1. Professor Alison Todes School of Architecture and Planning University of the Witwatersrand

2.  SA has considerable experience with spatial targeting – apartheid and post-apartheid  However we have not learnt from the experience  Paper provides overview of SA’s most significant experiences with spatial targeting  Draws generic lessons for thinking about spatial targeting in future  Looks at:  Regional Industrial decentralisation (under apartheid) SDIs IDZs  Local/Area-based Special Integrated Presidential Projects Urban Renewal and Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programmes Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant Urban Development Zones

3.  1940s-1996 – policy evolved  Incentives for industrial development outside of the cities, especially in/near homelands  Also infrastructure development, differential labour conditions  Limited impact until 1980s – decentralisation led by increased incentives and pressure on low-wage, labour-intensive industries (clothing)  Uneven spatial impacts  Broader local development in some places, but often limited, narrow  Post-apartheid – many supported places have declined and reconcentration in largest cities:  Incentives withdrawn  Institutional/governance problems in some places  SA’s economic trajectory away from supporting low-waged industries: trade liberalisation, import penetration, rising minimum wages, shift towards finance, consumption economy

4.  1996-2000/1: unlock growth in regions with significant unrealised potential  Competitiveness, plus stimulate SMMEs  Addressed blockages, improved infrastructure, anchor projects to attract investment  Short sharp intervention by project team, then handed to local/provincial authority  11 SDIs with different focus  Uneven spatial impact: Maputo Development Corridor most successful – growth and linkage projects, but cut off too soon  Many projects produced mainly short-term, low- waged jobs

5.  From 2000 – to encourage foreign investment and export promotion  3 zones linked to harbour or airport developed  No special incentives or conditions implemented  Not successful:  limited job creation  weak linkages  Mainly relocations from the area  Huge government relative to private sector investment

6.  1994 – 5 year pilot programmes – basic services, job creation, integrated, participatory development  13 projects, often special agencies  Economic development not a strong focus  Generally positive assessments – delivery (housing, infra, services), innovation in difficult conditions  but could be islands of excellence

7.  2001- 10 year nodal programme to address poverty/underdevelopment in nodes, encourage inter-gov integration  8 urban nodes (townships), 13 rural nodes (districts)  No special grant  Urban nodes often had dedicated project teams, rural nodes run through districts  Urban nodes successful in delivering services and infrastructure, but uneven  Rural nodes less successful, but mixed: huge areas, weak institutional capacity/positioning, lack of dedicated funding  Anchor projects (infrastructure-led) to crowd in investment - more successful in urban nodes with greater private sector interest  Difficulties of integrated development, esp rural areas

8.  2006 – 10 year township renewal, improving conditions and platform for private development  Technical support and capital grant to large number of municipalities on application – shift in direction currently  Reasonable performance on KPAs, resources to townships, infrastructure delivery, skills  Challenges: lack of municipal capacity, political interference in projects, corruption, high staff turnover, technical obstacles, and land issues  Mainly infrastructure projects  Questions about value-add, impact, displacing spending?

9.  No baseline studies or systematic assessment of economic impact  Economic focus of programmes not strong – often assume infrastructure leads to econ dev  But variety of initiatives  Some instances of poor planning/understanding of market dynamics  Mixed performance  Limited in transforming townships – long road  Most ‘success’ in attracting shopping centres in townships – working with market dynamics

10.  2004-9/extended to 2014  Tax incentives to promote urban renewal in inner cities through private property development  Declining inner cities of 15 municipalities  Relatively successful in attracting investment  Spatial selectivity: 90.7% of investment in 4 metros, esp JHB  Stronger impact with supportive/complementary municipal policies eg.JHB

11.  Programmes have made a difference, but its difficult to see economic impact due to lack of systematic baselines, monitoring and evaluation  Many post-apartheid programmes short-term, so impact not fully developed  Regional programmes more focused on economic development, local/area-based programmes emphasise social needs  Too little recognition of role of big cities in economic development and support required  And too little attention to economic and industrial development in cities  Infrastructure development has been main focus - necessary but not sufficient for economic development

12.  Are questions as to whether spatial targeting should be done at all  But if it is, need to recognise :  It takes time -need sustained support too many short-term initiatives in SA  Needs strong inter-governmental cooperation but often lacking despite many policies Problem of national policies contradicting spatial targeting  And strong institutions skilled, experienced, committed people: critical factor in which policies were effective, and in areas of failure Important in going beyond narrowly focused development But debate about form of institutions – special agency/embedded

13.  Need to be spatially selective support places with a real chance of success Need for limited geographical focus Difficult to resist political pressures for development in many places But all policies have had uneven spatial impacts  Need to understand markets/different types of markets and potentials difficult to work completely against market most policies with a stronger economic impact have in effect worked with it  Need right instruments for the context Dedicated funding Adequate levers/in the right institutional location Debate over incentives (complex outcomes) and risks Limited attention to ‘soft’ support in SA: marketing, industry support etc

14.  Need excellent programme/project management – emerges from most evaluations:  Strong visions  well linked to municipal planning/budgetary processes  Projects linked to strategic objectives, rather than being chosen on a political basis.  Need strong political acceptance and support  Outcomes will be shaped not only by spatial targeting policy but also :  macro-economic context, international economic conditions, broader national policies, sectoral dynamics  Role of macro-economic policies in shaping development – often much stronger than spatial targeting policies  Local dynamics and capacities affect development, even with most top-down policies  Local ‘path dependency’  Unexpected and unintended consequences

15.  Many risks  wasteful expenditure  potentials for corruption  support for places which have little potential  distorted local development  weak and inappropriate institutions.  Most policies have spatial impacts – need explicit consideration  Need for more careful assessment, monitoring, evaluation