2.2 THE CONSTRUCT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
2.2.1 Social Equity Pillar
From this research perspective, social challenges facing South Africa require multi-stakeholders participation, the ability to span boundaries both horizontally and vertically across various NSI hierarchies. The SA Diagnostic Report (NPC 2011a:8) and SA NPC (2011b:8) cogently and urgently acknowledge that persistence of “widespread poverty and extreme inequality…implies that different units possess different amounts of this attribute. The units can be individuals, social
27
groups, communities, nations; the attributes include such things as income, wealth, status, knowledge, and power”. Sutz (2014:xx-xxi) relates innovation to inequality, as inequality also influences innovation. In this research context, innovation efforts should be orientated in a direction that diminishes inequality. Implementing the poverty mission in South Africa’s NSI will require the strengthening of the network components and framework conditions, and the collaboration of the various network players as well as the additional construction of NSI policy mix mandates.
The Diagnostic Report (NPC 2011a) provides the basis for the NPC’s plan by identifying the main challenges confronting South Africa and examining the underlying causes which, in summary, include: (i) too few South Africans are employed; (ii) the quality of education for poor black South Africans is substandard; (iii) poorly located and inadequate infrastructure limits social inclusion and faster economic growth; (iv) South Africa's growth path is highly resource-intensive and hence unsustainable; (v) spatial challenges continue to marginalise the poor; (vi) the ailing public health system confronts a massive disease burden; (v) the performance of the public service is uneven;
(vi) corruption undermines state legitimacy and service delivery; and (vii) South Africa remains a divided society (NPC Diagnostic Report, 2011a:1-29; NPC, 2011b:3).
From this research perspective, legitimacy of the South African government is an important issue in tacking SD challenges, which has resulted from research commercialisation in the NSI. The increasing ‘distance’ among the NSI actors, which contributes to a ‘scattered’ NSI framework (partly emerging as unintended as well as those intended and others partly autonomous, such as globalisation, financial crisis and other closely related market-based revolutions) raises questions about the effectiveness, legitimacy and responsiveness of the main NSI actor, particularly the South African government’s role in strengthening the lost or weak interactions. In Goodwin’s (2011:63) terminology:
The legitimacy of institutions (global, national and local) and the legitimacy of the solutions they generate through social innovation come not simply from the process of deliberation but explicitly from the institutional commitment and openness to difference and from their ability to reflect upon their own objectives, strategies and institutional form in the light of that commitment.
The second of the five TYIP SA DST (2008:5) key principles states that “Competitive advantage:
the government should invest in areas of the highest socioeconomic return that is Grand Challenges”. This research argues that dealing with socioeconomic challenges facing South Africa will require priority setting and active NSI actors’ involvement. Consequently, innovation will
28
have to be regarded as a core objective in seeking to develop sustainable industrial base (Evans &
Rauch, 1999; Wade, 2004a; Bekkers et al., 2011b; Chavula & Konde, 2011). Some the major challenges facing South Africa are unemployment and poverty, with about 40% of South African households still living below a poverty line- about R480 per person per month. Poverty and unemployment are closely linked, with the most undesirable outcomes of unemployment being the rise in crime and substance abuse in South Africa (Dinokeng Scenarios, 2009).
The South African government has embarked on the New Growth Path (NGP) Framework by EDD (2010), which centres on a massive investment in five key infrastructure areas namely: (i) energy (ii) transport (iii) communication (iii) water and (vi) housing to create jobs in construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure, as a critical driver of dealing with the sluggish economic growth, poverty and joblessness. In this research context, an effective NSI framework, which nurtures research, research commercialisation and innovation, will be pivotal in realising the NGP (EDD, 2010).
The concept of Social innovation, or innovation for development, which is ‘manifold’ (Harayama
& Nitta, 2011:13) and ‘boundary spanning’ (Goodwin, 2011:59) across the NSI is closely related to the social pillar and has emerged in last decade both in international and local literature. Social innovation relates to innovation for addressing social issues, such as education and health, issues of inequality and inclusion (Lafferty, Ruud & Larsen, 2005; Leadbeater, 2008:16), which carry a public-good nature. The WEF (2013:59) defines social sustainability as:
The institutions, policies, and factors that enable all members of society to experience the best possible health, participation, and security; and that maximize their potential to contribute to and benefit from the economic prosperity of the country in which they live.
