| |
SECTION D
INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS
|
| Three
categories of municipality provided for by Constitution |
1. INTRODUCTION
The Constitution establishes the following
categories of municipality:
Category (A): A municipality
that has exclusive municipal executive and legislative authority in its
area
For example, a "free standing"
local municipality
Category (B): A municipality
that shares municipal executive and legislative authority in its area with
a category (C) municipality within whose area it falls
For example, a Metropolitan local
municipality or rural municipality
Category (C): A municipality
that has municipal executive and legislative authority in an area that
includes more than one municipality
For example, a Metropolitan municipality
or District municipality
|
| Legislation
to define types and criteria |
National
legislation must define the different types of municipality that may be
established within each category, and establish criteria (conditions and
rules) for determining when an area should have a single category (A) municipality
or when it should have municipalities of both category (B) and (C). Provincial
legislation must determine which type is to be established in the different
localities within the Province.
The discussion in this section of the
paper aims to stimulate debate about which types of municipality should
be established in respect of each category provided for in the Constitution.
|
| Spatial
distorsions of the past |
Discussion
about types of municipality is informed by:
- the legacy of (colonial and apartheid)
separation, which has created distortions in our settlement patterns.
Existing spatial distortions include racial separation, the locational
disadvantage of the urban poor (the fact that they reside in underdeveloped
areas, far from work opportunities, amenities and services), unsustainable
and costly patterns of urban development (eg, urban sprawl), rural settlements
with no economic base (often created through forced removals and sustained
through subsidies) and highly unequal access to services and amenities
(both within urban areas and between urban and rural areas)
|
| Urban
/ Rural disparities in capacity |
- the uneven distribution of municipal
capacity, particularly between urban
and rural municipalities. Previous legislation such as the Remuneration
of Towns Clerks Act and grading systems for municipalities created disincentives
for skilled staff to work in rural and small town areas. Further, under
apartheid there was little commitment to building sustainable municipal
capacity in large parts of the country
|
| Urgent
need for measures to address inequity and backlogs |
- the need for rapid intervention
in the management of urban and rural systems, to
tackle entrenched patterns of inequity, increase economic competitiveness
and viability, and harness concentrated capacity and investment to address
the massive backlogs we have inherited, and
|
| Transformational
and developmental LG |
- the new vision for local government,
and the need for empowered and capacitated
municipalities to play a transformational and developmental role in building
viable human settlements which meet the needs and aspirations of local
communities.
|
| What
is required of LG |
The factors
listed above lead to the following requirements for local government:
- the need for capacitated municipal
institutions at an appropriate level to address spatial distortions
in settlement patterns
- a focus on district and metropolitan
governments as centres of municipal capacity to manage integrated development
planning and to ensure rapid delivery where local municipal capacity does
not exist, and
- a focus on the need for urban and
rural linkages to be recognised in our municipal institution forms.
|
| Characteristics
of metropolitan areas |
2. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
Metropolitan areas are large urban
settlements characterised by high population densities, complex and diversified
economies, and a high degree of functional integration across a larger
geographic area than the normal jurisdiction of a municipality. Economic
and social activities transcend municipal boundaries, and metropolitan
residents may live in one locality, work in another, and utilise recreational
facilities across the metropolitan area. Typically metropolitan areas constitute
a single labour market, a single retail and housing market, and a single
environmental and ecological unit. To the outside world, the metropolis
constitutes a single tourist destination, a single location for investment,
a single climatic region and a single sporting and cultural community.
Metropolitan governments are governments
whose area of jurisdiction covers the whole metropolitan area. Where there
is no metropolitan government, the metropolitan area is divided into many
municipalities.
|
| |
2.1. The need for metropolitan government in metropolitan
areas
There are many metropolitan areas in
the world which are not governed by metropolitan governments. However,
it is widely recognised that the lack of a metropolitan government makes
it more difficult to govern a metropolitan area in an integrated, just
and viable manner.
|
| Strengths
of metropolitan government |
Metropolitan
government:
- creates a basis for equitable and
socially just metropolitan governance
- helps to minimise spillovers and externalities
- promotes rational and integrated planning
and coordinated public investment
- enhances the economic competitiveness
and well-being of the city.
|
Interests of urban poor/ all
residents
|
Metropolitan government creates a basis for equitable
and just metropolitan governance
When there is no metropolitan government
in metropolitan areas, municipalities may operate in ways which impact
negatively on the urban poor in the short-term, and impact negatively on
all metropolitan residents in the longer-term.
