No space for culture: ‘matchbox housing’ leaves residents unable to honour customs in a South African town

 

In South Africa, urban planning is influenced by western-centric and colonial planning, including social housing, building technologies, architectural form, master plans, zoning, and land tenure systems.

The colonial and apartheid planning policies and practices from the 1930s gave European settlers the sole rights to live, work and be educated in urban areas, where they had complete freedom of movement. On the other hand, the presence of African people in urban settlements was strictly controlled through pass laws, spatial segregation, and systems of land tenure that restricted them from living in towns and cities.

If Black people needed to stay close to the city, they were accommodated in hostels designed for single workers (not families) or houses in townships – places on the far edges of towns or cities, without amenities and designated “Black only” by the apartheid system.

Townships generally allocated small plots to each house. The houses built by the government during apartheid all looked the same and had very low minimum standards, such as rows of “matchbox” (two- to four-roomed) houses for small, nuclear families or prefabricated houses. This reflected the dominant white view that Africans should only be temporary residents in urban settlements.

The old South African townships had inadequate sanitation facilities. Toilets either did not exist or were built outside (a bucket inside a single cubicle, or a pit or flush toilet). After apartheid ended in 1994, access to safe toilets and sanitation was recognised as a human right and many local governments built new toilets.

As geographers, we are interested in how space is planned and used. In our latest research, we looked at the interplay between cultural practices and urban residential planning in the Makanaskop township in Makhanda, South Africa.

In many South African townships, planning still does not fully align with the cultural, social and economic realities of the residents. This study offered an opportunity to find out whether there was a disconnect between planning and cultural practices.

Our study shows that the plot size, house size and spatial organisation of built structures are often disconnected from residents’ needs, highlighting the importance of culturally aware planning for social housing.

Life, land and rituals in a tiny township

Makanaskop was established during apartheid in about 1957. By 1974, 200 homes had been constructed there and it has continued to expand. It is located about 4.5km away from the town centre in Makhanda. Today it is a mixed-income residential space composed of low- and middle-income residents, the majority of whom are culturally amaXhosa.

There are two types of houses in Makanaskop. First, single-family detached houses – free-standing residential buildings that are not connected to adjacent houses. Second, single-family semi-detached houses connected to neighbouring units through one or more shared walls.

Over time, some of these buildings were expanded to house bigger, extended families.

Makanaskop initially had a bucket toilet system and later also received outside flush toilets from the government.

We interviewed the members of nine households who had cultural land uses and surveyed their properties. We found several amaXhosa cultural practices that require designated spaces and specific spatial organisation. The kraal, or ubuhlanti, is a rectangular wooden enclosure where amaXhosa practise their spirituality and perform rituals. These include kubuyisa, the ritual where an ox is slaughtered and sacrificed to appease the ancestors after a death in the family.

Another ritual is ukutyiswa amasi, when a woman who has married into the family is invited into the kraal to be introduced to the ancestors.

Imbeleko is a ceremony held in the kraal when newborn members of the clan are introduced to the elders and ancestors.

The kraal is also an integral part of the circumcision ritual known as ulwaluko, which is performed when adolescent males are initiated into manhood. Boys seclude themselves from society, undergo circumcision, and receive guidance on navigating this society and communities in their capacity as men.

Before young males undergo this transition, they meet in the kraal with male family members and respected male members of the community. Upon their return, they once again visit the kraal before entering the house to complete the ritual.

A kraal can be used to house culturally important livestock, even in urban settlements where this is typically against the local bylaws.

In Makanaskop, the kraal is at the front or back of the plot, depending on cultural preferences or spatial limitations.

However, the kraal is not the only land use needed in this space. Culturally, rondavels for spiritual and cultural practices, and housing for extended family, are often needed. Additional land uses include water storage tanks, parking, gardens, washing lines and sheds. State-provided toilets are outside too.

We found when we surveyed the houses that, alongside limited plot size, the positioning of land use activities limited the potential for this open space to be used or developed.

Misalignment of cultural practices and urban planning

The first issue relates to the positioning of state-provided structures on the plot. This could provide a challenge in positioning the kraal, for example, because some outside toilets are in the middle of the backyard and the positioning of other land uses is dependent on this.

