See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317354927

Measuring the spatial economic impact of the Maputo Development Corridor

Article  in  Development Southern Africa · June 2017

DOI: 10.1080/0376835X.2017.1318699

CITATIONS READS

9 1,358

2 authors:

W. Dzumbira Hermanus Geyer

Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch University
1 PUBLICATION   9 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   916 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Counterurbanisation in South Africa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by W. Dzumbira on 07 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Development Southern Africa

ISSN: 0376-835X (Print) 1470-3637 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdsa20

Measuring the spatial economic impact of the

Maputo Development Corridor

W. Dzumbira, H. S. Geyer Jr & H. S. Geyer

To cite this article: W. Dzumbira, H. S. Geyer Jr & H. S. Geyer (2017): Measuring the spatial
economic impact of the Maputo Development Corridor, Development Southern Africa, DOI:
10.1080/0376835X.2017.1318699

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2017.1318699

Published online: 05 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdsa20

Download by: [197.93.130.183] Date: 06 June 2017, At: 06:44

DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2017.1318699

Measuring the spatial economic impact of the Maputo

Development Corridor
W. Dzumbira, H. S. Geyer Jr and H. S. Geyer
Centre for Regional and Urban Innovation and Statistical Exploration (CRUISE), Geography, Geoinformatics,
Urban and Regional Planning, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Years after being launched, the Maputo Development Corridor Development corridor;
(MDC) is still facing a number of socio-economic challenges. development axis;
Prominent amongst these are its failure to create adequate development node; growth
employment opportunities; a top-down functional approach pole; spatial economic
impact; economic impact
which excludes ordinary citizens; and an unfocused management
approach. The MDC also suffers from a lack of clarity on key JEL
conceptual issues such as the economic influence exerted by its O18; L98. R11; R12
nodes along the corridor and the width of its economic influence
away from the spine of the corridor. This study empirically
establishes the influence of nodes along the MDC and ascertains
the statistical significance of the impact of the corridor over
distance away from its spine. ArcGIS, standard statistical analyses
and multivariate regression analysis are used to determine the
relative impact of nodes on subsets of the corridor along that
corridor as well as the width of its impact at various distances
away from the N4 spine.

1. Introduction
In South Africa, corridors are a development instrument used historically at national,
regional and local levels (RSA, 1975, 1981, 2006, 2011, 2012; Jomet, 1979; KZN, 2006;
UN-HABITAT, 2010; Gauteng, 2011, 2014; Cape Town, 2012). In 1995, the government
initiated Spatial Development Initiatives (SDIs), aimed at stimulating economic develop-
ment in areas with economic potential as part of its broader Growth Employment and
Redistribution Programme (RSA, 1995). SDIs crowd in private investments and state-sup-
ported infrastructure (Taylor, 2003; Sihlongonyane, 2006; Gálves-Nogales, 2014). The
Maputo Development Corridor (MDC) originated as one such SDI (Andersson, 2000;
Rogerson, 2001; Roodt, 2008). In terms of the New Growth Path (RSA, 2011) – the
national development strategy which succeeded the Growth Employment and Redistribu-
tion Programme – the MDC is designated as a Strategic Integrated Project, a catalytic
project to fast-track development and growth. The MDC is a joint venture between
South Africa and Mozambique. As indicated in Figure 1, the MDC links Gauteng,
Witbank/Middelburg, Nelspruit and Maputo in Mozambique.

CONTACT H. S. Geyer hsgeyer@sun.ac.za

© 2017 Government Technical Advisory Centre (GTAC)
2 W. DZUMBIRA ET AL.

Figure 1. The MDC and its sub-corridors. Source: Söderbaum & Taylor (2001).

The study determines the vitality of the MDC along the length of its spine and deter-
mines the developmental impact of the corridor away from the spine in terms of factors
such as levels of employment, access to housing, levels of education and access to services.
Viewing it as a spatial and socio-economic tool in regional planning, the study ties the
development corridor concept to the growth pole theory. This approach facilitates the
broadening of the development corridor concept, opening the concept for in-depth
empirical analyses from different vantage points, which not only assists in credible
policy formulation but also for the identification of spatial and socio-economic issues
that manifest at a regional scale. The empirical results of the study should be useful to
decision-makers in assessing the potential advantages the MDC still holds as a develop-
ment instrument in particular areas of development. It is believed that the study would
lead to a better understanding of what the government could do to improve on the devel-
opment impact of the venture in this region in the long run.