|
| Municipalities
seek to increase tax base |
Urban municipalities
derive the bulk of their revenue from locally raised taxes. They use their
revenue to attract new residents and businesses, and thereby increase their
own tax base. However, new residents and businesses only increase the tax
base if the municipality is able to attract residents who contribute more
to the tax base than they cost the tax base. |
| Exclusion
of urban poor |
Municipalities
therefore have an interest in excluding residents who cost the tax base
more than they contribute, such as the urban poor, who are often unable
to invest in property or establish new businesses which the municipality
can tax. Municipalities try to maximise their per capita tax base by using
land-use regulations to exclude low- rateable forms of development, such
as low-income housing or less formal settlements. |
| Pockets
of poverty |
The result
is that the urban poor are pushed to the metropolitan peripheries (outer
areas) or into spatial 'pockets of poverty', which are expensive to service
and far from job opportunities and recreational and social amenities. Because
these areas are excluded from the jurisdiction of affluent municipalities,
the cost of servicing these areas is not covered by the municipal tax base.
|
| Inequalities
in service costs and quality of service |
The actions
of affluent municipalities in metropolitan areas therefore reinforce inequalities
between parts of the metropolitan area in the cost and quality of services,
as wealthier municipalities defend their tax bases from claims beyond their
borders, and exclude 'undesirable' residents through exclusionary policies.
This dynamic, which structures the spatial location of poverty, is self
reinforcing: a municipality with a large per capita tax base can provide
better services at a lower tax rate, while poorer localities have to tax
themselves at higher rates but generate revenues sufficient only to fund
relatively inferior services. |
| Apartheid
legacy |
South Africa's
major cities, which until the implementation of the LGTA had no metropolitan
government and were governed by many racially-based municipalities, have
suffered extensively from this pattern of uneven, inequitable development.
Urban apartheid provided a legal framework for affluent white municipalities
to effectively exclude the largely black majority of the urban poor from
their areas of jurisdiction, and ensure that high-rateable commercial development
(most commercial investment) fell within their jurisdiction. Although the
consumer and labour power of township residents contributed to the tax
base of white municipalities, services in the townships were not funded
from this tax base. |
| Equity
and social justice in interests of all |
Metropolitan
government provides a mechanism for addressing this dynamic of inequity,
and ensuring that everyone who contributes to the tax base benefits from
it. A more equitable and socially just form of metropolitan governance
not only benefits the urban poor, but in the long term benefits all metropolitan
residents. Numerous studies have shown that the overall economic prosperity
of metropolitan cities is greater where there is less inequity between
constituent parts of a metropolitan area. Social justice and equity are
not merely desirable ends in themselves, but also make good economic sense.
|
| Additional
mechanisms for redistribution |
It should
be noted that while metropolitan government should play a key role in intra-metropolitan
redistribution, no type of metropolitan government can be solely responsible
for redistribution. National revenues or taxes need to play a primary role
in effective redistribution and the alleviation of urban poverty. |
| "User
pays" principle |
Metropolitan government helps to minimise spillovers
and externalities
It is a generally accepted principle
within local government systems characterised by locally-generated revenue,
that local services should, as far as possible, be self-contained so that
they are paid for by the citizens who use them. In metropolitan areas without
metropolitan governments such self-containment is almost impossible, and
some local services are inevitably consumed by citizens resident outside
the local boundaries (spillovers).
|
| Services
which benefit all should be paid for by all |
While there
are high levels of spillovers for most infrastructural services, the problem
is particular acute for communications, bulk infrastructure and roads infrastructure.
Similarly, public services such as art galleries, reference libraries,
museums and so forth, are usually housed in the central city but utilised
by all metropolitan residents. Residents who do not directly utilise these
services may still benefit indirectly from these services through the enhanced
'livability' and attractiveness to investment with which they endow the
metropolitan area. The provision of such services is usually costly, and,
in line with the principle that services should be paid for by the urban
residents who consume them, the costs of such services should be shared
across the metropolis. |
|
Irrational land-use planning
|
Metropolitan government promotes rational land-use
planning, and coordinated public investment
Municipalities in metropolitan areas
are part of a continuous urban area that extends beyond their individual
boundaries. Urban economic, social and spatial dynamics play themselves
out at a scale larger than the boundary of any particular municipality.
However, municipalities exercise their planning powers and functions within
their particular areas of jurisdiction. This mismatch between the scale
of municipal boundaries and the scale of economic and social activity in
the metropolitan area often results in irrational land-use planning decisions.
