Appraising the Urban and Territorial Realities in Africa: The City-Region Observatory

Presentation for EIPM Master Classes – 9-11 December 2018

Dr. Rob Moore Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO)

Author’s Name Presentation Overview: GCRO Case study

Policy-relevant insight at city-region level: • What model could be used to develop suitably granular data at the level of a city-region? • How could this be resourced? • How to approach issues of independence and credibility? • What kinds of insight become available? • What are the challenges at this level of the research-policy nexus? • How has this model evolved over time? The Gauteng City-Region (GCR) Context

• A an actually existing urban reality, with dynamics (spatial, economic, social, environmental, etc. that need to be understood) • A ‘political project’ to govern the GCR better through improved intergovernmental co- ordination • How do we generate reliable insight into the city-region’s cconditions, to inform public sector decision- making? The Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO) Context

The GCRO is an effort to generate scholarly work to inform public sector decision-making and policy.

• GCRO is an institutional collaboration between: • University of (UJ), • University of the (Wits), • Gauteng Provincial Government, and • Organised local government in Gauteng GCRO helps to build the knowledge base that government, business, labour, civil society and • A purpose-designed vehicle for residents all need to shape appropriate strategies policy-oriented research. that will advance a competitive, integrated, sustainable and inclusive Gauteng City-Region. Constituting a ‘boundary organisation’: A form of ‘embedded autonomy’

• Core funding from provincial government • In-kind support from the universities • Located on university campus • Guaranteed academic freedom • Primary client is provincial government (but increasingly the metros too) • Most outputs to be fully publicly available GCRO as a research partnership Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO)

Specific roles: • Medium to longer-term applied research (on request or self- initiated) • On-request policy support work • Government – academia portal • Academic publication • Policy-relevant outputs • Partnership and network building

Open access via GCRO website The Gauteng City-Region Observatory – key outputs Interactive websites The Gauteng City-Region Observatory – key outputs Maps of the month The Gauteng City-Region Observatory – key outputs

Research outputs The Gauteng City-Region Observatory – key outputs Other publications The Gauteng City-Region Observatory – key outputs Interactive visualisations The Gauteng City-Region Observatory – key outputs Vignettes The Gauteng City-Region Observatory – key outputs Photo essays and videos The Gauteng City-Region Observatory – key outputs Academic publication The Gauteng City-Region Observatory – key outputs The reach of GCRO research Global website visits Quality of Life Survey: Data for informed decision-making Quality of Life Survey Overview

• Household-based survey with randomly selected adults (18+) as respondents in the Gauteng City-Region • Conducted every 2 years, with the first in 2009 • Designed to be representative of the Gauteng population, with wards as primary sampling unit

• Provides frequent understanding of quality of life, socio-economic circumstances, satisfaction with service delivery, psycho-social attitudes, value-base and other characteristics of residents in Gauteng • Over 200 questions with about 60% remaining the same over time • Demographic variables (education, age, income) • Migration • Dwelling and service access • Satisfaction with services • Satisfaction with government • Economic conditions • Poverty, wealth, debt, food insecurity, etc. • Headspace, social attitudes • Transport

Some highlights from across the survey Biggest community problem by % (Gauteng)

Protests, unrest and strikes 0,1% Drought or flood or natural disaster) 0,2% Disease 0,3% Violence against women/children 0,5% 45% Pollution 1,0% 40% 40% Poverty 1,2% 35% 32% Gangs 1,2% 30% 25% 22% Foreigners 1,8% 18% 20% 15% Corruption 1,8% 15% 11% 10% Rest of Gauteng Lack of maintenance 2,3% 10% 7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% Wards >50% coloured High cost of living 4,0% 1% 1%1% 1% 1%1% 1% 0% Other 4,0% No problem 6,7% Lack of basic services 9,5% Alcohol and drug abuse 16,0% Unemployment 18,0% Crime 31,9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Access to services Refuse removed by municipality at least once a week

100 90 88 86 86 83 80 81 80 80 76 75 70 60 57 50 40 2017/18 30 20 10 0 Satisfaction with services Local educational services (2015/16)

Ekurhuleni 19 51 12 12 7

Johannesburg 22 53 14 8 4

Tshwane 20 50 12 9 8

Emfuleni 14 60 13 10 4 Very satisfied Lesedi 14 56 21 8 Satisfied Midvaal 22 33 14 19 12 Neutral Dissatisfied Merafong 10 51 22 11 6 Very dissatisfied Mogale City 9 55 23 9 4

Rand West 11 47 27 12 4

GAUTENG 19 52 14 10 6

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfaction with services

Local educational services (2017/18) (Note: 2017/18 introduced ‘there are none’ option, so different basis than 2015/16)

Ekurhuleni 11 57 9 7 16 New!

