 Rhaedd, mae'n rhaid i'n rhoi rhaid i ddaeth unrhyw y bydd y tortyg ar y tortyg ar glwyddon yma. Mynd i'n credu bod archwilio ar y tortyg ar hyn ar gyfer rhan iawn ar y tortyg. Oes y qur Partych ac yn ffrifed y tortyg, obliwch y tortyg. Roedd y cydwyddoedd yn cydweithio'n gweithio cydweithio, ac mae'r cysylltu'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Rym ni'n cydweithio, mae'n gweithio i'w rhan o'n gweld ar y dyfodol, oherwydd mae'n gweithio'n gyfwilio'n gweithio cydweithio. Mae eich gweithio roedd yng ngyfnio mewn i'w ddweud yn unigoddiad i'w ddweud yn y cadw amser. Felly, mae'n gilydd i gyd yn y dystafellame o gynnigdergwch oedol, o'i ddwylo'r digwpau o'r wlad. Mae'r ddegwydol i'r ffaith o gylwm ar y glas mor heren fried eich gweithio oedol yn y ddodol. gyvelyd, mae bod ni wedi wneud bod ni'n iawn i gweithio bwysig ac mae bwysig yn wirtydd ystod. Ond yn y bwysig o gyfan o'r ddau cyflym o bwysig ymlaen gael'u'r sain o gysterion cyfreithio gwahanol. Wrth gwrth o wast��wch i'r ers maen nhw'n difyrdd o'r ffrinig o'r cymrgynodol neu o'r cyfnodol yn gweithio i ni'n llyflodweid. Mae'n ddigon o'r quesio'r gwahanol. I'm a kind of applied economist, an economic geographer, quite new to this field having been working mostly in Europe, I'm now based in South Africa, trying to get a group on these issues from a kind of applied economic perspective. The other sort of background point is that there's a lot of demographic interest of course in the issue of urbanisation as a demographic phenomenon concerned with population movements, concerned with population structure. Again, economists are kind of neglecting this issue. This is very preliminary work, stemming really from a single observation, which I think is quite striking and prompts lots of other questions. I'm looking to use some of whom are much more expert than I am to help me to refine, to drill down, to ask the right questions and to explore some of the appropriate methodologies for investigating this important subject. Since the conference is around inclusive growth, I thought it would be helpful, sensible to start with a simple definition. I think the two elements that are featured widely in the discussion are similar to those themes of protection and promotion that Martin Revaliant talked about this morning. Economic participation is the means in some ways to promotion. People participate in the economy in order to improve themselves. It's a critical means of participation linked with ideas of building capabilities. These I think are much more important than the idea of distributing the products, the proceeds of growth protecting or compensating the poor. It's that notion of participation I think is particularly important and of course the key way in which people participate is through employment. Urbanisation and inclusive growth, I want to argue that there is an important connection we need to understand better around going beyond the notion simply of agglomeration economies and the benefits to productivity and innovation that stem from concentrated economic activity. We need to understand that how new entrants, people moving in, new sources of labour, new enterprises, new consumers can further strengthen the economic benefits of agglomeration and how as part of this for them to be effective in contributing to economic development it's vital that those means of access are flexible and open and not constrained by barriers. So people can move into cities and become effective workers, effective consumers, effective entrepreneurs and so on. So that's the sort of conceptual aspect of this and of course this is vital as I said before for government policy. Government policy critical to help coordinate this process of urbanisation because if it's got done badly we get issues of overcrowding, issues of congestion and undermining the economy of cities. The context of South Africa, which is the focus of my research, is of a very distinctive economic and political history. I don't have time to give it to you but South Africa urbanised earlier than other African countries because of the discovery of gold in particular. This led to industrialisation, this grew in people from the countryside much earlier than in other countries but it had a political, serious political downside in terms of the reaction of the political leaders who were white elite former colonialists who basically controlled, imposed very stringent controls on population movement to keep down the numbers of people moving to the cities as far as possible and to try and keep them away from economic opportunities because of a crude ideology that was promulgated by the elite white elite. This has left a terrible legacy of very high unemployment and extreme inequality. South Africa is 62% urbanised which is a high level by African standards and urban areas are projected to increase just to give you about 8 million in the next 20 years or so. So continuing urbanisation driven more by natural growth than by rural or urban migration although that is also significant. Lots of uncertainty about the size of that figure. In our rural areas a position of relative stagnation whereas in our urban economies we have had modest employment growth. This simply shows what's happened to jobs over the period 96 to 2012 to bring out the point that most of the employment growth, like three quarters of the employment growth in South Africa over the last 16 years has been in the bigger cities. The government is very ambivalent about migration and it's basically passive and reactive in relation to the phenomenon. It's partly because of the legacy of rural areas being discriminated against. It's also because there are costs associated with migration and we saw last year, if you've been