2. The theory of corridor development

Development corridors spatially organise and control the expansion of settlements and the
distribution of resources to new markets (Hurd, 1924; Pottier, 1963; Whebell, 1969; Geyer,
1987, 1989a; Priemus & Zonneveld, 2003). Development corridors also promote trade
competitiveness and local economic development and balance regional development
(Chapman et al., 2003; Papadaskalopoulos et al., 2005; World Bank, 2005; Brundige
et al., 2011). A development corridor develops when interaction between two economic
centres leads to further urban development along the communication axis connecting
the two centres (Friedmann, 1966; Tuppen, 1977; Geyer, 1987). ‘Bundles of infrastructure’
are pivotal in creating corridors (Albrechts & Coppens, 2003; Priemus & Zonneveld, 2003;
Furundzic & Furundzic, 2012). Depending on the dominant land use, a corridor or axis
could be designated as either an industrial, commercial, service or residential corridor;
or if the land use is mixed, simply as an urban or development corridor (Geyer, 1989b).
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 3

The theoretical foundation of the development corridor concept is well established

(Pottier, 1963; Friedmann, 1966; Hilhorst, 1973; Tekeli, 1975; Srivastava, 2011). It
draws from the growth pole strategy introduced by Perroux’s (1955) work which argues
that growth does not occur universally across all spaces but instead tends to be punctuated
spatially (Hansen, 1972; Tekeli, 1975). Although there was some disagreement amongst
observers about the spatial extent of the impact of individual growth nodes in economic
space over time, the spatial impact of development corridors was never disputed. This
implies that the intensity of corridor development tapers off as the distance away from
the spine increases (see Figure 2A) and likewise that the intensity of corridor development
tapers off at increasing distance from the nodes (see Figure 2B). The growth pole concept
concentrates public investment in selected locations to facilitate regional economic growth
and spatial restructuring (Parr, 1999).

Figure 2. Spatial dimensions of a development corridor. Source: Geyer (1989b).

4 W. DZUMBIRA ET AL.

The development corridor is thus a manifestation of interaction of complex socio-econ-

omic and administrative forces between two primary development centres (Brand et al.,
2015). The combined impact of centripetal and centrifugal economic forces caused by
the two primary nodes anchor the corridor while the bundle of infrastructure connecting
them forms the spine of the corridor. Together this gives rise to core-oriented growth
around the nodes that anchor the corridor, while the communication axis or spine
between them gives rise to linear-oriented development along the spine (Figure 2C).
Trade along communication axes is the driving force of urban development. The strength
of a development corridor is directly related to the size and vibrancy of its end nodes and
indirectly related to the distance between the two end nodes (Friedmann, 1966). For devel-
opment axes to yield meaningful results, end nodes should be economically vibrant, the
intermediate space between the end nodes should have inherent economic potential
(natural and human resources) and the intervening distance between the end nodes
should be relatively short (Hanekom, 1982; Geyer, 1987; Srivastava, 2011; Brand et al.,
2015). The end nodes should be mutually interdependent and their interaction should
promote further development spillover.
Nodes in close proximity often coalesce along the communication axes forming a lin-
early clustered city. If nodes are further apart, secondary nodes develop along the com-
munication axis. Longer corridors require larger end nodes to become vibrant. Hence,
the development corridor is an extension of the nodes or ‘poles’ along the axis between
them. In terms of scale, the corridor concept is elastic. At the local level it can refer to
linear urban development between two vibrant metropolitan nodes linked by a communi-
cation axis (Warnich & Verster, 2005; Blazek & Netrdova, 2009; Brand et al., 2015). At the
other end of the scale, it could consist of a number of large urban agglomerations con-
nected by bundles of infrastructure at a transnational scale (Geyer, 1989b). The European
‘Blue Banana’, an international mega-corridor consisting of multi-nodal concentrations of
infrastructure along bundles of motorways, rail links, inland waterways and glass fibre
cables, is an example of the latter (Romein et al., 2003).
Regional development axes evolve through a series of stages: initially the axis is purely a
transport corridor; then it becomes a logistics corridor; then a trade corridor; then an
economic corridor; and finally a growth corridor (Srivastava, 2011; Gálves-Nogales,
2014). There are no clear boundaries between the second and fifth stages. Each of the
stages identified in Figure 3 is a type of corridor with its own distinctive features.
Transport corridors are a product of aggregate flows and various modes of infrastruc-
ture linked to economic and technological processes. Spatially, corridors are multimodal
transport routes that connect large urban centres with smaller nodes. In functional terms,

Figure 3. Potential development path for corridors. Source: Gálves-Nogales (2014).