This research defines social innovation according to the European Union and The Young Foundation (2010:17-18), definition:
Innovations that are social both in their ends and in their means…as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. In other words they are innovations that are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act.
However analysis of how innovation for development is to be undertaken, especially in the South African context, is lacking. Innovation is a social activity, a process of collectively combining
29
primarily existing ideas, which entails connecting parallel domains of human expertise and value creation (Breznitz, Ketokivi & Rouvinen, 2011:73; Harayama & Nitta, 2011:16; OECD, 2011a:17). South Africa’s NSI is characterised by systemic social inequality, that of unequal development (Abrahams & Pogue, 2010:23), where social well-being is a goal and not a consequence (OECD, 2010a:133-140; OECD, 2011b:17). The research perceives the achievement of SD objectives in South Africa as dependant on both technological and social innovation coupled with organisational and institutional reforms. This research further argues that social innovation can be used to address the wicked challenges and grand challenges facing South Africa. The
‘wicked challenges’ (Bekkers et al., 2011b:212) facing African societies are coined with a ‘double risk’ factor, namely: sustainability risks associated with production (for example, pollution, migrant labour) as described by Beck (1992) and the risks and vulnerabilities associated with poverty (Le Grange, 2003; Fakir, 2002). The wicked challenges facing South Africa include the fight against crime, social unrest, unemployment, political instability, traffic congestion, water, sanitation and electricity management and provision, air pollution, economic and social decline, and inequality (Bekkers et al., 2011b:212). A range of other challenges facing South Africa include climate change, waste pollution, deforestation, desertification and degradation of freshwater resources, to the loss of biodiversity (Fischer-Kowalski & Haberl, 2007).
A review of the NPC (2011a; 2011b) documents indicate that the South African system is sensing powerful demand signals to tackle the wicked challenges, which the government has articulated as the crisis of poverty and inequality; indeed it has done so repeatedly. This research argues that tackling the ‘wicked challenges’ will require coordination and integration of various interfaces of the South African policy mix. Archibald (1988:66) identifies three types of policy interfaces, namely: (a) personal or people interface (b) organisational interfaces and (c) system interfaces.
This research further argues that an innovative public sector is required to create a legitimate NSI sector that is able to address the various ‘wicked’ societal challenges. According to Bekkers et al.
(2011a:5), how the governments handle and respond to societal challenges not only affect effectiveness, but also influence governments’ legitimacy.
In South Africa, the backlog for social change is immense (NPC, 2011a:22), with capacity within the public service remaining constrained (Van den Heever, 2011:6). This research views the South African government as central in providing resources in financial terms, policy- and strategy- development processes and leveraging positive social change. The South African social grant registries contain information on about 17 million or more past beneficiaries who, for one reason or another, were severely disadvantaged. Opportunities to link social innovation in order to achieve
30
complementary and multiplier effects in South Africa include social security and labour activation, education and health (Van den Heever, 2011:7). However, such linkages are limited and accompanied by insufficient delivery platforms. Nevertheless, some South African individual NGOs have succeeded in crafting niche functions in the development arena, thereby providing potential platform (or at least a template) for system-wide functions (SA DST Ministerial Review Committee, 2012:137), such as lmpumelelo Social Innovations Centre; lnyathelo, the South African Institute for Advancement and The Green House which recreates the city ecologically, socially and economically in sustainable ways. Prolinnova (Promoting Local Innovations) is a global organisation supporting and disseminating farmer innovation capacities in partnership with provincial departments of agriculture and the Agricultural Research Centres (ARC).
The basic thrust of the South African government’s Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) 2009-2014 is to improve and identify opportunities for new areas of growth and economic participation through: (i) more inclusive economic growth, decent work and sustainable livelihoods; (ii) economic and social infrastructure; (iii) rural development, food security and land reform; (iv) access to quality education; (v) improved health care; (vi) curbing crime and corruption; and (vii) cohesive and sustainable communities. South Africa’s social sustainability is undermined by high income inequality and youth unemployment. In addition, the country has not yet achieved universal access to sanitation. On a more positive note, the share of the population in vulnerable employment is relatively low and social mobility is somewhat better than it is in many other countries at a similar stage of development (WEF, 2013:70).