Given that planning frameworks are intended to guide public investment
(for example, investment in infrastructure and transport systems), poor
planning tends to result in less than optimal use of public funds.
|
| Metro-wide
land-use planning more responsive to urban trends |
The establishment
of metropolitan government with land-use and regulation powers expands
the jurisdiction within which land-use planning occurs, so that plans are
better able to respond to and influence metropolitan spatial, social and
economic trends. |
|
Investment for city as a
whole, in line with IDP
|
Metropolitan government is able to enhance the economic
competitiveness and well-being of the city
Metropolitan areas are often assessed
as single entities for purposes of determining their investment attraction
potential. Metropolitan government is able to market the city as a whole,
and direct investment in line with an integrated development plan. In the
absence of metropolitan government municipalities may compete excessively
for investment, and create negative perceptions through separate and uncoordinated
international marketing strategies.
|
| Overall
economic well-being versus narrow local interests |
Further,
the decisions of individual municipalities may impact on the economic condition
of the whole metropolitan area. The aggregate effect of economic policies
which protect narrow local interests can damage the overall economic well-being
of the metropolitan area. |
|
Metropolitan legislature
without statutory executive powers
|
2.2. Structural options for metropolitan government
There are four common ways of structuring
metropolitan governments:
- The first is the establishment of
a metropolitan legislature, with no statutory executive powers (powers
to make and implement policy). The metropolitan legislature is usually
indirectly elected from municipalities which fall within the metropolitan
area. The legislature provides a forum in which policy-makers can discuss
issues of metropolitan-wide significance, and reach agreements on horizontal
cooperation between municipalities within the metropolitan area. Real collaboration
on issues of metropolitan-wide significance depends on constituent municipalities
reaching agreement in the metropolitan legislature, and translating such
agreement into executive decisions within their own municipal Councils.
|
| Metropolitan
utilities |
- The second option is the establishment
of single or multi-purpose delivery institutions at a metropolitan
level (metropolitan utilities). This system attempts to preserve maximum
autonomy for municipalities while exploiting metropolitan economies of
scale (the advantages of larger over smaller markets) for the delivery
of bulk infrastructure or other services. Metropolitan utilities are usually
governed by a Council or Board which is indirectly elected from municipalities
in the metropolitan area. This is a limited form of metropolitan government.
While there may be a significant administrative capacity at metropolitan
level, there is limited scope for the metropolitan government to develop
and implement an integrated policy perspective on the development of the
metropolitan area.
The above two types are not 'true'
models of metropolitan government, as executive powers in these types rest
exclusively with the local, as opposed to metropolitan level. Neither of
these types recognises the economic and social unity of the metropolitan
area in their institutional form. These types allow for the perpetuation
of fragmented and unequal development between parts of the metropolitan
area. Neither type provides a sound basis for social justice, for addressing
negative externalities, promoting integrated development planning and enhancing
economic prosperity and competitiveness.
The types which follow are 'true' models
of metropolitan government, in that they allow for the existence of a multi-purpose
metropolitan government with executive, legislative and administrative
functions.
|
| Two-tier
system |
- the third type is a two-tier system
of metropolitan government, where both levels (metropolitan and local)
exercise legislative, executive and administrative powers and functions.
The basic logic of this model is that issues of metropolitan-wide significance
are best addressed at a metropolitan level, and issues with local significance
are best addressed at the local level.
|
| Relationship
between levels |
Within this type, several variations
are possible. The combination of factors which will determine the exact
nature of metropolitan government in this type are: the allocation of powers
and functions between the levels, the criteria used to demarcate the metropolitan
and local boundaries, the manner in which the Metropolitan Council is constituted,
and the mode of delivery. Two basic variations are put forward for debate:
|
| Co-ordinating,
redistributive metropolitan tier |
- a coordinating metropolitan tier:
which plays a coordinating and redistributive role between local municipalities,
which are seen as the primary level and operate as largely autonomous municipalities,
delivering directly to the public and dealing with most municipal powers
and functions. Metropolitan powers are likely to be phrased as the "co-ordination
of (for example, land-use planning)" and allow for limited metropolitan
intervention in areas where metropolitan and local municipal interests
differ. Intra-metropolitan redistribution occurs through the allocation
of the RSC levies. Local municipalities are likely to be large enough to
allow for the efficient delivery of most services, and may contract with
utilities, private sector companies or the metropolitan tier for bulk services.
|
| Integrating
metropolitan tier |
- an integrating metropolitan tier:
which, in addition to its co-ordinating and redistributive role, assumes
responsibility for a range of functions seen as essential for the integrated
management and governance of the metropolis as a single economic and social
entity. For example, land-use planning and regulation, transport planning,
bulk infrastructure planning, and promotion of economic development. Bulk
delivery could occur through the metropolitan administration, or be contracted
out. Intra-metropolitan redistribution occurs through both the allocation
of RSC levies, and through the re-allocation of a metropolitan levy on
the local municipal rates base. Local municipalities may be smaller, and
responsible for fewer delivery functions.
(The definition of these types includes the mechanism for redistribution.