 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 5

transport corridors enable efficient transport services in terms of time costs, economic
costs and environmental costs (World Bank, 2005). If these processes also involve
urban development, this produces urban development corridors.
Apart from stimulating economic growth, transportation corridors also structure space
at three scales; global, regional and local, as indicated in Figure 4 (Rodriguez et al., 2006).
Industrial location theorists emphasise transport costs as the primary factor in determin-
ing location. The development of a highway system is expected to influence the location of
economic activity and hence the distribution of the population. Any change lowering the
cost of producing and distributing a product can be a source of economic growth. Geo-
graphically differentiated change results in similarly distributed growth impulses (Bohm
& Patterson, 1975). Growth will be a result of relocation of firms and labour from high
cost localities to lower cost localities. These processes further induce industrial concen-
tration due to Marshall-Arrow-Romer and Jacobean spillovers and the enlargement of
labour markets. It also results in the conversion of land uses (Bohm & Patterson, 1975).
The resultant economic growth is net growth; that is, growth which would not have hap-
pened in the absence of lower cost inducements.
Logistics corridors also consist of binding institutional arrangements pertaining to
logistics. Trade corridors emphasise bilateral or multilateral institutional arrangements
that streamline and simplify trade and customs procedures. There are differences of
opinion about what constitutes a trade corridor, but the general agreement is that they
facilitate trade flows between adjoining countries and provide port access to landlocked
countries (Gálves-Nogales, 2014).

Figure 4. Scales of spatial organisation for transportation. Source: Rodriguez et al. (2006).
6 W. DZUMBIRA ET AL.

Economic corridors are comprised of conceptual and programmatic models for policy
intervention (Gálves-Nogales, 2014). Economic corridors facilitate access to markets,
encourage the growth of trade and investment, boost productivity and promote agglom-
eration effects. In so doing, they encourage private investments in productive assets and
create employment opportunities. Economic corridors facilitate inclusive growth by
expanding economic opportunities in lagging regions and creating linkages between
cities, towns, urban centres and industrial clusters (De & Iyenga, 2014). Growth corridors
are produced where non-economic policies, including health systems, environment pro-
tection measures and cultural affinities, are added to economic policies, creating regional
intergovernmental cooperation and policy alignment.
The effectiveness of the corridor concept in town and regional planning is a point of
contention. Experience dictates that the greater the distance between nodes in a corridor,
the stronger these nodes should be for corridors to be effective in propelling economic
forces. Although corridors generally assist in nodal growth, there are instances where cor-
ridor development leads to declining economic activity in peripheral areas towards the
dominant core node; that is, pure corridor effects (Campbell et al., 2009). Conversely,
some European countries are reluctant to use corridors as a spatial planning tool for
fear of stimulating developmental deconcentration due to lower cost inducements
(Priemus & Zonneveld, 2003). However, if applied sensibly the corridor concept could
have exactly the opposite effect. Cape Town is a good example of the developmental cor-
ridor concept used to densify particular areas in the city (CTMM, 2012). In addition, at the
national and regional levels corridors could be used to stimulate economic development in
corridor nodes, whilst maintaining an urban densification policy. In South Africa, the cor-
ridor concept is widely used as a development instrument at the national, regional and
local levels of planning whilst simultaneously guarding against unregulated urban
sprawl at the local level. For this reason, the South African Spatial Planning and Land
Use Management Act of 2013 allows the use of urban corridors as a planning tool.
As an international corridor, the MDC revives the once vital corridor linking South
Africa’s economic heartland with its nearest seaport in Mozambique. In the 1960s,
Maputo Port (then Lourenco Marques) served as an important gateway to international
markets for South Africa but the corridor suffered neglect following the Mozambique
civil war. In 1995, after the lifting of sanctions, the transport ministers of South Africa
and Mozambique agreed to resuscitate the road and rail infrastructure to revive the cor-
ridor (Anderson, 2000; Rogerson, 2001; Söderbaum & Taylor, 2001).
The main planned thrust of the MDC lies in the creation of physical infrastructure
systems, to enable integrated, equitable diversified and sustainable economic development
in both countries (Andersson, 2000; Mitchell, 1998). The MDC planned approximately
180 potential projects with an estimated value of US$7 billion. The primary projects
included the revamping of Witbank Maputo N4 toll road, the rehabilitation of Maputo
port, the southern Mozambique rail network and the Ressano Garcia/ Komatipoort
border post. Secondary projects included the Mozambique Aluminium Smelter, the
Maputo Iron and Steel Project, and Pande/Temane Gas. Both Mpumalanga and
Maputo provinces are characterised by prime agricultural land suitable for fruits and veg-
etable production for export markets (Andersson, 2000).
The MDC achieved faster economic growth rates at local municipalities that lie along
the corridor (Khoza & Willemse, 2013). The corridor initiative also improved the flow of
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 7

