The neoliberal theory has played a major role in the continuation of disintegrated and segregated spatial patterns in South Africa. The principles of the rolling back of the state, free markets and privatization (which will be discussed next) result in the poor being unable to afford to purchase land or housing on well-located land, close to developed urban centres, thus denying poor people easy access to urban opportunities, services and amenities.
In order to truly grasp the theory of neoliberalism, one has to understand the theory of liberalism.
There is a conceptual and historical affinity between liberalism and neoliberalism (Vázquez- Arroyo, 2008). Hackworth (2007) intellectualises neoliberalism as a revival of liberalism in which the values of individualism are embraced.
Liberal theorists such as John Stuart Mill among others, believe in equal rights and opportunities to all people. Liberal theorists suggest that an equal distribution of rights to opportunities can be achieved by disposing of discriminatory practices (Pirnuta and Secarea, 2012). Liberalism is associated with the notion that the role of the state should be minimal and that citizens should be free in making decisions relating to their rights and well-being (Harvey, 2005). Economic liberalism suggests that individuals should be responsible for participating in free and self- regulating markets with minimal intervention by the state in the economy (Thorsen and Lie, 2012).
Liberalism has often been distinguished in terms of classical and modern types. The classical form of liberalism is associated with the ideologies of earlier liberals such as John Locke and Adam Smith. Classical liberalism dictated that apart from enforcing law and armed forces, the government’s role should be minimal. Citizens and organisations should have the freedom to establish and partake in free dealings without any government interference (Thorsen and Lie, 2012).
30 On the other hand modern liberalism which arose in the 20th century allows for the government to actively participate in the economy. Modern liberalism dictates that the supply of goods and services to all citizens should be the responsibility of the government. According to modern liberals such as Benjamin Constant and John Rawls, to practically enforce the goals of liberalism, the government is needed to play a role in the economy.
Although it has undergone a process of growth, neoliberlism shares some vocabulary with liberalism (Thorsen and Lie, 2012). Neoliberals such as Ricardo and Malthus can be seen as individuals who believe that freedom, liberty and prosperity of all citizens can be enhanced by prosperous free markets (Peck and Tickle, 2002). Neo-liberalism can be defined as a theory of political economic practices that focuses on the improvement of human well-being through the liberation of individual entrepreneurial freedoms and through frameworks which include strong private property rights, free markets and free trade. It is also where the state takes a back step in the delivery of goods and services and provisions and where intervention in market rates are kept to a bare minimum (Beesley and Littlechild 1983; Harvey, 2005; Ilrig Globalisation, 1989; Kay and Thompson 1986; Vickers and Yarrow 1988).
The neoliberal ideology existed since the 1940s; however it was only in the 1980s that it was seen on the global development scene (Sandhu and Korzeniewski, 2004). In terms of the neoliberal theory, the primary objective for urban development lies in economic growth. It is believed that other urban problems shall gradually ameliorate upon economic growth (Beatty, 2014). Beatty argues that in the context of neoliberalism it is only the wealthy that benefit and experience growth and expansion from cities. Entrepreneurs, financial institutions, companies and corporations use cities as ‘growth machines’. Growth in urban development is promoted by such wealthy actors as they gain substantial financial benefits from place-making activities.
In a so called ‘neoliberal city’ the creation of isolated and insular spaces in urban and metropolitan geographies is generally done by private sector developers and such fragmentation of space is facilitated and promoted by the state sector. Cities are seen as the driving force of private redevelopment and no longer merely accommodate requests for private development. The spaces within the city are designed to accumulate capital and as such, these spaces subsequently take the form of shopping areas, cultural centres, waterfronts, sporting areas and luxury housing developments (Mele, 2011).
31 Generally, it is only those with the largest purchasing capabilities and powers that benefit from free market action. Neoliberalism makes room for people with capital to acquire spaces that are closer to the central business district (CBD), which have better services, are in great demand and more often than not, are much more expensive. The poor with very low or no purchasing power are located in much less valued spaces due to the fact that land is cheaper and easier to obtain.
These less valued places are normally on the outskirts or periphery of urban areas and often lack infrastructure and services (Chau, 2009). Mfuku (2006) critiques neoliberalism by suggesting that the notion of extending markets to people who are not in possession of market power, specifically capital, is highly irrational. The poverty rates in countries such as South Africa are high and it is nonsensical to attempt to extend markets to those who cannot logically afford to participate.
It is the adverse effects of neoliberalism that deem the theory significant and relevant to the study of spatial integration in low-income housing development projects. The principles of the rolling back of the state, free markets and privatisation result in the poor continuing to be segregated and spatially disintegrated. They are unable to afford to purchase land or housing on well-located land and are subsequently deprived of its accompanying opportunities, services and amenities.
According to Seekings (2010), in South Africa, the 1994 democratic ANC-led state actively withdrawing its role in the regulation of markets merely replicates the deep inequalities that were persistent in the apartheid era. Without government intervention in markets, urban infrastructure, housing and services have been unattainable to the poor. This ultimately results in places characterized by segregation of housing locations along market lines, repeating the irregular spatial forms of the apartheid era.
As a result of apartheid and contemporary spatial planning practices, current housing practitioners are faced with the task of counteracting fragmented spatial patterns in low-income housing development. With relevance to this study of spatial integration, housing practitioners need to counteract the adverse effects of the apartheid and contemporary housing practices, by incorporating locational factors, distance cost, travelling time and accessibility to opportunities such as economic and transport systems, social interaction and public services and facilities in low-income housing development.
32