Johannesburg 9 60 14 6 11

Tshwane 11 46 16 6 21

Emfuleni 8 63 8 6 15 Very satisfied Lesedi 11 59 11 5 14 Satisfied Neutral Midvaal 6 50 6 9 29 Dissatisfied Merafong 5 57 16 6 17 Very dissatisfied

Mogale City 9 60 12 6 13

Rand West 4 60 10 7 19

GAUTENG 9 56 13 6 16

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfaction with services Government initiatives to grow economy (2015/16 for reference)

Ekurhuleni 6 18 17 30 28

Johannesburg 6 16 20 30 28

Tshwane 4 16 16 31 32

Emfuleni 3 18 16 26 38 Very satisfied Lesedi 10 29 20 23 18 Satisfied

Midvaal 7 17 22 27 27 Neutral Dissatisfied Merafong 3 18 12 34 33 Very dissatisfied Mogale City 18 10 35 35

Rand West 14 15 36 35

GAUTENG 5 17 18 30 30

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfaction with services Government initiatives to grow economy (2017/18)

New! Ekurhuleni 2 19 11 39 29

Johannesburg 2 18 17 37 27

Tshwane 2 13 16 40 30

Emfuleni 1 13 14 45 28 Very satisfied Lesedi 2 22 16 31 29 Satisfied

Midvaal 4 31 14 31 20 Neutral Dissatisfied Merafong 1 17 16 41 25 Very dissatisfied Mogale City 16 16 35 31

Rand West 19 16 38 26

GAUTENG 2 17 15 38 28

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfaction with services

Index of 8 services - % satisfied: 2011-2017/18 (dwelling, water, sanitation, energy, waste, roads, safety, health)

80 76 71 71 7171 71 71 72 7070 70 68 70 70 69 70 68 67 68 67 67 6667 67 67 68 65 66 66 66 63 6362 63 62 61 59 61 60 58 58 49 50

40 2011 2013/14 30 2015/16 20 2017/18

10

0

Note: crude averages done to update previous / figures to align with Rand West.

Understanding government dissatisfaction Halo factors: Perception of frontline services & satisfaction with local government (Ekurhuleni)

I was treated with respect and dignity - NO 4 21 11 38 26

I was treated with respect and dignity - YES 5 42 14 25 14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Understanding government dissatisfaction Halo factors: Perception of frontline services & satisfaction with local government (Johannesburg)

They were able to help my needs - NO 2 19 17 40 22

They were able to help my needs - YES 4 35 20 31 10

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Contextualising urban dynamics Trip starting time by race - Gauteng Gauteng is the best province I would emigrate tomorrow if I could I am not needed by the South African economy

Community trust Blacks and whites will never really trust each other

South Africa belongs most to black people A place for white people in Indians right to affirmative action benefits Contributions by the coloured population

Legitimacy of foreigners in Gauteng Violence against foreigners in Gauteng Influx control should be reinstated

Equal rights for gay and lesbian people Violence against gay an lesbian people

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Negative/exclusionary attitudes in Gauteng Negative/exclusionary attitudes in Johannesburg Positive/inclusive attitudes in Gauteng Positive/inclusive attitudes in Johannesburg A snapshot … Agree that blacks and whites will never trust each other: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015

80 73 69 70 68 61 62 60 56 54 55 54 55 50 53 44 G 41 auteng 40 W 40 38 hite Indian/Asian C 63 63 66 oloured 30 58 African

20

10

0 2009 2011 2013 2015 Quality of Life index Quality of Life index The QoL index – 58 variables Quality of Life index Dimension means (Gauteng)