freight by revamping the N4 toll route. By promoting growth in the tourism, construction
and manufacturing sectors, the initiative created 7000 employment opportunities by 1998
(Mitchell, 1998; Söderbaum & Taylor, 2001; Simon, 2003). Through targeted procurement
processes, the MDC also promoted the establishment and growth of small, medium and
micro-enterprises (SMMEs) (Andersson, 2000; Rogerson, 2001). Equally important, the
MDC facilitated the flow of South African capital into southern Mozambique (Mitchell,
1998). The initiative improved the attractiveness of the MDC service region for foreign
direct investment (Roodt, 2008).
Despite these successes, the MDC has been criticised for failing in a number of ways.
Firstly, its top-down management structure and implementation did not consider the pri-
orities of local stakeholders; thus it did not necessarily benefit the overall welfare of local
residents (Mitchell, 1998). The institutional approach to the MDC of facilitating gross
domestic product (GDP) growth through export initiatives is not necessarily a people-
orientated development (Andersson, 2000; Bek & Taylor, 2001; Simon, 2003). Secondly,
the goals associated with attracting transnational private investment and empowering
local communities are contradictory (Söderbaum & Taylor, 2001). The pace of job cre-
ation was slow and it was mostly in the form of highly skilled labour, which was not
readily available in the local labour market, thus mostly benefiting people from outside
the MDC region. Job opportunities offered by the MDC were mainly in capital-intensive
industries, implying that the region experienced mostly jobless growth. Additionally, the
majority of the jobs created were mostly male-orientated jobs (Mitchell, 1998; Roodt,
2008). Hence, the initiative had relatively little impact on the challenges of unemployment,
poverty and inequality (Andersson, 2000; Söderbaum & Taylor, 2001). It is difficult to
establish a link between the MDC initiative and many of the projects that took place in
its service area, because some projects could have developed without the initiative
(Roodt, 2008). Thirdly, the initiative is also criticised for not achieving anything substan-
tive in the upgrading of local infrastructure and access to local services and facilities
(Taylor, 2003; Crush & Rogerson, 2012). Fourthly, the closure of the Maputo Corridor
Company in 2003 also resulted in many bottlenecks at the border posts, rail and road
links, and port/harbour crossings.
Fifthly, development of the MDC mostly occurred along pre-existing capital markets
resulting in uneven development, with former white areas receiving most of the economic
opportunities (Mitchell, 1998; Rogerson, 2001). There is a growing disparity between the
socio-economic development of municipalities that are located along the MDC (Khoza &
Willemse, 2013). Municipalities with a strong export base such as eMalahleni, Steve
Tshwete and Mbombela performed well in terms of their socio-economic development.
Poorer municipalities such as Nkomazi, Victor Khanye and Emakhazeni continued to
perform poorly. It is also highly unlikely that this situation will change because the
bulk of the infrastructure development has already occurred.
The final problem relates to uncertainty over the spatial distribution of demographic,
economic and service-delivery changes that have occurred in the region due to the estab-
lishment of the MDC. For instance, Rogerson (2001) loosely defines the MDC as the
catchment area on either side of the N4 spine between Witbank and Maputo, while Mitch-
ell (1998) suggests that the MDC impact extends to as far as 50 km on either side of the N4
route as described by the Mpumalanga provincial government. Campbell et al. (2009)
argue that the MDC increases along larger urban nodes, but does not indicate the
8 W. DZUMBIRA ET AL.

actual distance of geographical coverage. Differences in these views demonstrate the need
for a fundamental look at the corridor concept and its link with development axis or cor-
ridor theory.