It is possible to dissociate the mechanism of redistribution from the type
of metropolitan government. This is discussed later in this section, under
the heading 'Addressing Inequity')
|
| "Single
city" metropolitan government |
- The fourth type is a 'single city'
metropolitan government. This form of metropolitan government consists
of a single elected political Council vested with all municipal powers
and functions, and a single administration. Administrative functions may
be delivered on a decentralised basis. The single city type may have a
provision for the decentralisation of some powers and functions to sub-municipal
structures, such as ward or neighbourhood committees. The nature of these
sub-municipal structures will depend on the extent to which powers and
functions are decentralised to the sub-municipal level. National legislation
may prescribe the establishment of ward or neighbourhood committees, and
may also specify certain powers and duties (typically related to community
participation) for these structures.
|
|
Single city or two-tier types?
|
2.3. Assessing the options
This section discusses which of the
different types of metropolitan government are appropriate for South Africa's
metropolitan areas.
|
|
Intra-metropolitan redistribution
|
Addressing inequity
In addition to national redistributive
measures (such as inter-governmental grants), metropolitan government should
play a central role in addressing inequity through intra-metropolitan redistribution.
|
| Redistribution
in the single city type |
The single
city type of metropolitan government vests all municipal powers and functions
at the metropolitan level. The single city type intrinsically recognises
the economic unity of the metropolis, and is able to redistribute resources
across the metropolis in a number of ways, including through the normal
budget process. In order to ensure that intra-metropolitan redistribution
in the single city form occurs in a transparent (open) manner and is perceived
as fair and equitable, care should be taken to ensure that single city
municipalities make the motivation, basis and process of redistribution
explicit and open to public debate. |
| Redistribution
in the two-tier type |
In a two-tier
system, intra-metropolitan redistribution in the 'co-ordinating' type will
occur when the metropolitan tier allocates revenues derived from inter-governmental
grants and RSC levies to different municipalities in its area of jurisdiction.
In the 'integrating' type, this form of redistribution will be supplemented
by the re-allocation of a metropolitan levy on local municipal rates bases.
|
| Possibility
of conflict over redistribution in two-tier types |
The mechanism
through which intra-metropolitan redistribution occurs in two-tier systems
is critical. In the absence of an explicit basis for determining the allocation
of funds from the metropolitan to local level (in the 'co-ordinating' type)
and also for the determination of an equitable levy (in the 'integrating'
type), there is a strong possibility of local political conflict. Uncertainty
regarding the basis for redistribution may negatively effect financial
planning, as well as municipal credit ratings. |
| Formula
required for redistribution in two-tier type |
An explicit
basis or formula for intra-metropolitan redistribution which is binding
on members of both metropolitan and local Councils, is therefore required
in the two-tier system. National government should play a role in defining
the criteria which determine the extent of a metropolitan levy on local
tax bases, and criteria to guide the re-allocation of funds from the metropolitan
to local tier. |
| Alternative
redistributive mechanisms |
While this
paper has discussed intra-metropolitan redistribution in the context of
the redistributive mechanisms provided for in the existing legal framework
(ie, the allocation of RSC levies and a metropolitan levy on the local
tax base), the mechanism of intra-metropolitan redistribution could be
separated from the type (and corresponding powers and functions) of metropolitan
government. For example, intra-metropolitan redistribution could occur
through a horizontal grant formula regulated by national government. This
option can apply in any two-tier metropolitan system, and can even be applied
to municipalities in areas where there is no metropolitan government. |
| Direct
transfers could undermine metro-wide spending priorities |
The key difference
between this means of redistribution and that discussed above, is that
funds are transferred directly between metropolitan local councils, as
opposed to re-allocated through the metropolitan tier. This may operate
to defuse some tensions between the metropolitan and local tier, but may
also undermine metropolitan governments' ability to prioritise need and
spending across the metropolis. |
| Cross-subsidisation
|
Intra-metropolitan
redistribution, between low and high income households, can also be facilitated
through cross-subsidisation within and between services that are delivered
by metropolitan government (or other metropolitan level delivery agencies).
|
|
Metro-wide land-use planning
and regulation avoids negative effects of local area planning
|
Facilitating integrated planning
Metropolitan governments with land-use
planning and regulation functions are able to recognise and address socio-economic
spatial trends in the metropolitan area. They are thus able to avoid negative
or irrational aggregate effects which may arise if planning decisions are
taken from the perspective of only one part of the metropolitan area. The
single city and 'integrating' two-tier types of metropolitan government
are best placed to promote integrated land-use planning. The 'co-ordinating'
form of two-tier metropolitan government lacks land-use planning and regulation
powers, and, while it may be able to minimise the negative unintended consequences
of local planning decisions through its co-ordinating role, it is in a
weaker position to do so than the other models.
|
| Metro-wide
integrated planning to promote equity and meet residents' aspirations |
Land-use
planning and regulation is not simply a technical instrument for ordering
physical space. If combined with other functions such as transport planning,
and bulk-infrastructure planning, land-use planning may facilitate the
development of a particular kind of urban living environment. Metropolitan
governments able to integrate these functions are in a unique position
to facilitate the development of city-wide vision which articulates the
kind of urban environment in which citizens wish to live, and translates
that vision into reality through the combined exercise of land-use planning
and other powers. In this sense land-use planning can become an instrument
of social equity, which challenges the existing spatial location of poverty,
and redirects market dynamics in line with the aspirations of metropolitan
residents. |
| |
Is one type of metropolitan government necessarily
more efficient than another?