Global life satisfaction ,48

Family ,73

Community ,67

Health ,73

Dwelling ,75

Infrastructure ,77

Connectivity ,63

Work ,46

Security ,56

Socio-political attitudes ,52

,00 ,10 ,20 ,30 ,40 ,50 ,60 ,70 ,80 ,90 1,00 Quality of Life index Gauteng means (out of 10): 2009, 2011, 2013/14, 2015/16, 2017/18

8

7 6,23 6,11 6,10 6,20 6,13 6,30 6,20 6,02 5,90 6,01 6

5 Dimension weighted 4 Indicator 3 weighted

2

1

0 2009 2011 2013/14 2015/16 2017/18 Quality of Life index Means by race (out of 10): 2009, 2011, 2013/14, 2015/16, 2017/18

2017/18 Gauteng mean = 6.30

African 6,08

Coloured 2009 6,49 2011 2013/14 Indian/Asian 2015/16 6,96 2017/18

White 7,30

4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 Quality of Life index Means by municipality (out of 10)

Gauteng mean = 6.30 Emfuleni 5,91

Rand West 6,10

Merafong 6,11

Tshwane 6,25

Mogale City 6,26

Johannesburg 6,34

Ekurhuleni 6,34

Lesedi 6,42

Midvaal 6,73

4 5 6 7 8 “If universities are at the heart of knowledge economy, and the knowledge economy is urban, then urban researchers must pay heed to how they are increasingly implicated as political actors in, rather than purely critics of, territorial projects.” (Perry, 2011) The quandry Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO)

Bridging the divide: • How do we address intensely political issues without becoming positioned (and sunk) politically? • How do we inform debates and draw (evidenced) conclusions without being seen to be “playing politics”? • How do we play to both authorities – the scholarly and the governmental?

The quandry Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO)

Bridging the divide: How it has transpired • Government research needs • How do we address intensely emergent and changing; political issues without becoming • GCRO has strong interpretive positioned (and sunk) politically? discretion; • How do we inform debates and • Strong political maturity in draw (evidenced) conclusions maintaining autonomy of the without being seen to be “playing GCRO; politics”? • Intuitive normative alignment • How do we play to both authorities between key GPG staff and GCRO; – the scholarly and the governmental? • Negotiating trust and good faith at personal levels; • Most outputs to be fully publicly available.

Impact: Do we influence government? Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO)

• Many direct contributions to government frameworks; • Influencing high-level positions on key issues; • ‘Data-lab’ workshops with officials; • Increasing appetite for GCRO work • Working with government at all three tiers (local, provincial and national) Impact: Do we influence government? Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO)

However: • Uneven absorptive capacities across and within departments; • Many direct contributions to government frameworks; • Do we reach street-level bureaucrats? • Influencing high-level positions on • No linear, cause-and-effect key issues; relationship between research and • ‘Data-lab’ workshops with policy or decision-making; officials; • Multiple intervening variables – endogenous and exogenous factors; • Increasing appetite for GCRO • Relatively weak institutional work; arrangements in government for • Working with government at all using science advice; three tiers (local provincial and • GCRO aims to ‘saturate’ the public national). sphere: a ‘knowledge ecology’.

Impact: mediating considerations

How can research insights be framed in ways that support government purposes? • Requires insight into the specific contexts that government seeks to address – both the problem, and the agency concerned; • Need insight into avenues & mechanisms available in government for decision-making and implementation; • May depend on varying levels of political will, expertise, or opportunity (Economic development example); • Ideally, reciprocal capability on both sides; • Actioning particular insights may require third parties. An evolving mandate for the GCRO Negotiating the changing context

Research needs growing in scale: Implications: • Increasingly multi-dimensional • Economy of the city-region (& esp. and systemic insights needed into pro-poor inclusive economy) complex wicked problems • Water security across the city- • Scale and scope of research lies region beyond GCRO’s immediate resources; • Social cohesion • Need for poly-centric research • Regional innovation eco-system consortia and networks; • ‘Observatory for cities in Africa’? • GCRO now taking on a brokerage role in forming and steering the • All imply governance across networks; multiple tiers and sectors • Complex modes of transdisciplinary knowledge to be aligned and distilled