3. Analysis
The study selected nodes (cities and towns) within a 25-km buffer on either side of the N4
corridor spine. The buffer follows the Mpumalanga provincial government’s standard of
impact (Mitchell, 1998). According to the Van Huyssteen et al. (2015) settlement typology,
the corridor yielded one city region, four cities, six regional service centres and 19 local or
niche towns. The study subdivided the initial 25-km buffer into an inner buffer of 0–
12.5 km and an outer buffer of 12.5–25 km on both sides of the spine. This determines
the impact of distance from the corridor spine.
To determine the vitality or ‘strength’, the study employed an approach originally
devised by Geyer & Steyn (1989) and subsequently revised by Brand et al. (2015).
Firstly, the economic impact factor (EIF) of each node along the MDC is determined. Sec-
ondly, the corridor is divided into secondary corridors between two adjacent nodes. The
study calculated the economic weight of each section of the corridor to develop a second-
ary corridor impact factor (SCIF). The argument behind this is that the EIFs for all sec-
tions of the corridor combined (i.e. the cumulative impact of the secondary corridors)
would yield the total strength of the entire corridor.
The model argues that the economic weight of each node (town or city) is dependent on
its own economic weight, but also on the economic weight of other nodes in the area
through economic interaction. This impact is directly proportional to the weight of the
other establishments and inversely proportional to the distance between them (Geyer &
Steyn, 1989). The EIF (σi) of each city was calculated using:

1    
1
rei r
si = / ei wi /

w
n
ri ri n

where ρi is the node population of city, ρe is the economically active population in

the node and ϕ is the node gross value added (GVA). Table 1 presents the EIF for
all of the selected nodes along the MDC axis, standardised to unity. Figure 5
shows the EIF of each of the nodes along the MDC corridor spine, standardised
to unity, in a contour graph.
The SCIFs of pairs of nodes λij, at distance δij from one another, along the corridor were
calculated using:

1
lij = s /d
j ij ij

Table 2 presents the results of the SCIF and Figure 6 shows the SCIF of pairs of nodes
along the MDC.
The linear profile of the corridor corresponds with Figure 2B but the EIF levels along
the corridor are uncharacteristically low. Compared with the city centre of the Tshwane
(Pretoria) metropolitan area, which serves as one end node of the MDC, the Maputo
end node and other secondary nodes contribute relatively marginal economic impacts.
Pretoria forms 81.3% of the cumulative EIF of all the nodes along the corridor, but
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 9

Table 1. EIFs (σ) of nodes along the MDC.

Town/city σ
Tshwane/Pretoria 0.74594
Bronkhorstspruit 0.02075
eMalahleni/Witbank 0.05092
Middelburg 0.01519
Emakhazeni/Belfast 0.00004
Entokozweni/Machadodorp 0.00006
Emgwenya/Waterval boven 0.00050
Ngodwana 0.01587
Nelspruit/Mbombela 0.04683
Kanyamazane 0.00179
Matsulu 0.00056
Malalane 0.00440
Emjejane/Hectorspruit 0.00080
Komatiepoort 0.00491
Motola 0.00493
Maputo 0.00729

Maputo only contributes 0.8%. eMalahleni (Witbank) is a relatively prominent node,

contributing 5.5% to the total EIF, but this node owes its relatively high impact
factor to its mining activities, not to its location on the corridor. In this sense, eMalahleni
helps anchoring the corridor. Likewise, Mbombela (Nelspruit), contributing 5.1% to
the total EIF, is prominent due to its function as a regional industrial, service and commer-
cial centre serving the Kruger National Park and large clusters of rural communities
and lower order service centres to its south and north, not solely from its location on
the MDC.
A key question is whether the MDC improved the livelihoods of the population in the
subject region or whether it only improved the GDP index. The results of the SCIFs shown
in Figure 6 are rather disappointing, due to the relatively low EIF values of small nodes
caused by the large distances separating them. This reiterates earlier conclusions that,
for a corridor to be effective, it should contain strong and economically vibrant end
nodes and those nodes should be located relatively near each other. The corridor
between Pretoria and Johannesburg has proven to be vibrant and growing because the
two end nodes are economically significant and are situated near each other

Figure 5. EIF levels along the South African part of the MDC standardised to unity.
10 W. DZUMBIRA ET AL.