There are many arguments about the
relative efficiency of different forms of metropolitan government.
|
| Arguments
for largely autonomous municipalities |
Some people
argue that types of metropolitan government which place minimal powers
and functions (and administrative capacity) at the metropolitan level,
such as the 'coordinating' two-tier system, are more efficient. Common
arguments include: |
| Competing
municipalities offers citizens choice |
- a multiplicity of largely autonomous
municipalities within a metropolitan area can act as a mechanism to match
individual preferences with a particular package of services, taxes and
regulation through the creation a metropolitan market place. Assuming that
all metropolitan residents are equally mobile (which is not necessarily
true), this market place is facilitated by movement between municipalities,
as citizens exercise their ability to choose between competing packages
by moving from one municipality to another. It is argued that this approach
leads to competitively priced services and greater responsiveness to end-user
preferences.
|
| Large
metropolitan administrations increase costs |
- metropolitan governments may incur
diseconomies of management scale (ie, costs in large metropolitan administrations
increase due to increased management and personnel requirements and costs),
and increased cost escalation pressures.
|
| Arguments
for maximum powers/functions at metropolitan level |
On the other
hand, some people argue that metropolitan governments which place maximum
powers and functions (and administrative capacity) at the metropolitan
level, such as the single city type, are more efficient because: |
| Less
duplication leads to savings |
- the duplication of functions, structures
and personnel in each local municipality can be avoided, which reduces
administrative and operational costs. There is also less need for co-ordination
functions and structures, and the concomitant bureaucracy to manage these
structures.
|
| Metro-wide
co-ordination can lead to optimal use of resources |
- a lack of metropolitan coordination
can lead to the less than optimal use of facilities and infrastructure
across the metropolis, which may increase both capital and operational
costs, and wastage resultant from the under-utilisation of existing resources.
|
| Improves
ability to respond to and maximise opportunity |
- structural constraints in formulating
metropolitan-wide policy and strategy may result in opportunity costs,
for example, reduced success in promoting and marketing the city as a attractive
investment opportunity for global capital.
|
| Weighing
up the arguments for efficiency of different types |
There are
numerous studies and statistical surveys which support both sides of the
argument. While there are grounds for dismissing or supporting some of
the specific assertions made on both sides of the debate, on balance, there
is no conclusive evidence internationally for the efficiency of one model
over another. Efficiency is not a function which can be 'read off' from
any one type of metropolitan government. It has more to do with how capacity
and resources are organised within any type. However, certain functions
may operate more efficiently where vertical integration is possible and
other functions may require a high degree of administrative decentralisation
to operate efficiently. |
|
Citizens' participation central
to metro government
|
Are single city and/or two-tier systems able to
enhance participative local democracy?
The promotion of local democracy should
be seen as a central role for any type of metropolitan government. The
local sphere is an arena where citizens can participate in decision-making
to shape their own living environments, and exercise and extend their democratic
(social, economic and political) rights.
|
| "Smaller
is better" claim |
The local
sphere is often seen as critical for enhancing participative democracy
because citizens may have greater incentives to participate at the local
level. An individual is more likely to exercise some influence on a policy
decision within a government process which involves fewer rather than more
people. |
| Single
city and 'integrating' two-tier types can balance claims and rights of
all residents |
However,
in the South African context of vast inequities within metropolitan areas,
and racially-divided cities, the crude assumption that smaller government
bodies with maximum autonomy will operate to enhance everyone's democratic
rights is not necessarily true. Metropolitan residents should have a voice
in decisions which affect them at their work, at home and at places of
recreation. As in all democratic systems, there is a need in metropolitan
systems to ensure that the exercise of the democratic rights of some groups
do not infringe on the economic, social or political rights of other groups.
Both the single city and 'integrating' two-tier systems are able to balance
claims from parts of the metropolitan area for extended autonomy and ensure
that democratic rights of all metropolitan residents are not compromised
by any one group within the metropolitan area.
