Geci Karuri-Sebina, PhD Candidate, gecik@yahoo SARCHi Research Seminar

1. IMPROVING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS THROUGH THE SYSTEMS OF INNOVATION APPROACH: A Case Of Townships in South Africa Geci Karuri-Sebina, PhD Candidate, gecik@yahoo.com SARCHi Research Seminar 12 November 2011, SARChI – IERI – TUT - IDRC, Pretoria

2. Acknowledgement: Prof Muchie, for his continued support and encouragement to me, even to participate in this seminar in absentia.

3. Research Objectives What main elements and patterns can be observed and described as defining a township socio-economy in South Africa? How has conventional LDA approached and defined these township socio-economies? What differences or gaps exist between the township socio-economy observations and the LDA representations? How can the systems of innovation approach contribute to (supplement, complement, or combine with) planning LDA to give an enhanced explanatory / analytical framework for township socio-economies? • To explore the developmental dimensions and elements that are considered to be key to understanding the contexts and realities of township socio-economies; • To determine and describe the conceptual framework(s) and underlying planning theories informing conventional LDA of township socio-economies for purposes of township transformation; • By comparing these, to determine whether there are any differences or gaps in how the conventional LDA reflects and analyses township socio-economies for purposes of informing township transformation programmes; and • To model how the systems of innovation approach can be applied to address these gaps and/or offer value-adding conceptual frames for improving LDA in planning, and the prospects for township transformation.

4. 3. Research Design: Appreciative Theorisation Qualitative study using the case study method with an application to South African townships. Figure: An approach to appreciative study (adapted from Nelson & Winter, 1982; Nelson, 1997; Patrucco, 2005) Figure: Adaptation of the appreciative study framework (by Author)

5. 3. Research Design: Conceptual framework

6. 3. Research Design: Methods (cont.)

7. 3. Research Design: Methods(cont.)

8. 3. Research Design: Methods (cont.)

9. Preliminary Findings • Little innovative activity • Tendency to fad-driven businesses (internet cafés, Cell C containers, public payphones, recycling) ; markets get saturated and negatively competitive • Market is only local, but supply chains mainly external (little local procurement or value add); a reproductive economy • Unique activities are mainly cultural and social (but are thereby discretionary and occasional rather than essential services, and have a culturally specific market) • Not much evidence of expansion / scaling / adaptation innovation • Weak human capital formation • Little reference to education and training (only 1 FET college in area) • Most skills-based enterprises are run by immigrants • Entrepreneurial activity mainly informal and micro-scale

10. Preliminary Findings -2 • A challenge with informality • Co-exist, but the formal draws higher value / profitability. Many informal have very small margins and view growth as formalizing (at least in terms of ownership of facilities) • High cost of formality. Traders say they’re willing to pay, but there are issues of clarification of / satisfaction with what exactly is being paid for, and also of affordability. CoT says they refuse to pay because “it’s our government, why should we?” • Most formal businesses surveyed have been running for 10-30 years; Informal ones have been 6-24 months; higher turnover? • CoT claims to view informal trade positively, however has consistently clashed with the sector & accused of displacing it. • High level of conflict between City and communities around housing allocations, handling of traders, land issues. • Informal trade association in Sauslville disbanding is interesting – no organized structure for engagement now, and some sense of intimidation by officials.

11. Preliminary Findings -3 • Land [control] issues are a major factor in townships • Politics (councilors, party politics, organizational politics in municipality) seem to be affecting effectiveness • Methods of LDA employed seem to be technocratic, silo-driven, and focused on physical developments. • Economic and socail development are handled separately. What is the role of planning? • Little focus on the role of LDA as playing a role communicatively – using planning to engage with negotiating plans and futures. • No engagement with structural and institutional issues. Even where identified, not identified / prioritised for action. • Even re: economic dev - No reference to role of SET, training, or research; focus more on entrepreneurship, employment, or public service delivery