Table 2. SCIFs (λ) along the South African part

of the MDC standardised to unity.
Secondary corridor λ
Pretoria–Bronkhorstspruit 0.1506
Bronkhorstspruit–Witbank 0.0084
Witbank–Middelburg 0.0139
Middelburg–Belfast 0.0000
Belfast–Machadodorp 0.0000
Machadodorp–Waterval Boven 0.0000
Waterval Boven–Ngodwana 0.0001
Ngodwana–Nelspruit 0.0094
Nelspruit–Kanyamazane 0.0039
Kanyamazane–Matsulu 0.0001
Matsulu–Malalane 0.0003
Malalane–Hectorspruit 0.0002
Hectorspruit–Komatieport 0.0001
Komatiepoort–Motola 0.0001
Motola–Maputo 0.0024
SCIF 0.1896

Figure 6. SCIFs along the South African part of the MDC standardised to unity.

(Brand et al., 2015). The MDC end nodes and secondary nodes are too far apart for the
corridor to be much more than a transportation axis. In order to promote growth and
development along the MDC, the government will have to promote significant investment
in nodes along the corridor.
Functionally, the MDC mainly acts as an import–export axis serving Gauteng and
extracting industrial nodes such as eMalahleni (Witbank) and Ngodwana (Sappi) along
the corridor. Standardised to unity, Bronkorstspruit, Ngodwana, Middelburg and White
River have relatively high EIFs of 0.0197, 0.015, 0.014 and 0.012 respectively. These
nodes have potential for growth with moderate government investment in social and
civil infrastructure. From a growth pole perspective, the growth of the cluster of nodes
around KaMatsamo (Schoemansdal), Mgobode and Emangweni could be targeted for
manufacturing investment because they are surrounded by large rural settlements repre-
senting a significant labour source. They could also benefit from investment in civil and
social infrastructure and their communities could benefit from investments in skills
development.
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 11

Table 3. Population growth and growth factors of towns and cities in different buffer zones of the MDC.
Independent variable Nodes within 12.5 km from the spine Nodes 12.5–25 km from the spine
Employed 0.235 −0.123
Unemployed 0.164 0.053
Grade 12 qualification 0.233 −0.134
Access to electricity 0.275 −0.051
Waste removal 0.199 −0.001
Communal refuse dump 0.128 0.143
No rubbish disposal −0.079 0.029
Flush toilet 0.170 −0.010
Bucket latrine 0.518 0.217
Piped water inside dwelling 0.178 −0.173
No access to piped water −0.036 −0.191
Formal dwellings 0.230 −0.114
Informal dwellings 0.212 0.271
No monthly income 0.217 −0.080
Monthly income between R1 and R400 0.179 0.094

A multivariate regression analyses, showing Pearson correlation coefficients, deter-

mines the relationship between population growth (2001–2011) of nodes on and near
the MDC and their state of development. In the analysis, settlements are classified into
two groups: those within a distance of 12.5 km from the spine and those located
between 12.5 and 25 km. Table 3 presents the results.
The study shows that nodes closer to the N4 spine are far better off than nodes further
away from it. The outcome shows that the growth and development impulses generated by
the communication axis are generally weak, and they tend to decline with distance from
the corridor spine.

4. Discussion
The MDC was, as other SDIs, based on the growth pole concept. It relies on backward
and forward linkages to expand development spillovers to a wider area through the
centrifugal dispersal of industries away from the end nodes to secondary nodes
along the corridor. However, backward and forward linkages are either not happening
or are inappropriate (Bond, 2002). Because of the MDC’s import/export orientation,
there are no substantial linkages to local firms, and as a consequence relatively few
employment opportunities. The main backward linkages are confined to activities
related to packaging and rudimentary engineering, hindering the technological learn-
ing necessary to propel further growth and development (Bond, 2002). In the final
analysis, the theoretical foundations of the MDC appear to be at odds with its stated
objectives. To achieve the socio-demographic, socio-economic and redistributive
goals of the MDC, there is need for contractual obligations between stakeholders
and a strong labour bias for projects to benefit previously disadvantaged communities
(Söderbaum & Taylor, 2001). The practicality of ‘tricking down effects’ is in this case
questionable in the light of its weaknesses.
Weaver (1978) asserts that the starting point is to admit that the exploitative relation-
ship of the core versus the periphery should end. Although the corridor has strong regional
linkages, particularly between its most prominent end node Pretoria and its second largest
node Nelspruit/Mbombela, its function as a global and local corridor is weak. This lowers
the growth potential of both the Maputo end node and other intermediate nodes along or
12 W. DZUMBIRA ET AL.