The South African Government’s MTSF 2009-2014 (2009:4) further posited that a number of new opportunities as well as some serious new risks could arise in the context of possible scenarios such as: (i) ‘Not yet Uhuru’, which depicts a government committed to accelerating economic growth through optimising conditions for private investment, but which struggles to achieve its goals in the face of slow growth and minimal sharing of benefits, deteriorating global conditions and severe ecological challenges; (ii) ‘Nkalakatha’; which depicts a more cohesive society as a result of government articulating a compelling national vision and fostering partnerships, while playing a more central role in the economy, prioritising poverty reduction and skills enhancement;
(iii) ‘Muvhango’, which depicts a government that battles to govern well despite an initial resurgence of the economy and positive world conditions, because of poor planning, lack of coordination, slow policy implementation as well as internecine and debilitating warfare within the party-political arena. This research views the ‘Nkalakatha’ as offering new opportunities for achieving the MTSF 2009-2014 objectives.
31 2.2.2 Sustainable Structural Transformation
One of the main challenges facing LDC, including South Africa, is the promotion of structural transformation. In this research context, sustainable structural transformation (SST) involves the adoption of deliberate, concerted and proactive policies to promote structural transformation (UNCTAD, 2012:5:26; 66; 131). Consequently, the research argues that there is a need for a strategy of SST in South Africa for sustainable competitiveness as supported by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, (UNCTAD 2012). The WEF (2013:61) defines sustainable competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies and factors that make a nation remain productive over the longer term, while ensuring social and environmental sustainability. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (2002) by the WSSD explicitly recognised the need to delink economic growth and environmental degradation. In South Africa, this kind of delinking will require implementing SST. Kuznets (1971:348) notes that structural changes “. . . are required, without which modern economic growth would be impossible”.
The UNCTAD (2012:5:26-131) examines the concept of sustainable structural transformation, using the constructs of ‘relative decoupling’ and ‘absolute decoupling’. The OECD (2001b) rhetorically defined decoupling as the process of breaking the links between environmental ‘bads’
and economic ‘goods’. The UNCTAD (2012:5:6:73) referring to the African region, argues that the focus of African policymakers should be on ‘relative decoupling’ rather than absolute decoupling, because the African region has very low per capita resource use compared with the global average and is also not a major polluter. Even though the African region needs more policy space for SST, assuming that the African economies grow at least by 7 per cent per annum, the GDP will be seven times higher in 2050. This growth implies that the region should focus on improving resource productivity and seeking to mitigate the environmental impacts of resource use (UNCTAD, 2012:5:73).
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP 2011a) has further developed the concept of decoupling by distinguishing two separate components of decoupling: resource decoupling and impact decoupling. Resource decoupling can be achieved by increasing resource productivity or efficiency (GDP per resource use) or, conversely, by decreasing resource intensity (resource use per GDP). Lafferty et al. (2005) also explore the concept of decoupling and include the term
‘recoupling’ in terms of four “normative modes” for the integration of environmental concerns and innovation policy illustrated in Table 2.2.2-1.
Table 2.2.2-1: Normative modes for the integration of environmental concerns and innovation
32
INTEGRATION STEERED BY GOVERNMENT ACTORS
Process norms Substantive norms
Goal of integration
Decoupling Environmental protection: Ecological communalism:
Major emphasis on end-of-pipe
regulation and prevention of pollution. Major emphasis on limiting growth.
Reliance on self-sustaining lifestyles and communal values.
Recoupling Ecological modernisation: Sustainable development:
Major emphasis on improving eco- efficiency of existing sectoral practices through “win-win” solutions. Plays down zero-sum conflicts of interests and trade-offs.
Major emphasis on achieving overall eco- effectiveness in a global context. Assigns
“principled priority” to maintaining and enhancing natural life-support systems.
