Home

>

The Impact of Basic and Social Infrastructure Investment on Economic Growth and Social Development in South Africa’s Urban and Rural Municipalities

The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa envisages sustainable human settlements including housing, education, health and access to cultural and leisure activities. This remains a significant policy challenge, with widespread inequality and divided societies still being prevalent in the country (Adams, Gallant, Jansen & Yu, 2015). Poor education outcomes, a divided community, uneven public service performance, divided spatial patterns and a crumbling infrastructure is some of the key challenges that have to be addressed in order to overcome persistent poverty and inequality in South Africa (NPC, 2011:19).

Under the right conditions, basic and social infrastructure investment can contribute to increased economic growth, social development and the reduction of inequality and poverty (Calderón & Servén, 2008:1). Being able to measure the impact of basic and social infrastructure investments on economic growth and social development in urban and rural areas, respectively, can contribute to the development of policy to reduce overall and spatial inequality (Calderón & Servén, 2008).
This study quantifies and compares the effect of basic and social infrastructure investment on economic growth and social development returns in South Africa’s urban and rural municipalities respectively. The methodology uses Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to construct synthetic basic and social infrastructure indices. The basic infrastructure index is based on the number of households that have access to water, electricity and sanitation, while the social infrastructure index uses proxy variables for health, education and safety, due to the lack of direct measures on a municipal level, for each of the municipalities from 1996 to 2012. The data is sourced from the Information Handling Services (IHS) Information and Insight Regional explorer databank for the period from 1996 to 2012 (IHS, 2013). The study focuses on local municipalities in South Africa using the National Department of Corporative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) classification for the urban and rural groupings.
Basic and social infrastructure delivery has a positive impact on economic growth and social development. The results indicate that the impact of basic and social infrastructure economic investment on economic growth and social development would be greater in rural municipalities. The results furthermore generally indicate lower economic growth and social return elasticities for South Africa when compared to other countries. This could be explained by the absence of quality of investment measures for basic and social infrastructure, respectively (Calderón & Servén, 2008). The qualitative information is, however, not available and will most likely not be compiled in the foreseeable future. The lower elasticities could also underline governance concerns (Hemson, 2004:17), ill-considered spatial implementation (Luo & Wang, 2003:876) and the inability of planners to understand the cultural aspects required to optimise social capital returns (Putnam, 1995). Many of these factors have been identified by the National Planning Commission (NPC) as binding constraints for South Africa becoming a growing and inclusive society. Using detailed economic growth and social development elasticities of basic and social infrastructure investment for urban and rural municipalities, respectively, would assist planning initiatives and optimise investment returns within different spatial areas.
Furthermore the results of this study show that the economic growth and social development returns on basic and social infrastructure are greater in rural municipalities than in urban municipalities. Therefore the government should prioritise investment in basic and social infrastructure in rural municipalities, for example investment on the provision of basic amenities, education- and health services and safety developments, to decrease the existing inequalities between rural and urban municipalities.
The results on both the elasticites and prioritising the economic growth and development in rural municipalities can be integrated into municipal planning frameworks. Such policy measures could, firstly, ensure the optimal utilization of available resources and, secondly, serve as an indicator of where basic- and social infrastructure should be increased to create a more inclusive and equal society on a spatial level in order to provide the practical realisation of the vision of the South Africa’s Constitution.
References
  • Adams, C., Gallant, R., Jansen, A. & Yu, D. (2015). Public assets and services delivery in South Africa: Is it really a success? Development Southern Africa, 32(6), 697-710.
  • Calderón, C & Servén, L. (2008). Infrastructure and economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Policy research working paper 4712. Washington DC: The World Bank.
  • Hemson, D. (2004). Integrated Rural and Regional Development. Position Paper; Beating the backlog: meeting targets and providing free basic services. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
  • IHS (Information Handling Services. (2013). IHS Information and Insight, Regional eXplorer. Centurion: IHS Information and Insight.
  • Luo, W. & Wang, F. (2003). Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS environment: Synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environment and Planning: Planning and Design, 30(6), 865–884.
  • NPC (The National Planning Commission). (2011). Diagnostic Overview. Pretoria: Pretoria government printers.
  • Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone, revisited. The Responsive Community, 5(2),18-33.
  • Straub, S. (2010). Infrastructure and development: A critical appraisal of the macro-level literature. Journal of Development Studies, 47(5), 683–708.
Research Brief 116
1 June 2017
SHARE THIS Policy Brief PUBLICATION:

Related South Africa’s Cities and Growth Spatial Challenges and Policy Interventions Content

Request for Proposals: The role of cities as drivers of growth and employment
Background Urbanization in South Africa is expected to reach 80% by...
Call for Work
South Africa’s future will be decided in our cities
Discussion Document 14 South Africa’s cities face multiple, overlap...
Dieter von Fintel, Justin Visagie, Ivan Turok, Takwanisa Machemedze, Claus Rabe, Sebastian Galiani, Edward Glaeser
Discussion Document
Monitoring South Africa’s metropolitan economies: A survey of the data landscape
Discussion Document 13 Disparities in data across different metropo...
Dieter von Fintel
Discussion Document
Cities, productivity and Jobs in SA: Problems and potential
Discussion Document 12 Cities contribute to national prosperity bec...
Ivan Turok, Justin Visagie
Discussion Document
Place-based economic policies: international lessons for South Africa
Discussion Document 11 Place-based policies are designed to support...
Harris Selod, Claus Rabe
Discussion Document
What luminosity data can and cannot reveal about South Africa’s urban economies
Discussion Document 10 As novel types of data are becoming availabl...
Takwanisa Machemedze
Discussion Document
Crime: A policy-oriented survey
Discussion Document 9 South Africa has a reputation for having high...
Sebastian Galiani
Discussion Document
Virtual CDE Workshop on SA Cities and Growth
Urban economics has provided powerful insights into how the charact...
Workshop

Search Resources

Ground Floor Brookside Building
11 Imam Haron Road
Claremont, 7700
Cape Town

PostNet Suite # 109
Private Bag X1005
Claremont 7735
Cape Town

Get Social