 study, a different part of the world, and we're going to hear from Joe Beal, the Professor of Development Studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Hello, I'm going to talk to you today about Johannesburg. Johannesburg has undergone a big transition, as all of you know. It's just over a decade since that transition began with the first democratic elections in 1994. So enough time has elapsed to begin to assess progress made, even though the process of transformation from apartheid planning is far from complete. Some would argue that Johannesburg's experience is so unique because of apartheid that it's very difficult to learn lessons elsewhere. But I would argue that many of the problems that Johannesburg faces now are very similar to cities all over the world, including Mumbai, problems of resource constraints, social inequality and social differentiation, bureaucratic inertia and so on, as well as high political expectations. So it offers some useful lessons for people who are trying to transform planning under conditions of change and transition. But I think it is important to say something about that apartheid legacy. Like most big cities in South Africa, Johannesburg is physically divided, with the poor living to the south of the city and the more affluent to the north and center, and with people who are especially poor living in informal settlements on the peripheries of the north and the south. The poor are predominantly black, 70% of the poor are black, and of the population is black and poor, and the majority, although not exclusively white, amongst the more affluent. What makes apartheid's legacy different from spatial segregation, which is in fact quite familiar to many countries that have had, say, British colonial pasts, is that in addition to spatial segregation, you had racial segregation extended to discrimination in almost every aspect of life. So what the new government in Johannesburg had to do was to cope with both physical hierarchies based on race and racially defined provision. Today, the legacy that was inherited was one of 20% of the people in most abject poverty living in informal settlements without basic services, and another 40% of the city's population of Johannesburg living in inadequate housing in the former black townships. And this in a city where despite having higher than national average growth levels has a 30% unemployment rate. So these figures underscore the monumental service delivery challenges of the city. The political and policy challenges rested in the fact that under apartheid the city had 11 different local authorities, seven white authorities that were 90% self-sufficient and which spent $60 per capita and four black local authorities that were 10% self-sufficient and spent only $10 per capita. So one of the first things that the new ANC run council did following the 94 elections was to campaign under the slogan of one city, one tax base in order to effect redistribution at a city scale. The governance structure that resulted was four local authorities instead of 11, and they have some degree of autonomy and power and a single metropolitan council above this with an executive mayor. What we're particularly concerned about in this session is the challenge that Johannesburg faced in overcoming the inequalities of spatial segregation. These included the poorest people in the city having to commute long and expensive distances from peripheral apartheid settlements into places of work. In order to begin to effect changes in the city the national government put forward a model of developmental local government. This was protected constitutionally and all activity and planning at the municipal and metropolitan level comes under the constitution which protects the basic needs and rights of poor people and which insists on participatory as well as electoral democracy. So what we find is a system of integrated development planning that aimed to rupture the structure plan tradition of apartheid to bring in more collaborative planning and this was introduced in a way that all cities had to put forward their visions, their priorities, identifying the needs of the most disadvantaged citizens in the city and to consult widely in a participatory way. This was a valuable process. It was a process that was tied into a three-year budget cycle linked to the political system and it constituted an aggregation of community level planning and priorities. But there are some tensions between this and Johannesburg's ambitions as a global city and the need to plan beyond three-year political cycles and to have a longer-term horizon. So one of the critical tensions that Joburg represents is this tension between the domestic and political imperatives of the IDPs and the longer-term horizons and visions of many other interests in what's also important to recognize is that Johannesburg is part of the province of Khaoteng as you see in the map and Khaoteng province is the economic heartland of South Africa. Its own growth strategy called Blue IQ sees Johannesburg and Khaoteng as leading the economy through high value-added manufacturing projects and technology projects, big mega project investments and this in turn sits in some kind of tension. Johannesburg's mayor, Amos Massondo has tried to bring together some of these agendas for example in his inner city regeneration initiative represented here in the visual by the Mandela Bridge which is trying to bring investment back into the city center trying to bring poverty reduction and job creation agendas together with regeneration agendas. So what are the key planning challenges in contemporary Johannesburg? Under conditions of transition and unemployment and political demand there is a big challenge of public security and safety. A huge challenge as you can see in this picture is growing informality not only in economic activities but also in housing and service provision. As you see here the city has attempted to stop informal street traders with very little effect. But there's another big challenge which relates very much more to what we've been talking about in this session more generally which is attention with regard to spatial planning. The aim was integration, the integration of the city through compact city models, mixed use, increased density and so on and joining up parts of the city through transport corridors. But there's been a mismatch between the idea of the compact city and mixed use and the imperative of delivery. So what you had in Johannesburg was target-driven, numerical target-driven delivery, the most well-known example of which is the Million Houses campaign. And in order to deliver to scale, to economies of scale you had to deliver on the periphery of the city where people who are poor and black already live. And so you have a contradiction in the planning white paper between an imperative for land use which should promote efficient, functional and integrated settlements on the one hand and another imperative that land use and development should be determined by the availability of appropriate services and infrastructure. And what you have in effect is engineers and planners on the ground having to make it up as they went along as there was an attempt to try and coordinate and very much similar ways to which previous speakers have talked about trying to coordinate spatial planning imperatives, transport planning imperatives and compact city imperatives and not very successfully. So if I can just illustrate it briefly in the last couple of minutes that I have with reference to transport planning, post-apartite transport planning aimed at integrated cross-modal system with an emphasis on public transport that was affordable that absorbed less than 10% of people's disposable income. This was particularly important to bring into the city, into public space, into workspaces, people who had been previously excluded and people who through no fault of their own had to live on the widespread periphery of the city. But what you have is something that didn't quite work out that way. There has been an increase in Johannesburg of public transport but you've also had an increase in the use of the private car. The subsidy system which I haven't got time to go into meant that affordability issues haven't been addressed and that it's 10% of total incomes that people are having to spend on transport and this particularly affects the poor. In a 2003 survey between half and three quarters of users in Johannesburg were dissatisfied with rail bus and minibus taxis for reasons of overcrowding, travel times, personal security, vehicle road worthiness, off-peak frequency of service and proximity of ranks. And this in many ways represents a crisis in delivery. If I go back to looking at some of the governance issues underlying this crisis, there are tensions between ensuring this affordable transport and the goal of achieving a globally competitive, outward oriented economy and these tensions can be seen in the tensions between the IDP and the city development strategies. Because spatial planning hasn't been sufficiently integrated into the IDPs, it's left a lacuna that has been filled by iconic or prestige projects such as the Khao Teng rapid rail link which arguably has distorted and displaced more appropriate investments in transport. But the most trenchant failure and this relates to something Tony was talking about earlier is the failure to have formed transport authorities. A confusion as to where responsibility for this should lie so that the metropolitan government is unwilling to take on what they see as an unfunded mandate and without a clear local authority structure for transport there's been a lack of ownership of this at city level. So I will leave it there. Thank you very much and I hope it's been instructive.