SECTION I 7.21.1.14 Policy
2.11 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY DEBATES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF POWERS
As an option to sustainable governance, the new utility of the approach to developmental local government will be tested on the ground rather than in academic or policy forums.
Basically, Integrated Development Plan means bringing together the efforts of national, provincial, regional and local government, and at a municipality level, the efforts of individual residents, groups (such as NGOs and civics) the private sector and other stakeholders, to set goals and work together in a planned way to achieve these goals in the interests of all in the community and a country as whole (Integrated Development Plan1998:3).
Such integration requires holistic thinking. Issues and sectors are looked at in relationship to each other, not in isolation. This enables the very best use of resources to achieve development aims (Integrated Development Plan 1998:3).
2.11 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY DEBATES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS
As a second principle, it is argued that the legislative framework of local government must provide some variation in the structure and powers of individual local authorities.
South Africa's urban system now comprises a hierarchy of urban places ranging from small, rural towns to very large metropolitan areas. These will need different institutional structures for future management and, within central guidelines such as non-racialism and economic viability, should be allowed to develop their own appropriate structures.
There are three primary themes in urban development debates that have emerged:
urban productivity;
environmental sustainability; and effective governance.
These issues are articulated to each other under the banner of creating an 'enabling environment' for urban development in cities of the South. Concretely it has meant an emphasis within urban development policy debates on: (Pamel & Pieterse 1998:8)
• The primacy of the local as the sphere for resolving the contradictory and complex imperatives of sustainable development and democratic governance, reflected in broader debates about 'decentralisation' and 'subsidiarity';
• The imperative of financially sustainable (translates into notions of full cost-recovery) and complementary policies at the urban level to reinforce macroeconomic policy objectives and build a defence and strategy around the implications of globalisation process;
• The need for pro-growth policies which involve composite investment promotion strategies such as tax and other incentives, supply-side support measures, training and SMME support, and many more;
• The valorisation of 'partnerships' as a paradigm for urban management and fostering economic growth, which involves the possibility of privatisation initiatives, and joint actions to ensure service delivery;
• An emphasis on environmentally sustainable policies through the introduction of Environmental Impact Assessments and monitoring systems, although these are
78
usually placed in second-order to policy objectives related to the promotion of economic growth and the enhancement of urban productivity, (with superficial attempts to suggest that the two imperatives are complementary);
• A growing focus on explicit anti-poverty framework and strategies to deal with concerns around social exclusion and link the different economic activities across the formal and informal boundaries; and lastly,
• In recent years there is a growing tendency to complement these wide-ranging urban development objectives around the imperative of infrastructure development, which can be articulated simultaneously in terms of the need to enhance urban productivity and poverty (Parnel & Pieterse, 1998:9). Notwithstanding these consensual trends in urban development discourse, it is important to remember that a substantial gulf persists between policy agreements at this global level (both national and local) that give meaning to the principles. It is this dynamic that makes the South African experiments post-1994 interesting because a really substantive and uncynical approach mark attempts to translate international debates into local strategies. It is also the local sphere where different stakeholders/actors have to agree and argue about their differing interpretation of such framework, i.e. the politicisation of policy- making, which is an indispensable part of our analysis of development approaches and their genealogies (parnel & Pieterse, 1998:9).
Furthermore, in establishing the international influence on South African policy formulation, it is important to highlight some of the crucial themes that have not been resolved in the rethinking of the development endeavour, in spite of the significant areas of confluence and their institutionalisation through the multitude of global summits in the 1990's. The most fundamental disagreement revolves around the nature of economic development. The continuing polarities in the debate can be traced to the contradictory development in the 1980's, when the development perils of SAPs were acknowledged whilst neo-liberalisation as an unquestionable policy mantra grew into virtual omnipotence, especially after the collapse of the socialist bloc. Concretely, this has translated into policy schizophrenia. The negative outcomes (on the poor and the environment) of structural adjustment are recognised by its key proponents such as the
World Bank, whereas the broader economic model of liberalised trade and open markets are simultaneously promoted. This contradictory situation interests advocates of alternative approaches to development. Moreover, this tension between an acceptance of mainstream economic policy and dealing with its structural consequences infuses policy frameworks, especially as they emanate from official sources and translate into official discourse and practice (parnell & Pieterse 1998:9).
Development Local Government in South Africa is thus born of the consensus and the conflict apparent in international development thinking. Against this background one can begin to anticipate the issues that will inform debate and contestation about translating policy frameworks into implementable developmental action. Before exploring these issues in the South African context it is worthwhile recalling that the international development debates are mediated by local specificity, notably the spatial and institutional legacy of apartheid segregation (pamel & Pieterse, 1998:9).