Basic infrastructure for socio-economic development, environmental protection and geographical desegregation: South Africa's unmet challenge

How much basic infrastructure investment - water and sanitation systems, ne w electricity lines, roads, stormwater drainage, and other services provide d at municipal level - can South African society afford? What levels and ty pes of subsidies for recurrent operating and maintenance costs assure that low-income people can meet their basic infrastructural service needs? These questions continue to bedevil policy makers. One reason is their failure t o integrate into investment decision-making some basic aspects of socio-eco nomic cost-benefit analysis, covering a variety of direct, indirect, develo pmental, ecological and geographical factors. The direct economic benefits of infrastructure for low-income people have long been recognised, and incl ude construction jobs, improvements in work productivity; and the growth of small enterprises. Indirect benefits include more time and resources for w omen; dramatic environmental benefits, public health benefits (which requir e infrastructure of a sufficient quality so as to enhance rather than endan ger health), and the desegregation of urban society (with respect to enhanc ed employment, educational and cultural opportunities). While there are oft en costs associated with large, new basic-infrastructure programmes, the be nefits justify increased investment. If subsidies and tariffs are restructu red to assure entitlement ("lifeline") provision to all South Africans, plu s rising block tariffs for higher use of resources, it appears possible to significantly augment what the government is presently suggesting as a mini mum set of investment and service provision in its Municipal Infrastructure Investment Framework. (C) 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All righ ts reserved.