If there’s no space for the kraal other than near the toilet, people can’t go to the toilet freely. The kraal is a sacred space and non-family members or new brides are not allowed in it. This makes toilets in the middle of the backyard a real problem.

As one person we interviewed said:

If it was up to us and the plot was large enough, everything would be at the back; however, that would mean placing the kraal next to the toilet. This would be disrespectful as the kraal is a sacred space.

The position of the house can also prove to be a problem. Traditionally, some people believe the kraal should be at the front for ancestral protection. State-built houses are often positioned very close to the front boundary of the plot, however.

The second challenge is that small plots limit space for cultural and more practical land uses. One resident we interviewed had an informal agreement with a neighbour to extend their house onto the neighbour’s property, but had no official sanction for this. Another had illegally extended their plot onto the public verge to accommodate the kraal.

What needs to happen next

Due to the perpetuation of western-centric planning norms, the cultural practices and needs of Black people are ignored when townships and state-provided houses are built. Faced with these constraints, residents have had to adapt their cultural practices or contravene planning systems and bylaws through insurgent planning and quiet encroachment.

Before delivering social services, planners need first to understand residents’ cultural practices to avoid future conflicts.

(The research this article is based on was co-authored by Nangamso Makhiwane of Rhodes University).

Sinenhlanhla Memela, Senior lecturer, Rhodes University and Philippa Irvine, Lecturer, Rhodes University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

The "License to Fail"? How the New Business Bill Could Stifle South Africa's Economy

 

The Department of Small Business Development has gazetted the draft Business Licensing Bill, a piece of legislation that proposes a radical overhaul of how commerce is regulated in South Africa. At its core, the Bill seeks to repeal the Business Act of 1991 and introduce a mandatory national registry for every business operating in the country—from the largest corporate retailer to the smallest street hawker.

While the Department argues this will "professionalize" the sector and clamp down on illicit trade, economic analysts and civil society groups are raising alarm bells. Here is why the Bill is being viewed as a dangerous step backward and how it specifically threatens the livelihoods of informal traders.

 Why the Bill is Bad for Business

The primary criticism of the Bill is that it attempts to solve economic stagnation with more red tape. In an environment where South Africa desperately needs to remove barriers to entry, this legislation erects new ones.

• Bureaucratic Overreach: The Bill grants municipal officials and police sweeping powers to inspect businesses and seize goods without a warrant. This "warrantless search" provision is arguably unconstitutional and opens the door to abuse and corruption.
• Administrative Nightmare: It forces every single business to apply for a license valid for only five years. Critics argue that municipalities, many of which are already collapsing under dysfunction, simply do not have the capacity to process millions of new license applications efficiently.
• Vagueness and Uncertainty: The criteria for granting licenses are broad and include "preferential" conditions that are ill-defined. This creates uncertainty for investors and gives officials too much discretion, which is a breeding ground for bribery.

 

How Informal Traders Will Lose

The informal economy—the lifeline for millions of unemployed South Africans—stands to suffer the most under this new regime.

• Criminalization of Livelihoods: Currently, many informal traders operate legally without needing complex licenses. This Bill effectively criminalizes anyone trading without a permit. A grandmother selling vegetables to survive could theoretically face fines, jail time, or have her stock confiscated simply for not being on a national database.
• Barriers to Entry: The cost and complexity of compliance (filling out forms, paying fees, renewing licenses) favor established, formal businesses with legal teams. Informal traders often lack the time, literacy, or funds to navigate this bureaucracy, forcing them to close down or operate illegally underground.
• Harassment and confiscation: By empowering inspectors to seize goods from "unlicensed" traders, the Bill legitimizes the harassment often faced by street vendors. For a trader living hand-to-mouth, the confiscation of stock is not just a setback; it is an economic death sentence.
• Xenophobic Undertones: The Bill places strict limitations on foreign nationals, requiring valid visas for business licenses.      In the informal sector, where many refugees and asylum seekers trade to survive, this is seen as a targeted attempt to purge foreign-owned spaza shops, potentially fueling social tension rather than solving economic issues.

 Conclusion

By treating every small hustle like a major corporation requiring state sanction, the draft Business Licensing Bill risks strangling the very entrepreneurial spirit South Africa needs to survive. Instead of support and development, it offers regulation and punishment.