following the news, a serious tragedy of the Marikana disaster where miners were killed by the police but underlying that phenomenon was exposed the continuation of the migrant labour system which is basically breaks up families and is socially dislocating. So there are costs to migration which is partly why the government is ambivalent about the process. There's also huge ambivalence about informal settlements in South Africa as in many other African countries. Perception, these are illegal but there's criminal elements going on there that they're unsightly these areas. They're not productive. They're hazardous locations on floodplains or undermined areas. They're not good places for people to live. It's a housing problem. It's better to solve the housing problem by building brand new houses for people elsewhere and that there's opposition in parts of the country to the ruling party from people living in these areas. So the effect, putting it simply, is that investment by government is restricted to basic emergency services. So some street lighting, basic sanitation and shared water rather than positive approach to these areas. Now the result, the effect is that informal settlements are a rural, urban divide. The effect is that people are moving to the cities and we are seeing a better alignment between jobs and population in the country. So this is based on the later census data showing on the vertical axis the growth in population in each of our cities and on the horizontal axis the relationship with jobs. Now this is a big change from under apartheid where jobs were created in the cities but people were kept out of the cities. We had this terrible dislocation between people where people lived and where jobs were created. So this is a positive feature in my view, better alignment emerging between the economy and society but the downside is that many of them are living in seriously bad environments, namely these informal settlements. So the research questions are what is the difference in economic participation between informal and formal urban areas because the perception in the popular media and among politicians is that unemployment is extremely high and that these people can't access jobs, these are poverty traps because of where they are and because of the low skills of people and so on. And the second question, what's the nature, the quality of those jobs? So let's look at the evidence and this is the single observation that I said was important and that I have not seen before in South Africa which shows the employment rate of, let's see which is the point, the one in the middle. This is the employment rate in formal urban areas, this is the employment rate in informal urban areas. So it's a couple of percentage points below over the period 2008-2012, quite a good data in South Africa, the labour force survey and this is the employment rate in rural areas. So the employment rate is almost double in informal areas where people are moving from rural areas and I think that is quite a striking observation that the performance in employment terms of these slums is on a par almost with formal urban areas. It's quite remarkable considering the kinds of environments people are living in, considering the lack of skills and let's look at the educational record. This shows the different levels of education for people in the three areas, formal, informal and rural. Basically we see completed secondary school in the formal areas, significantly lower, tertiary education with a critical skill in South African labour market given the nature of jobs. You could see the huge disparity between formal urban areas and informal. So despite the poor skills we find this high employment rate and despite these other aspects, lack of schools and other poor living conditions, if you're living in a shack, your productivity is affected by flooding, by all sorts of other criminal aspects, fear of going out to work, basic shelter is a critical issue. So I'm now probing just a few of the indicators to explore this issue a little bit more depth. This is around the status of the non-employed. If people are not working, what are they doing? Try and get a little bit at this issue of motivation. What's striking from this status is the proportion that's unemployed. Say they're unemployed compared with, we just compare that with the rural areas. So unemployment is much, much higher. Basically people moving to these informal settlements in order to access work, to access the labour market. This is the biggest difference from this data between these two kinds of areas. Economically active, these people are highly determined to get a job, to get work, and they're willing to sacrifice these terrible environments in order to try and get a job. And I think that's extremely important and is not understood sufficiently well. So that's a very positive again, a very positive feature of these places. People are determined to participate. So that was the first research answer to the first question, that basically the gap is limited. These are successful areas. These are stepping stones into work, into the economy, and into promoting their position into upward mobility. It's a very positive striking finding, and it seems to me a real basis for a different perception, a different reaction from government. However, and this is where the second question is what's the quality of the jobs. So we look firstly at income as the most important determinant. We've got these different categories of income. They won't mean a lot to us of rands per month. Divide by 10 you get roughly a dollar equivalent. You basically see in the formal areas a better distribution of income, as you would expect, with more better paid people, better paid