The National Spatial Development Perspective (NSDP) and Assumptions on Small Town Economic Investment by Government

Literature › Works

Mark Oranje; Elsona van Huyssteen; Cathy Meiklejohn (2008). The National Spatial Development Perspective (NSDP) and Assumptions on Small Town Economic Investment by Government. Position paper for Academy of Science of South Africa workshop (27 November 2008, Department of Science and Technology, Pretoria). CSIR Built Environment / University of Pretoria.

Type	report
Scope	Post-1994 South African economy
Method	policy analysis
Period studied	1995–2008
Regions	South Africa, former Bantustans, metropolitan city-regions, small towns
Themes	transition post apartheid, inequality poverty unemployment, demography urbanisation, bantustans removals influx, comparative theory
Citation key	oranje2008

Argument

The authors argue that the NSDP does not rule out investment in small towns, but is a tool for prioritising scarce public investment where it will have the greatest impact on poverty and growth. Because economic activity, population and poverty are heavily concentrated in metropolitan city-regions, large cities and major regional towns, large investments in small towns would run counter to the NSDP's logic. Small investments in small places fit the logic, unless a town has development potential of national significance. The case rests on CSIR spatial analyses (maps) of GVA, poverty (Minimum Living Level), employment, accessibility and migration, plus international claims about spatial inequality and slow regional convergence. Apartheid is treated as the source of the distinctive spatial distortion in South Africa.

Evidence and method

CSIR Geospatial Analysis Platform maps (2005-2006), NSDP 2006 update, 2008 CSIR study for the South African Cities Network/DPLG/Presidency, GVA and Minimum Living Level poverty estimates, district migration estimates for 2001-2006, and employment trends for 1995-2006. International comparisons (USA, EU) are cited second-hand from the NSDP.

Findings

• Spatial inequality is normal internationally; apartheid's distinctive effect was to exclude the majority from economic opportunity areas. (p. 2)

  The major difference in the case of South Africa is that draconian apartheid measures were used to keep the majority of the population away from the areas with the bulk of the economic opportunities, primarily urban South Africa.

• Convergence between regions is slow by international experience. (p. 2)

  it took the Southern States of the USA 100 years to reach a similar level of economic development as those in the North

• Economic activity and poor people are concentrated within 60km of high-GVA places. (p. 7)

  Areas located in 60km radius to places where more than R1 Billion GVA is generated: Generate 95.59% of GVA House 84.4% of Total Population House 77.31% of all people living below MLL

• Large numbers of people moved between districts in 2001-2006, with net gains in larger towns and cities and losses in rural areas. (p. 8)

  more than 3 million South Africans (almost 1 in 15) moved between districts between 2001 and 2006

• Former Bantustan areas show outward migration and loss of the productive-age population. (p. 8)

  These areas (mostly former Bantustan areas with limited economic activity) are characterised by outward migration and a decline in young population

• Metropolitan city-regions and cities hold most people and generate most economic activity. (p. 12)

  home to more than 58% of South Africans and 30% of people living under the minimum living level; (2) the engines of the South African economy and fiscus, generating 69% of all economic activity (2004)

• Former Bantustan settlements hold a large share of the poor but generate little output. (p. 12)

  home to 21% of the South African population and 32% of people living under MLL and generate 2% of national economic activity

• Small towns (644) have limited national economic weight and cannot significantly affect job creation or poverty alleviation. (p. 13)

  These 644 towns house 13% of the national population, 17% of the population living under the MLL and generate 8% of the economy.

• Principle 4 of the NSDP prioritises people over places in addressing social inequality. (p. 3)

  Efforts to address past and current social inequalities should focus on people, not places.