Question of ‘uneven state capability’ The absorptive and adaptive capacity of the state

Adaptive governance: • Requires state agencies to take on changing repertoire of functions; • Including gearing internal capability to be capable of conducting – and responding to – external partnerships and the opportunities they afford; • Runs against strong cultures of internal planning and authority systems; • Includes licencing ‘risk-taking’ in a strongly risk-averse environment; • Requires high-calibre staff with high levels of discretion and autonomy Question of ‘uneven state capability’ The absorptive and adaptive capacity of the state

Case: City-region university- Adaptive governance government partnership • Requires state agencies to take on • High-level agreement signed by changing repertoire of functions; Premier and Vice-Chancellors; • Including gearing internal • GCRO asked to broker the capability to be capable of collaboration; conducting – and responding to – • Universities enthusiastic and external partnerships and the willing – assuming funding from opportunities they afford; the state; • Runs against strong cultures of • No dedicated budget: ‘line internal planning and authority departments will provide”; systems; • Comprehensive inability of state • Includes licencing ‘risk-taking’ in a departments to respond; strongly risk-averse environment; • Eventually brokered two specific • Requires high-calibre staff with GCRO-related “chairs”, where high levels of discretion and GCRO will broker and coordinate autonomy. research priorities.

Adjudicating divergent interests A future role?

Provide “….information and • The changing ‘governance mapping tools … to envision imaginary’ has implications for different … alternatives, to map how we construe the research them graphically and visually agenda, and our relational and represent them, show them in communicative strategies. evolution and motion to the public, • How do we configure the GCRO to and hence to have a transparent take on wider, more complex public debate about … choices. (This knowledge demands, predicated will create) a dialogic interchange on an evolving urban context? of information, participation and clarification of what the principals • The GCRO was the first want, and helps clarify the trade- ‘institution’ of the city-region: offs they are willing to accept.” what should its role be for the future? (Storper 2014)

Monitoring Performance Tracking innovation

A ‘political project’ to govern the GCR better includes: GCRO’s role:

• An evolving governance agenda and • Evidence-based data rationale • Bench marking

• Tracking • Realisation that ‘intuitive ideology’ no • Comparison longer sufficient;

• Making research publically available • Need to understand (changing) realities on the ground • An intermediary agency

• Need to understand the effect of Data, data infrastructure, data interventions visualisation, indicators & benchmarks.

Staffing

Needed:

• Strong disciplinary specialisms, with aptitude for boundary crossing; • An appreciation for the complexity and challenges of public sector arena; • Diversity of disciplinary strength and demographic identity essential; • GCRO as ‘career accelerator’ – anticipate some turnover; • Career-pathing: early-career talent, PhDs and promotions; • Senior, experienced figures essential for quality and maturity of outputs – bottle-necking risk.

Innovation Begets Innovation The Gauteng City-Region Observatory

Innovation hubs Community of innovation - Innovative community Pushes research Pushes outputs & understanding Complex network of interconnected hubs & actors

capacity building, developing a new generation of researchers. • Economics

• Social cohesion Benchmarking The location of mixing at ward level depends on whether you measure for mixed population groups, mixed language or mixed income.

Research and Public Policy

Context: embedded urban governance • Imperative for stronger associative governance to steer complex city- regions; • Multiple tiers and agencies of government; • Multiple stakeholders in private sector and civil society; • Government confronted by ‘wicked problems’, fluid and emergent; • Governance increasingly implies collective action and networks; • Repositioning of urban governance – relative to national government and to international relationships (globalising cities).

South African context

Governance Imperatives • South Africa as a post- transitional society (like others); • Inherited structural inequities embedded in spatial distribution; • SA as sharp example of forces driving & sustaining inequality (Picketty); • SA’s constitutional imperatives to realise socio-economic rights; • What are the constraints and barriers to inclusion & distributive justice? • How does the quality of life vary across space, and across time? • Why is associative governance so difficult to achieve in SA (anywhere)?