 

Note: This article is an opinion piece based on the draft version of the Bill. Readers are encouraged to review the official Government Gazette for full legal details.

Is the AI bubble about to burst? What to watch for as the markets wobble

 

Phonlamai Photo/Shutterstock

The global investment frenzy around AI has seen companies valued at trillions of dollars and eye-watering projections of how it will boost economic productivity.

But in recent weeks the mood has begun to shift. Investors and CEOs are now openly questioning whether the enormous costs of building and running AI systems can really be justified by future revenues.

Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, has spoken of “irrationality” in AI’s growth, while others have said some projects are proving to be more complex and expensive than expected.

Meanwhile, global stock markets have declined, with tech shares taking a particular hit, and the value of cryptocurrencies has dipped as investors appear increasingly nervous.

So how should we view the health of the AI sector?

Well, bubbles in technology are not new. There have been great rises and great falls in the dot-com world, and surges in popularity for certain tech platforms (during COVID for example) which have then flattened out.

Each of these technological shifts was real, but they became bubbles when excitement about their potential ran far ahead of companies’ ability to turn popularity into lasting profits.

The surge in AI enthusiasm has a similar feel to it. Today’s systems are genuinely impressive, and it’s easy to imagine them generating significant economic value. The bigger challenge comes with how much of that value companies can actually keep hold of.

Investors are assuming rapid and widespread AI adoption along with high-margin revenue. Yet the business models needed to deliver that outcome are still uncertain and often very expensive to operate.

This creates a familiar gap between what the technology could do in theory, and what firms can profitably deliver in practice. Previous booms show how quickly things wobble when those ideas don’t work out as planned.

AI may well reshape entire sectors, but if the dazzling potential doesn’t translate quickly into steady, profitable demand, the excitement can slip away surprisingly fast.

Fit to burst?

Investment bubbles rarely deflate on their own. They are usually popped by outside forces, which often involve the US Federal Reserve (the US’s central bank) making moves to slow the economy by raising interest rates or limiting the supply of money, or a wider economic downturn suddenly draining confidence.

For much of the 20th century, these were the classic triggers that ended long stretches of rising markets.

But financial markets today are larger, more complex, and less tightly tied to any single lever such as interest rates. The current AI boom has unfolded despite the US keeping rates at their highest level in decades, suggesting that external pressures alone may not be enough to halt it.

Instead, this cycle is more likely to end from within. A disappointment at one of the big AI players – such as weaker than expected earnings at Nvidia or Intel – could puncture the sense that growth is guaranteed.

Alternatively, a mismatch between chip supply and demand could lead to falling prices. Or investors’ expectations could quickly shift if progress in training ever larger models begins to slow, or if new AI models offer only modest improvements.

Overall then, perhaps the most plausible end to this bubble is not a traditional external shock, but a realisation that the underlying economics are no longer keeping up with the hype, prompting a sharp revaluation across related stocks.

Artificial maturity

If the bubble did burst, the most visible shift would be a sharp correction in the valuations of chipmakers and the large cloud companies driving the current boom.

These firms have been priced as if AI demand will rise almost without limit. So any sign that the market is smaller or slower than expected would hit financial markets hard.

This kind of correction wouldn’t mean AI disappears, but it would almost certainly push the industry into a more cautious, less speculative phase.

When the chips are down. Blue Andy/Shutterstock

The deepest consequence would be on investment. Goldman Sachs estimates that global spending on AI-related infrastructure could reach US$4 trillion by 2030. In 2025 alone, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta and Google’s owner Alphabet have poured almost US$350 billion into data centres, hardware and model development. If confidence faltered, much of this planned expansion could be scaled back or delayed.

That would ripple through the wider economy, slowing construction, dampening demand for specialised equipment, and dragging on growth at a time when inflation remains high.

But a bursting AI bubble would not erase the technology’s long-term importance. Instead, it would force a shift away from the “build it now, profits will follow” mindset which is driving much of the current exuberance.

Companies would focus more on practical uses that genuinely save money or raise productivity, rather than speculative bets on transformative breakthroughs. The sector would mature. But it would probably do so only after a painful period of adjustment for investors, suppliers and governments who have tied their growth expectations to an uninterrupted AI boom.

Alex Dryden, PhD Candidate in Economics, SOAS, University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.