In both systems diverse communities,
with different histories, priorities, needs and aspirations will be incorporated
into a single metropolitan jurisdiction. Metropolitan governments need
to be responsive to diverse needs, and ensure that all citizens are able
to contribute effectively to the governance of their communities.
|
| Large
MLCs do not enable citizen participation.... |
Theoretically,
in a two-tier system, the local tier provides a forum where community groups
can influence decisions which impact on their community. However, in our
current two-tier system some Metropolitan Local Councils are very large
(over a million people), which may mitigate against direct participation.
|
| ....but
small MLCs may entrench racial divisions |
On the other
hand, given the geography of apartheid, small MLCs may simply entrench
the racial divisions in our cities. It therefore cannot be assumed that
the existence of MLCs necessarily increases local democracy. |
| Additional
forums for participation |
Additional
forums and processes to ensure that citizens are able to effectively participate
in local governance are required. |
| Ward/
neighbourhood structures, and other forums and processes |
In a single
city system, ward or neighbourhood-level structures are required to ensure
that citizens can participate at an appropriate level, and articulate the
needs and aspirations of their communities to a responsive government.
These structures should be scaled to facilitate direct participation, and
additional forums and processes to enhance citizen participation in local
governance should also be established. |
|
Single city and 'integrating'
two-tier types most appropriate for South Africa
|
Concluding comment
Given our current needs, the single
city and 'integrating' two-tier types of metropolitan government appear
to be the most appropriate for South Africa's major cities.
- Both the single city and 'integrating'
two-tier types provide a basis for metropolitan governance concerned with
social justice and addressing intra-metropolitan inequity. Both can minimise
spillovers and externalities. The 'coordinating' two-tier type is less
able to redistribute and address systemic inequities across the metropolis
(the inequities built into the apartheid urban system), and less able to
'level out' spillovers than other types.
- Both the single city and 'integrating'
two-tier types facilitate integrated land-use planning. The 'coordinating'
two-tier type has weaker powers to promote integrated land-use planning,
and is less able to integrate land-use planning with other complementary
powers and functions.
- Both the single city and 'integrating'
two-tier types enhance economic competitiveness and prosperity; can operate
efficiently and can facilitate democratic participation (although the single
city type, and two-tier types with large local municipal jurisdiction,
should be supplemented by forums which allow for direct participation).
The 'co-ordinating' two-tier type may face problems of conflicting municipal
local economic development strategies and administrative duplication. The
ability of metropolitan residents to have a voice not only at their place
of residence, but also at their place of work and recreation, may be hampered
by the limited executive powers at the metropolitan level.
|
| Costs
and benefits need to be weighed |
The costs
and benefits of the different types of metropolitan government need to
be assessed as part of the process of deciding which type of metropolitan
government is most appropriate for the governance of our major cities.
|
| Lessons
from past three years |
In addition
to the considerations raised above, the decision should be informed by
our experiences with metropolitan government from the past three years.
The current legal framework for metropolitan government has proved ambiguous
and inadequate. As a result, municipal structures in some metropolitan
areas continue to operate as largely autonomous structures, while the urgent
needs for redistribution, integrated development and the sound management
of the metropolitan urban system (the metropolitan area as a whole) are
not addressed. Clearly, a less ambiguous institutional arrangement is required
if the benefits of metropolitan government are to be derived. |
|
3. DISTRICT GOVERNMENT AND URBAN AND RURAL TYPES
|
|
Legacy of past - majority
excluded
|
3.1. The need for District government
The challenge outside of metropolitan areas
Historically, the only form of local
government outside of metropolitan areas was found in small market towns
and regional service centres. Here, municipalities could stabilise their
costs around a small, geographically contained population, and an economic
base of protected agricultural and mining industries. As in the metropolitan
areas, groups who would draw more from municipal resources than they would
contribute to the municipal tax base, were legally excluded. The bulk-service
needs of farmers, which were difficult and costly to provide, were externalised
to (covered by) Joint Service Boards and Regional Services Councils. The
service needs of the vast majority of South Africa's non-metropolitan population,
including labour reserve populations in small dormitory townships attached
to white towns, farmworkers, and people forcibly settled in bantustans,
went largely unheeded. A new system of local government will need to change
this pattern.
|
| Challenges
in urban areas... |
Transitional
municipalities established under the LGTA were given a mandate to address
the huge demands in historically underdeveloped areas. In urban areas,
Transitional Local Councils are responsible for the extension of services
to former townships and the integration of towns and townships into unified
urban settlements. |
| Challenges
in rural areas... |
In rural
areas, Transitional Representative and Transitional Rural Councils are
responsible for addressing the chronic neglect of people living on farms
and in former homeland settlements. |
| Old
structures impede democracy and development role of LG |
While many
of these new municipalities have taken significant steps towards meeting
this challenge, they face enormous constraints. The transitional system
has been given a democratic and development mandate, but is based on old
structural arrangements which limit municipal access to, and effective
utilisation of, resources. |
| Re-design
of LG outside of metropolitan areas |
Local government
in secondary cities, small towns and rural areas clearly needs to be redesigned
and capacitated if it is to realise a developmental vision. The significant
diversity of urban and rural settlements poses an additional challenge
for the design of a transformed local government system in these areas.