Quality of Life Survey Total sample sizes

35000

30002 30000 27490

25000

20000 16729 15000

10000 5836 5000

0 QoL I (2009) QoL II (2011) QoL III (2013/14) QoL IV (2015/16) Gauteng growth dynamics Urbanisation – inter-provincial migration streams

1.200.000

1.000.000

800.000

600.000

400.000

200.000 Net migration Net

0 EC FS GP KZN LIM MP NC NW WC

-200.000

-400.000

-600.000 2006-2011 2011-2016 2016-2021 Contextualising urban dynamics Forms of expansion Contextualising urban dynamics Forms of expansion Contextualising urban dynamics Forms of expansion Contextualising urban dynamics Forms of expansion Contextualising urban dynamics Forms of expansion: 2000 Contextualising urban dynamics Forms of expansion: 2006 Contextualising urban dynamics Forms of densification Contextualising urban dynamics Forms of densification: 2000 Contextualising urban dynamics Forms of densification: 2009 Contextualising urban dynamics 13 Current spatial choices: Competing spatial patterns and visions

Contextualising urban dynamics Trip starting time by race - Gauteng Gauteng is the best province I would emigrate tomorrow if I could I am not needed by the South African economy

Community trust Blacks and whites will never really trust each other

South Africa belongs most to black people A place for white people in South Africa Indians right to affirmative action benefits Contributions by the coloured population

Legitimacy of foreigners in Gauteng Violence against foreigners in Gauteng Influx control should be reinstated

Equal rights for gay and lesbian people Violence against gay an lesbian people

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Negative/exclusionary attitudes in Gauteng Negative/exclusionary attitudes in Johannesburg Positive/inclusive attitudes in Gauteng Positive/inclusive attitudes in Johannesburg A snapshot … Agree that blacks and whites will never trust each other: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015

80 73 69 70 68 61 62 60 56 54 55 54 55 50 53 44 G 41 auteng 40 W 40 38 hite Indian/Asian C 63 63 66 oloured 30 58 African

20

10

0 2009 2011 2013 2015 Contextualising urban dynamics QoL IV: There are too many people coming to Gauteng, we should bring back influx control

African 14 30 18 24 13

Coloured 14 31 17 28 11

Indian/Asian 12 26 20 26 15

White 14 26 19 27 14

0% Strongly20% agree Agree40% Neither60% Disagree80% Strongly disagree100% Contextualising urban dynamics QoL IV: Attitudes to foreign residents

100% 90% 30 80% 41 53 53 50 Legal foreigners 70% 58 62 61 62 64 65 are ok 60% 16 50% 18 Foreigners should be 40% 11 19 allowed to stay 30% 17 34 19 20 53 20 19 17 Send foreigners 41 20% 36 home 27 22 23 10% 19 18 17 18 16 0% Contextualising urban dynamics Access to basic services Participation in protests Have you participated in a protest in last 12 months and what was it about?

100% 93 Other 4

80% Corruption 19

60% Poor performance of councilor 24

40% Crime / security issues 22

Foreigners in my community 9 20% 7 Transport 8 0% No Yes Favouritism 9

Jobs given to outsiders 15

Lack of jobs / economic opportunities 24

Basic services 45

Housing 36

0 20 40 60 Satisfaction with government provided dwelling QoL IV (2015/16)

Johannesburg 23 53 8 13 4

Tshwane 22 51 7 15 5

Ekurhuleni 24 52 7 12 6

Emfuleni 15 52 10 19 4 Very satisfied Lesedi 21 53 14 11 Satisfied Merafong 11 55 5 21 7 Neutral Midvaal 13 72 6 9 Dissatisfied

Mogale City 17 68 4 10 Very dissatisfied

Randfontein 21 58 14 6

Westonaria 17 57 22

GAUTENG 22 53 7 13 4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfaction with water services QoL IV (2015/16)

Johannesburg 24 62 6 5 3

Tshwane 21 59 6 8 6

Ekurhuleni 27 57 6 6 4

Emfuleni 22 58 11 6 3 Very satisfied Lesedi 24 54 15 6 Satisfied Merafong 19 56 5 12 9 Neutral Midvaal 33 52 4 4 7 Dissatisfied

Mogale City 19 63 5 9 5 Very dissatisfied

Randfontein 16 68 10 4

Westonaria 12 57 4 16 11

GAUTENG 23 60 6 7 4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfaction with services Index 13 services: dwelling, water, sanitation, waste, energy, cost, billing, parks, roads, emergency, met-pol, health, econ services