jobs, whereas this falls away dramatically in informal urban areas. Very few people earning above $10,000, that's $1,000 a month. Very few, in fact there are some, very few, and not many even earning that level. So predominantly earning low incomes, low paid employment, better paid than rural areas. You can see how sharper it falls away there. So people are better off those who've got employment than they are in rural areas. Again, another reason for incentive for moving. The occupational profile, this lists putting it simply and quickly. Here are your highly skilled white collar occupations, professionals, managers, technical workers and clerical workers here in the formal areas. And you see how much, how fewer, how fewer of these white collar middle class, middle income kinds of occupations there are. Instead jobs are concentrated in, this is domestic work. This is elementary occupations, basic unskilled work security, cleaning that kind of job. And then we have manual workers in manufacturing, plant and machine operators and craft and related trades workers. Some skills, semi skilled kinds of jobs. Informality, this is an interesting measure from the labor force survey in South Africa, which tries to go beyond just an informal sector employment. Also look at people who have a job in the formal economy, but the job is precarious. They don't have a contract or they don't have the benefits of formal employment in terms of pension or medical aid. So it's a quite a broad category of informal employment and you see quite a big disparity in informal settlements of people. But still it's a minority. Most people have formal employment with benefits and medical aid. The status of the employment, very low levels of self employment. This is only count workers, people working on their own, not employing anyone else. Self employment, low levels. And this is a phenomenon in South Africa, low levels enterprise and these are employers employing one or more employers. Bigger numbers of employers in formal areas than informal areas, not many employers. Predominantly these are employees in everywhere, everywhere. Not much sort of self employment private enterprise. So conclusions. I think conceptually we have to think about, go beyond the sort of notion, simplistic notions of agglomeration economies, to think about the way in which the dynamics of concentrated economies are reinforced by urbanisation. And how this helps or hinders if it's done badly through congestion, overcrowding etc. How this can help and hinder capturing the benefits for economic growth and development. But how it is that new entrants can reinforce economic development is a key issue it seems to me which is undeveloped in the literature. How urbanisation fuels economic development. The second question is around the empirical issue that it seems from this evidence that informal settlements are acting as a successful entry point. Giving people a foothold in the urban labour market. That employment rate compared with the rural areas is I think extremely important. But it's limited. These are not well paid jobs. These are entry level jobs. These are sometimes precarious jobs. But they're still jobs. They're better off than they were before. So the policy implication is that I think government has been much more positive as a starting point about these kinds of places. They seem to be fulfilling an important economic function. People are voting with their feet and moving into places with some success to improve their economic positions. So it requires government to think harder about investing in land and basic public services to improve people's not just their basic quality of life, but also to give them a better foundation for them to be more economically productive. To facilitate formal housing in these areas and to think about densifying these places. Because some of them are very well located and some of them are basically, as you will know from informal settlements everywhere, they don't function very well. Predominantly, Shacks is little space for economic activity. There's little space for public facilities. There's no space for recreation. They're not very functional environments for living and reproducing and strengthening, creating stable and successful and sustainable communities. So government has to think much harder about that and less about creating brand new housing estates on the periphery. Which, if I've got a couple more minutes, I'm going to show you some slides about this. This is what the housing program has tended to be doing to dismiss these places as bad and to try and create new communities on the edge, far from opportunities, where next stage of the research is to look at the employment rate in new communities we're creating. This shows the kind of urban structures we have in South Africa. This is Cape Town, where basically this is either the former white areas of the city with low density, and then we have our townships and informal settlements on the periphery of the city, where people have basically invaded the land and managed to prevent being evacuated, excluded by the authorities, because there's marginal sites. We have incredible densities around the edge in these places and very inefficient cities as a result of these distorted settlement patterns. That's just the trend in what's happening to demographics. We're here, 2010, growing urban population at the turning point in the rural transition migration patterns. These were just some illustrations. These places are highly contested as municipalities and governments try and basically prevent further growth in informal settlements. We've got conflict instead of a positive approach planning ahead to make these places function better. Thanks very much.