|
|
District Councils
|
The role of District government in meeting this
challenge
At present all non-metropolitan urban
and rural municipalities fall within the District Council system. In most
Provinces, District Councils are based on former institutions which were
predominantly responsible for bulk services and for channelling capital
funds to the local level. To date, very little support has been provided
to enable District Councils to consolidate capacity beyond their traditional
role, and play a stronger developmental role. However, restructured District
Councils could become the basis of a new district government system.
|
| District
Councils have key developmental role |
Given the
current lack of capacity in many municipalities in rural areas, and the
need to enhance developmental linkages between urban and rural settlements,
District government has a key role to play in:
- promoting integrated regional development,
which recognises the linkages between urban nodes (centres) and surrounding
rural areas
- supporting the primary tier in rural
areas, and in particular providing capacity for rapid delivery in areas
where rural municipalities lack capacity, and
- facilitating the redistribution of
resources within the district through the allocation of RSC levies and
intergovernmental transfers
District governments could also play
a role in the provision of bulk and regional services to municipalities,
where required.
|
|
Urban centres, integrated
with surrounding areas, vital for quality of life
|
Promoting integrated regional development
The importance of capacitated municipalities
in secondary cities and small towns cannot be underestimated. Integrated
and dynamic urban centres are vital for enhancing the quality of life of
both urban residents, and populations spread loosely around them in wide
social and economic catchment areas. Urban centres are integrally linked
culturally, socially and economically to the areas beyond their boundaries,
both far and near. Decline in these centres could have profound negative
effects, both within urban areas and within the larger regional economies
of which they are a part. As much as their surrounding areas depend on
them, however, urban centres depend on their surrounding areas. They will
rise and fall as these areas develop or decline.
|
| Integrated
planning across municipal boundaries is required |
Constitutionally,
it is possible for urban municipalities to fall outside the District government
system. National legislation could provide for self-standing Category (A)
urban municipalities for secondary cities and large towns. However, in
developmental terms, urban centres cannot be isolated from their surrounding
areas. Given regional urban-rural linkages, integrated planning, development
and redistribution across municipal boundaries is clearly required. |
| District
government can support Provincial government in regional planning and development
|
Regional
planning and development is a Provincial government function. However,
District government could greatly assist Provincial government in this
regard, if district boundaries were demarcated as logical functional and
planning boundaries. Existing District Councils already have the power,
in terms of the LGTA (Second Amendment Act), to develop integrated development
plans for their areas of jurisdiction, with the consent of constituent
municipalities. District governments could also promote integrated regional
development through bulk infrastructure planning, and the allocation of
RSC levies. The latter may mean strategically re-investing RSC levies in
core urban infrastructure in many places, but in many others it will require
investments in projects and programmes with a wider, regional scope. Provincial
government could, if necessary, assign certain powers over regional planning
and development to the District level. |
| |
Supporting the primary tier in rural areas
Primary tier municipalities in rural
areas have not lived up to expectations over the last few years. This has
as much to do with the weaknesses in the current District Councils upon
which they rely, as it does with their own lack of capacity and resources.
|
| District
government should develop and support capacity at primary level |
One of the
original motivations for the current two tier system (of District and primary
levels) was that district government should play a role in developing and
supplementing the capacity of rural municipalities. This motivation remains
valid.
- A systematic process of strengthening
under-capacitated rural councils needs to be established, and reorganised
district governments are the logical place to locate support and training
infrastructure. National and provincial capacity building and support programmes
could be coordinated at and implemented through district governments.
- Few rural councils will be able to
sustain their own full administrations on current resources. The emerging
practice of district government facilitating the sharing of specialised
functions, capacity and equipment, should be encouraged and extended.
- Co-operative relations between municipalities
which save overall costs (joint service ventures, for instance) can often
be better facilitated and monitored from a central site such as a district
government.
District government can greatly enhance
the promotion of regional development and integrated planning for both
urban and rural populations, facilitate redistribution, support under-capacitated
rural municipalities, and assist in the development of strong and viable
category (B) urban municipalities. A new district government system geared
to fulfil this role is required.
While attention needs to be given to
ensuring that district government becomes effective in its own right, the
question of which category (B) structures should fall within the jurisdiction
of district governments is equally, if not more, important.
|
|
Possible types of category
(B) municipality
|
3.2. Structuring primary tier local government
A number of broad possible types of
category (B) municipalities can be considered.
