Bond (2003) criticizes post 1994 urban policies, including housing and water policies, for shifting from structured racism to a neo-liberal bias that, according to him, codified an equally oppressive structured process that can be termed “class apartheid”. He summarizes these aspects as listed below:
Continued underdevelopment (variety of specific problems associated with apartheid era urban underdevelopment continued and were in many ways amplified).
Some of these have been acknowledged by the government: Statistics S.A released astonishing figures of average Black household income, in real terms from 19%
between 1995 and 2000. The decline that comes with a price for affordability of basic services.
Bond identifies two ways of thinking and conceptualizing urban problems, both in South Africa and internationally. They are the ‘mainstream’ and ‘critical’ perspective as summarized in Table 2 (pg 20). Mainstream approach and critical approaches provide two important perspectives into understanding and framing policy problems in South Africa (see Table 2 pg20).
The critical approach queries the merits allowing globalization and structural power imbalances to determine key features of urban development and instead posits a broader understanding of the positive economic, social and environmental benefits that come from strong public policies and programmes (Bond, 2003). These approaches provide an important view into understanding and analyzing service delivery policies. There are other broader policy analysis approaches that are important to consider. The approaches discussed outline various ways of conducting policy analysis.
Campoverde (2008) defines policy analysis as an investigation that generates information that informs policy makers’ judgement in developing adequate information, going beyond getting of facts seeking to produce information about values recommending action and setting up evaluation procedures. Campoverde (2008) identifies three forms of policy analysis Prospective; Retrospective; Integrative.
19
Table 2: Policy Thinking and Conceptualization
Source: (Bond, 2003, pg 40)
Mainstream Critical
a) existing policies are basically fine (although some, like the overly generous housing policy and higher services standards - electricity, indoor taps, flush toilets - that are affordable to low income people, need tweaking to assure better alignment);
a) virtually all current state policies are excessively market-oriented (too stingy, insensitive to poverty, incapable of integrating gender and environmental concerns, unsympathetic to problems associated with public health and worsening geographical segregation, and even inefficient in terms of untapped economic multipliers);
b) post-apartheid laws, planning frameworks and regulations are sometimes onerous and usually unhelpful;
b) post-apartheid laws, planning frameworks and regulations are essentially ‘technicist’ and disempowering, and are generally an inadequate substitute for transformation in the balance of forces and in residual apartheid-era economic processes;
c) resources allocated for urban regeneration and quite sufficient (large capital grants, plus ongoing central-local subsidies, plus limited local-level cross subsidies from wealthy and corporate customers to the poor, plus other programmatic funds);
c) resources allocated are inadequate (by a factor of roughly five from central government, and with regard to inadequate local and national cross- subsidization) ;
d) institutional arrangement for urban projects are flawed (due to an excessive emphasis on Greenfield developments and housing top structures);
d) institutional arrangements are inappropriate (newly demarcated municipalities will struggle to meet small-town and rural needs, and the drive to corporatization and even privatization will worsen services inequality);
f) communities and workers remain part of the problem (the former have a culture of non-payment, the latter too dogmatically oppose privatization and act as a labour aristocracy);
f) communities and workers are potentially part of the solution (if community and worker control are enhanced);
g) while expanded urban infrastructure and services may have positive spin-off benefits, these are not worth calculating and incorporating into decisions regarding the levels of municipal services, capital expenditure or subsidies;
g) Infrastructure and services have extremely important positive spin-off benefits – improved public health, gender equity, environmental improvement, economic multiplier, increased productivity, and better educational prospects, desegregation potentials - which are absolutely vital to calculate and incorporate into decisions regarding the levels of services, capital expenditure or subsidies.
20
Campoverde (2008) further defines the prospective form as the one that looks at as much data as possible but yet does not collect data. It provides quantitative and evaluative information on which to make future decisions. It places emphasis on obtaining information about goals and objectives of policies. Prospective policy analysis can also mean assessing the effect of a proposed policy or program before it is put into place (Mossberger & Wolman, 2003).
Retrospective form is defined as the one which studies the data from policies that have already been put into effect. This form of policy analysis is often known as ‘research’. The objective of this form is to provide macro-negative information to show what works at the macro level (Campoverde, 2008). The results are usually unclear and do not address the social problems. Instead it vaguely states social problems to satisfy political interest. Usually, it places primary emphasis on the result of actions and does not offer future actions.
Integrative policy analysis is concerned with collecting information before and after policy action. It benefits from both the prospective and retrospective methodologies. It is continuous and it proposes policy actions. Retrospective analysis has largely been adopted in this dissertation. Data from existing policies and implementation forms the foundation of the research project.
Campoverde (2008) defines three important approaches to policy analysis, namely, empirical approach, valuative approach and normative approach. Empirical approach looks at existing facts or facts expected to exist. This approach produces descriptive information or predictive information. The valuative approach looks at the facts past and, or future. Its objective is to ask whether they are worth it or if they are of any value. The end result of this approach is expected to produce valuative information. On one hand, normative approach looks at past facts and decides what action should be taken. According to the definition of this approach, the outcome is prescriptive type of information which recommends future action.
The aim of the above section was to provide an understanding of what informs policy development and implementation. It also presents an explanation of why things are done the way they are done, and attempts to explain how things could be done. The latter part contributes a framework which will assist in framing this research project within the confines of the existing body of policy analysis literature. This research project adopted a combination of both retrospective and integrative forms of policy analysis.
21
In terms of approaches or methodologies, a combination of all the above discussed approaches will be used.