Johannesburg 16 43 15 16 10

Tshwane 15 43 13 16 14

Ekurhuleni 18 43 12 16 11

Emfuleni 11 38 16 20 15 Very satisfied Lesedi 15 42 18 15 9 Satisfied Merafong 11 39 15 20 15 Neutral Midvaal 19 41 12 14 14 Dissatisfied

Mogale City 10 46 14 19 12 Very dissatisfied

Randfontein 9 45 11 21 14

Westonaria 10 41 13 22 14

GAUTENG 16 43 14 16 12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfaction with initiatives to grow economy From QoL: How satisfied are you with government initiatives to grow economy

Johannesburg 6 16 20 30 28

Tshwane 4 16 16 31 32

Ekurhuleni 6 18 17 30 28

Emfuleni 3 18 16 26 38 Very satisfied Lesedi 10 29 20 23 18 Satisfied Merafong 3 18 12 34 33 Neutral Midvaal 7 17 22 27 27 Dissatisfied

Mogale City 18 10 35 35 Very dissatisfied

Randfontein 13 13 35 38

Westonaria 14 17 37 30

GAUTENG 5 17 18 30 30

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfaction with local government QoL IV (2015/16)

Johannesburg 7 27 23 25 18

Tshwane 5 27 24 24 20

Ekurhuleni 8 34 16 25 17

Emfuleni 3 18 17 34 29 Very satisfied Lesedi 5 23 19 34 19 Satisfied Merafong 4 18 22 33 24 Neutral Midvaal 14 32 13 20 21 Dissatisfied

Mogale City 6 36 14 30 15 Very dissatisfied

Randfontein 5 24 9 39 24

Westonaria 3 25 20 29 24

GAUTENG 6 28 21 26 19

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Which approach would have the biggest impact on inequality? Which approach would have the biggest impact on inequality?

70% 62 60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 12 11 10 10% 5

0% Poor people need to Government needs to Private sector needs The rich should be Government should work harder create more jobs to create more jobs taxed more nationalise key sectors of the economy

Economic dynamics Ever started a business and did the business fail

100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80%

70% 64 70%

60% 52 54 60% 46 Started a 50% 43 45 50% 41 39 business 40% 35 36 40% 33 Business 30% 30% failed 20% 17 16 18 20% 14 13 14 15 9 11 10 10% 7 10% 0% 0% Access to healthcare by race QoL IV (2015/16)

Where do you usually go for Are you personally covered by

medical care? (%) medical aid / insurance? (%)

Private healthcare facilities No medical insurance

African 11 82

Coloured 19 64

Indian/Asian 51 32

White 68 21 Spatial inequality and division 01 Wealth and poverty Spatial inequality and division 01 Household income and tertiary qualification 4. Spatial inequality and division 01 Wealth and poverty

Gauteng Multidimensional Poverty Index (GMPI) Headcount (Proportion of households defined as multidimensionally poor) 0% - 4.5% 4.6% - 10.9% 11% - 18.9% 19% - 32.4% Soshanguve 32.5% - 67.9%

Mamelodi Ekangala

Diepsloot

Tembisa

Alex Sandton

Daveyton

Soweto Kwathema Katlehong Grasmere

Sebokeng Ratanda

Map produced by: S. Katumba, C. Wray & D. Mushongera Data source: 2013 GCRO Quality of Life Survey (QoL III)

Kilometres 0 15 30 60

Urban governance theory asks:

“…Who controls the resources that are critical to governing and to what extent can they sustain collective action?”

“Different actors control different types of resources (authority, knowledge, financial resources, networks, etc) that … can be brought into the pursuit of collective goals”

- Jon Pierre (2014) Universities and Public Policy

Knowledge for urban governance • How is knowledge generated & used in governance exchanges? • Complex (often ambivalent) histories of relations between universities and (especially urban and regional) government; • Some universities have sought global relevance, but (re-)discovered urban embeddedness; • Strong structural conditions often limit exchanges across universities and government; • What approaches to this research-policy nexus? • Various models at work currently – what dynamics, what possibilities?