areas in terms of development or poverty alleviation