near the corridor. To strengthen the local and global functions of the corridor, both the
national governments and the regional communities must mobilise resources and
capacities. At a local level, local industries and local employment should be linked to
regional activities using local initiatives and local skills. Internationally, regional infra-
structure and institutions must be expanded and consolidated to strengthen international
producer and consumer cooperation and align democratic planning mechanisms, and
result-orientated research institutions must focus on challenges facing both expanding
local and international trade.
Linked to this is the problem of distance. An effective growth corridor not only requires
two vibrant end nodes but these nodes should also be near each other relative to the weight
of the combined end nodes. Unfortunately, the MDC has a relatively weak end node in
Maputo and long distances separate Maputo from Pretoria and other prominent nodes
on the corridor. In this there is a mutual dependence problem. Pretoria and the greater
Gauteng have two other seaports at similar distances with similar bundles of infrastructure
at Durban and Richards Bay, and Maputo also competes with other seaports such as
Walvis Bay, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and East London. The MDC strategy should be
cognisant of these limitations, but nevertheless should implement growth pole strategy
in which spatially punctuated concentrated development occurs along corridor nodes,
to overcome these limitations.
The next question pertains to the functional methods that the MDC SDI adopted to
achieve its goals. The main method adopted to establish key propulsive industries is
through private–public partnerships (Hartzenberg, 2001; Taylor, 2003; Crush & Rogerson,
2012). The initiative emphasised resource-based industrial strategies such as petrochem-
ical, energy, mining and food processing. Given that the region receives a significant
number of tourists annually, investment in the hospitality industry also featured promi-
nently (Rogerson, 2001). This relies on strategic marketing, the innovative delivery of
bundles of public infrastructure and coordination between different tiers of government.
While the involvement of private capital is desirable, the development agendas of govern-
ment and markets do not always pull in the same direction. There appears to be an over-
emphasis on private capital in the MDC methodology. As attested by Rogerson (2001),
Sihlongonyane (2006) and Söderbaum & Taylor (2001), neoliberalism and the ‘trickle-
down effect’ may not yield the expected social development goals over the short term.
The well-tested mixed approach of private and state investment in economic activities
combined with the state-driven development of social overhead capital (Hirschman,
1958) is needed to make the development corridor operating more effectively. In the
absence of local markets and a competitive labour force, the focus of development
should be widened to the national or international scale.
In order to localise employment and broaden the economy’s ownership base, the MDC
adopted a targeted procurement approach benefiting previously disadvantaged SMMEs
along the corridor. Activities in which these SMMEs were involved include road
marking, plant hiring, road signing and truck hiring (Rogerson, 2001; Roodt, 2008). In
terms of local economic development initiatives, there was one positive project linked
to the MDC between Komatiepoort in South Africa and Ressano Garcia in Mozambique.
This local economic development project involved the promotion of economic opportu-
nities within the borderlands by promoting tourism projects (Rogerson, 2001).
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 13

However, the research results indicate that these measures were ineffective. To globalise
and localise the economic spillovers of corridor development, the economic characteristics
of each node should be strengthened through linkages to the corridor using local strategic
policy proposals. Lessons learnt from the Regional Industrial Development Programme
(RIDP) of the 1980s could be useful here (Geyer, 1989a). For instance, the RIDP had a
differential intervention strategy. Growth poles and growth points were classified accord-
ing to the special characteristics identified at each location, resulting in unique develop-
ment strategies for each class. This contrasts sharply with the MDC in which the whole
corridor area is administered under a single policy strategy. A similar strategy including
detailed policy prescription in the MDC could help customise policy strategies. Differences
in the EIF values and economic bases of nodes on or around the corridor require a refined
intervention approach for those nodes to respond to the impulses of the corridor. In
Maputo, local strategies could strengthen the local base economy as a foundation upon
which transhipment industries aid import/export functions, while in lagging secondary
nodes local industries could be linked to regional-level activities through backwards–for-
wards linkage strategies.
Finally, the evaluation must be cognisant of timeframes. Regional development initiat-
ives need to run for a long time to achieve substantial outcomes. The MDC initiative was
only launched in 1995. Unrealistic expectations led to the government beginning to with-
draw support by 2003 (Roodt, 2008). Commitment over a much longer period is needed
for this corridor to yield the required results.

