86 through various avenues, in the form of loans, grants and subsidies. Local government and government departments must speed up public investment on infrastructure to ensure the availability of premises for enterprises; physical infrastructure such as electricity, telecommunications, roads and transport facilities such as railways and ports should be established and/or maintained; linkages with existing large enterprises should be maintained. Moreover, government should prioritize service delivery planning through the provision of basic services such as water and sanitation, electricity, human settlements and education. Rogerson (2013) highlights that issues of market limitation or lack of access to markets because of geographical location experienced by many small enterprises providing goods and services in rural areas should be dealt with to ensure sustainability of rural entrepreneurs. According to Rogerson (2013) this can be addressed through expanded access to market opportunities from both private and public-sector procurement.
87 contribution to reducing or eradicating poverty (Swanepoel and De Beer, 2014). The majority of local government bodies in rural areas are seeking to promote tourism as an economic driver for local economic development (Rogerson, 2016). Meyer (2007) stipulates that the sourcing of local agricultural products is seen as a key benefit that the tourism sector can provide to rural communities. In addition, since small-scale agricultural producers are often members of the poorest income groups in rural areas, the supply chains between tourism and agriculture can be regarded as pro-poor flows (Ashley and Haysom, 2008). This indicates that LED initiatives must provide linkages between other LED initiatives, for instance; agricultural production can form a link with other tourism initiatives by providing fresh produce. If that can be done, small emerging farmers can provide food, for instance, for schools’ feeding schemes. This link could make LED initiatives sustainable in communities. Furthermore, the World Bank Group (2011) states that LED initiatives encourage local government, the private sector, non- profit organisations and local communities to work together to improve the local economy by creating jobs and alleviating poverty.
The White Paper on Local Government (1998) and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) support the study of World Bank Group of 2011 by indicating that developmental local government is where local government is committed to working together with the community and other stakeholders such as community-based organisations (CBOs), business people and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) to find sustainable ways to meet their social, economic and material needs and improve the quality of people’s lives. LED is about local government working together with communities, taking control, playing a leading role and being in charge of job creation and providing stability in the local economy by introducing LED initiatives that can assist community members to be financially independent so that poverty can be eradicated.
Meyer (2013) indicates that services rendered through LED projects involve three partners: the government, the private sector and the local community. Marais (2010) pointed out that throughout the world LED initiatives have brought about positive results when it comes to poverty reduction and other development issues such as employment generation, economic wellbeing, income generation, food security and an increase in the standard of living of various communities. The question that needs to be asked in terms of the current study is whether what Marais (2010) states above is also applicable to the King Cetshwayo District Municipality, in other words, will this study support Marais’
88 findings? Can pro-poor LED initiatives bring about positive results for the people of King Cetshwayo District Municipality and if that is the case, are those results sustainable?
These questions will be answered in the discussion of the results of the current study.
Rogerson (2006) and the White Paper on Local Government (1998) revealed that the central government recognizes local government as a key role player to impact change and specifically respond to the developmental needs faced in their localities, with a specific focus on the poorest members of society.
Developmental local government set the scene for Integrated Development Planning (IDP) and LED is regarded as a key element of IDP (White Paper on local government, 1998; Harrison, 2001; Hindson, 2003). Practising LED means working directly to build local economic strength to improve the economic future of the local municipality and the quality of life of its inhabitants. The success of communities depends on the ability of local government and the community to adapt to the fast-changing and increasingly competitive market environment. Local governments have an essential role to play in creating a favourable environment for pro-poor LED for the benefit of local businesses and enhancing job creation. Moreover, it is the function of local governments to generate and manage local projects where the aim is to address inequalities between citizens as they are the key authority to mediate the public good (Rogerson, 2011).
However, it is also important for the citizens to understand the country’s economy, economic policy and economic development (Gelb andGrasmann, 2010). Furthermore, Meyer (2014) stipulates that clear leadership in LED has not yet been forthcoming. He further pointed out that integration and co-operation between stakeholders and government departments is required to improve so that duplication of tasks could be avoided. Parker (2015) highlights that there is a need for a strong focus in social cohesion so that effective LED can be promoted and he also highlighted that LED activities can strengthen social cohesion. It was reported in the White Paper on the Transformation of the Public Service (WPTPS, 1995) that urban areas in South Africa are provided with higher levels of services. Equally, the biggest backlogs are in rural areas, where services were virtually non-existent in 1994 and Rogerson (2010) also points out that LED projects are more easily implemented in big cities such as Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg than in small towns and rural areas. However, poor people are mostly found in small towns and rural areas. If one were to compare the implementation of LED programmes in urban areas with the ones implemented in rural areas with respect to social
89 and economic development, a number of differences would be evident. This section has revealed that the mandate of implementing pro-poor LED is more related to local government (South Africa, 1996; White Paper on Local Government, 1998; Nel, 2005;
Rogerson, 2010; Meyer, 2014). It has also revealed that remote and rural areas are mostly affected by high rates of unemployment, poverty and economic inequalities. The implementation of pro-poor LED policies has a long history but until now those policies were not effectively implemented and they have not been addressing the needs of the poorest and most disadvantaged communities. The above literature has also revealed that as much as local government is mandated to run pro-poor LED initiatives, they do not work in isolation; they are supposed to work together with other spheres of government, groups within the community and the community to find ways of implementing and sustaining pro-poor LED (World Bank, 2011; Meyer-Stamer, 2003; Nel, 2001;
Tomlinson, 2003; Nel et al., 2002).
Having considered the above literature, it is evident that there has to date not been a study that examines and analyses the implementation and sustainability of pro-poor LED