Source: Lafferty, Ruud and Larsen (2005:228)
Decoupling to alter practices into more sustainable practices requires “recoupling” environmental protective measures and economic growth patterns (Lafferty et al., 2005:222). The aforementioned normative-functional framework highlights the particular challenge of integrating the dual goals of SD and innovation for South Africa. The concept of SST is applied in this research context as not simply related to the emergence of specific green sectors but rather to the greening of the entire economy through relative rather than absolute decoupling. Ocampo (2011:11) for instance, notes that green growth should best be comprehended as a process of structural change, for the formulation of least developed countries (LDCs) SD strategies.
The UNCTAD (2012:6:32) defines the ‘green’ concept of SST as a way to operationalise (to put into operation) the concept of the green economy in the context of SD and poverty eradication. The UNEP (2011b:21) defines a green economy as one which is “low-carbon, resource-efficient and socially inclusive, or… one that results in improved human well-being and social equity while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities”. Risk in this research context is defined according to Hillson (2009:6) as “uncertainty that matters”. The research argues that the concept of green growth should not be viewed as replacements for the construct of SD, rather as stated by (UNEP, 2011b:31) “a growing recognition that achieving sustainability rests almost entirely on getting the economy right”. The first sign that the green economy was being prioritised by the South African government was the approval by Cabinet of a number of key sustainability supportive policies. The policies included the MTSF of 2009–2014, the TYIP of 2008, the revised Industrial Policy Action Plan for 2010/11–2012/13 (IPAP2), the revised Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) and the NGP by EDD (2010).
33 2.2.3 Millennium Development Goals
During the Millennium Summit in September 2000, world leaders passed the Millennium Declaration, which formally established the UNDP Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs have the advantage of (i) offering a comprehensive and multi-dimensional development framework, (ii) a political mandate agreed by the leaders of all UN member states, and (iii) setting clear quantifiable targets to be achieved in all countries by 2015 (UNDP MDGs, 2010).
The eight MDGs serve as the new framework for SD by setting social equity goals and targets that aim at contributing to economic development while ensuring environmental sustainability (NEPAD, 2010:26). The progress chart for selected MDG targets in Northern Africa and sub- Saharan Africa is depicted in Table 2.2.3-1.
Table 2.2.3-1: Progress chart Africa MDGs of selected targets and indicators (2009) GOAL OBJECTIVE INDICATORS/TARGETS FOR 2015 NORTHERN
AFRICA SUB-SAHARAN
1 Eradicate extreme
poverty and hunger Reduce extreme poverty by half Low poverty Very high poverty Productive and decent employment Large deficit
in decent work Very large deficit in decent work Reduce hunger by half Low hunger Very high hunger 2 Universal primary
education Universal primary schooling High
enrolment Low enrolment 3 Promote gender
equality and empower women
Equal girls' enrolment in school Close to parity Close to parity Women's share of paid employment Low share Low share
Women represented in parliaments Very low Low representation 4 Reduce child
mortality Reduce mortality of under five-year-
olds by two thirds Low mortality Very high mortality
Measles immunisation High coverage Moderate coverage 5 Improve maternal
health Reduce maternal mortality by three-
quarters Moderate
mortality Very high mortality Access to reproductive health Moderate Low access
6 Combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria diseases
Halt and reverse spread of HIV/AIDS Low High prevalence Halt and reverse tuberculosis Low mortality High mortality
7 Ensure
environmental sustainability
Reverse loss of forests Low coverage Medium coverage Halve proportion without improved
drinking water High coverage Low coverage
Halve proportion without sanitation Moderate
coverage Very low coverage Improve lives of slum dwellers
8 Development The number of Internet users Moderate Very low usage Source: NEPAD (2010:26)
34
The first MDG of halving the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day relative to 1990 has been met three years before the target date. However, an estimated (between 2002 and 2011) 1.57 billion people, or more than 30% of the population of the 104 countries studied for the UNDP (2013) Report, live in multidimensional poverty, a measure of both the number and the intensity of overlapping human deprivations in health, education and standard of living. Sub-Saharan Africa has the most inequality in health, and South Asia in education (UNDP, 2013:14).