Abstract:
Apartheid was the way in which the white minority government in South Africa controlled
access to urban opportunities. Racially differentiated access to urban opportunities led to a
strong association between race and socio-economic status. Once statutory segregation
regulations were removed in 1991, an important question in urban planning was to what
extent, and at what scale, racial desegregation would reshape the post-apartheid urban
landscape.
This research on the microscale patterns of segregation and socio-economic sorting in
Gauteng includes three points of inquiry. The first considers the relationship between racial
diversity and residential expansion, and shows that residential expansion tends to
reproduce the racial composition of the areas from which they expanded. The second
inquiry analyses the extent to which racial mixing contributes to class mixing and income
equality in desegregated neighbourhoods to reveal that racially-inflected income inequality
remains discernible even in the context of racial desegregation. In racially mixed wards,
the mean household income difference between white and black African residents remains
significant. The third inquiry is concerned with patterns of microscale socio-economic
sorting in desegregated neighbourhoods, and shows how the affordability of housing and
the social character of neighbourhoods influence segregation and socio-economic sorting.
Together, the three inquiries highlight continued segregation in some suburbs, and
nuances in the nature of desegregation in others. Although significant racial desegregation
has taken place in former whites-only neighbourhoods, the association between space and
class in Gauteng has not changed significantly since apartheid ended, and spatial
transformation is slow. However, public housing programmes and inclusionary housing
policies hold significant potential for desegregation at multiple scales. Residential
expansion, whether by the public or private sectors, should be strategically driven
with diversified housing at different affordability levels, while neighbourhood-level
developments should foster socio-economic inclusion.
