No abstract

This chapter analyses income inequality and socio-economic segregation in South Africa’s most populous city, Johannesburg. The end of apartheid’s segregation in 1991 has been followed by both continuity and change of urban spatial patterns. There is a considerable literature on the transformation of inner-city areas from white to black, and of the steady diffusion of black middle-class residents into once ‘white’ suburbs. There has been less analysis on the nature and pace of socio-economic mixing. Four key findings from this chapter are as follows. First, dissimilarity indices show that bottom occupation categories and the unemployed are highly segregated from top occupation categories, but that the degree of segregation has decreased slightly between the censuses of 2001 and 2011. Second, the data quantifies the way in which Johannesburg’s large population of unemployed people are more segregated from top occupations than any of the other employment categories, although unemployed people are less segregated from bottom occupations. Third, over the same period, residents employed in bottom occupations are less likely to be represented in affluent former white suburbs. This seemingly paradoxical finding is likely to have resulted from fewer affluent households accommodating their domestic workers on their properties. Fourth, although most post-apartheid public housing projects have not disrupted patterns of socio-economic segregation, some important exceptions do show the enormous capacity of public housing to transform the spatial structure of the city.

This Occasional Paper considers six spatial trends in Gauteng. Notwithstanding intentions by the state to direct spatial transformation for the better, these trends are the physical manifestation, for better or worse, of a remarkable variety of actors responding to a wide variety of opportunities, incentives and disincentives. While it might be possible to name post-apartheid urban ideals, these six trends underscore the disbursed nature of energies that are producing urban space, and the need to understand and work with these energies as we find them in directing spatial transformation.

Since the repeal of the Group Areas Act three decades ago, South Africa's oncedivided spaces have merged, and race-based restrictions on political participation have been eliminated. The result is that the territories to which people belong have transformed, and in many cases have increased in scale. This editorial introduces a special issue on the scale of belonging, which consists of a series of case studies in Gauteng Province. It considers the possibilities, complexities and limits of this aspect of spatial transformation. It provides two cross-cutting themes running through the articles. The first is that scales of belonging are produced by state practices, the private sector and ordinary users of space. The second is that actors invest in particular scales preferentially, either for their immediate benefit or for the benefit of society as a whole. Keywords Apartheid city • Urban spatial transformation • South Africa • InclusionOn 28 June 1991, the South African parliament repealed the Group Areas Act, along with other 'racially based land measures' (Fig. 1). For much of the twentieth century, white minority governments insisted that individuals living in South Africa were not a single people but belonged to different ethnically and racially defined nations, and allocated each their own national territories. As a result, the state maintained that most people who lived in urban areas did not truly belong to them, and