Local municipalities
Local municipalities, which are a standard
form for relatively concentrated but contained urban settlements across
the world, could be retained for many of our urban centres. The exact nature
of local municipalities may vary between areas, depending on the size or
population and other local circumstances. It is possible that the boundaries
of local municipalities in cities and large towns could be extended to
include the urban fringe.
|
| Possible
types of category (B) municipality |
Representative
municipalities
Existing Representative Councils are seen as embryonic
Rural Councils (in their early stages of development), with more or less
statutory powers depending on their capacity. A municipal type similar
to existing Representative Councils could be reproclaimed. District governments
would need to play a large role in either supporting the development of
Representative municipalities to enable them to assume increasing powers
and functions, or direct delivery within Representative municipalities'
area of jurisdiction, or both.
|
| |
District
government as primary tier
A model similar to the current remaining areas model
could be developed, with no primary tier municipalities in rural areas.
All municipal powers and functions with respect to these areas would vest
with the district government. Local municipalities would remain within
the district system, but within rural areas the district government would
serve as a category (A) municipality. There are a number of sub-options
within this type:
- The degree of administrative centralisation could
vary from a central administrative office, to decentralised sub-district
offices which have relative autonomy to conduct administrative functions.
- District governments could be directly elected by
proportional representation in rural areas (with indirect representation
from local municipalities). Alternatively, they could be constituted by
representatives from multi-member wards. Multi-member wards would serve
a predominantly representative function.
Amalgamated municipalities
In commercial farmland (and other) areas where there
are established municipalities, towns could be amalgamated with their surrounding
hinterlands. Local municipalities would extend their service delivery networks
into the territory surrounding them. Rural interests could be represented
on the municipal Council through a dual chamber system or a rural committee
made up mainly of rural councillors. While the district government may
retain some direct delivery roles in rural areas, the amalgamated local
municipality would be largely responsible.
Rural municipalities
In former homeland (and other) areas where there
are no towns to amalgamate with, fully fledged rural municipalities could
be established as is currently the case with rural Councils in the Northern
Province, Mpumalanga and Free State. These could have an equivalent range
of powers and functions to local municipalities.
Evolving local government
District governments could contract community-level
service utilities, such as water committees and village development committees,
to perform certain functions (monitoring, operations and maintenance, local
level prioritisation) on its behalf. As the capacity of these structures
develops, statutory powers could be devolved to the community level. Local
government in rural areas would then be built up over time around existing
sites of community-level interest and activity. Community governments could
legally operate as a non-statutory committee of the district council, with
either advisory or full delegated powers.
Choosing between types
Transformation of local government
requires that a single, all-embracing system be established. However, this
system will have to allow for sufficient types of municipalities (defined
in national legislation) to adequately accommodate diversity between and
within provinces.
|
| Criteria
for choosing types |
Criteria
to determine which municipal type is most appropriate for which areas will
need to be developed. Assuming that different settlement types will require
different forms of municipal institutions, criteria could be based on matching
municipal types to settlement types. This approach would result in something
like the following:
- For sparse rural areas with dispersed
or scattered settlements and for extensive commercial farming areas, where
the need for local administration of resources is minimal, District governments
with no primary level structures.
- For villages and dispersed resettlement
areas, where the demand on available resources is slightly greater than
in sparse settlements, and there are clear geographical communities of
interest, District governments with decentralised administrations, multi-member
wards, and committee based utilities.
- For dense rural areas, betterment
villages and large informal settlements, where the demand for services
is high and consistent across a wide expanse, requiring the careful weighing
up of local development priorities, representative or rural municipalities.
- For towns surrounded by intensive
farming areas, and for expanding and densifying peri-urban areas, where
there is great pressure on resources and the need for a relatively stable
administrative base to meet rapidly increasing demands both on the margins
of towns and on farms, amalgamation of town and rural hinterland.
- For urban core areas, where amalgamation
is not preferred, local municipalities. The boundaries of these structures
may conceivably be expanded to include a growing urban fringe.
|
| Settlement
types not the only way of determining types of institution |
While settlement
types provide a useful starting point for matching municipal types to local
areas, it is not being suggested that settlement types only should dictate
municipal forms. Not only is it very difficult to classify settlement types,
but it is also desirable to consider other factors which could guide the
choice of appropriate municipal institutions.
For example, the existence of administrative
resources is a crucial factor in determining the ability of any municipality
to perform. Predominant settlement type often bears no relation to the
availability of administrative resources. For instance, some areas which
have relatively sparse settlement patterns dispersed homesteads, small
villages and so forth may also include one or more proclaimed 'rural townships'
(the R293 towns) which have some administrative capacity. In these areas
it would be problematic to say that one particular settlement type automatically
means one particular municipal type, and hence assume that a district government
operating as a category (A) municipality is appropriate.
Further consideration and consultation
is required regarding the types of category (B) municipalities, and the
question of criteria to guide the choice of type in any local area.
|
| |
4. MUNICIPAL TYPES
Possible Municipal Types
The following table provides a summary
of possible municipal types, which emerge from the above discussion.
|