5. Conclusion
The aims of the study were to determine the vitality of the MDC and the developmen-
tal impact of the corridor in terms of the growth pole theory. The study is particularly
focused on the potential advantages of the MDC as a development instrument, and
explores ways in which the state can improve developmental outcomes in the long
run. Corridors are a spatially organising tool that can be used to promote develop-
ment in a region using bundles of infrastructure to support logistics coordination,
trade facilitation, economic development and social development spillovers. The
MDC is a valiant attempt to achieve these goals by improving the physical infrastruc-
ture, and implementing a number of developmental projects. However, the develop-
ment strategy did not sufficiently address the needs of local stakeholders, focusing
on the uneven regional and transnational investment in selected nodes. The corridor
is also plagued with structural problems linked to a weak end node in Maputo, strong
secondary nodes, a long distance relative to the size of the nodes and uneven distri-
bution of developmental resources.
Generally, it could be concluded that the EIFs, access to services, employment oppor-
tunities, income levels and access to formal housing in nodes along and near the N4 spine
are in a better shape than those further apart. However, the SCIF is weakened by the low
EIF values of nodes and the large distances between them. It is recommended that inves-
tigations should be done to determine whether nodes near high-density rural settlements
could be promoted as growth poles.
The MDC case study provides three important lessons. Firstly, there appears to be an
overemphasis on private capital in the MDC methodology. As attested by Rogerson
14 W. DZUMBIRA ET AL.

(2001), Sihlongonyane (2006) and Söderbaum & Taylor (2001), neoliberalism and the
‘trickle-down effect’ may not always yield the expected social development goals over
the short term. The well-tested mixed approach of private and state investment in econ-
omic activities combined with the state-driven development of social overhead capital
(Hirschman, 1958) is needed. In the absence of local markets and a nationally competitive
labour force at nodes along the corridor, the focus of development should be widened to
the national or international scale.
In a growth pole model, the corridor develops on the strengths of the end nodes. For
this to happen, state intervention is essential. It would be a misconception to believe
that the private sector alone would be able to solve problems in peripheral areas along
the corridor over the short term. State intervention must be targeted in expanding the
local linkages in marginalised secondary nodes along the corridor and strengthening
the global linkages through transhipment processes at the Maputo end node. State inter-
vention is therefore necessary to develop spatially concentrated development in the punc-
tuated nodes along the length of the corridor. Here, linkages with local firms in secondary
nodes on the corridor should be prioritised.
Secondly, in evaluating the success of the corridor approach, decision-makers should be
cognisant of time frames. Regional development initiatives should be allowed to run for a
long time to achieve substantial results. The MDC initiative was only launched in 1995.
Unrealistic expectations led to the government beginning to withdraw support by 2003
(Roodt, 2008). Commitment over a much longer period will be needed for this corridor
to yield the required results.
Thirdly, in interpreting the outcome of the data analysis and seeking policy response
to the MDC initiative, lessons learnt from the RIDP of the 1980s could be useful
(Geyer, 1989a). For instance, the RIDP resulted in a differential intervention strategy.
The development potential of nodes was assessed individually according to each node’s
specific circumstances, resulting in unique development strategies for each type of node
(Brooks, 2010). This contrasts sharply with the MDC in which the whole corridor area
is administered under a single broad-brush policy strategy. Similar to the KZN Provincial
Spatial Economic Development Strategy, differences in the EIF values and economic bases
of nodes on or around the MDC require a differentiated intervention approach.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Albrechts, L & Coppens, T, 2003. Megacorridors: Striking a balance between the space of flows and
the space of places. Journal of Transport Geography 11(3), 215–24.
Andersson, P, 2000. The impact of the mega projects on the Moçambican economy. Gabinete de
Estudos Discussion Paper No. 18, 1–18.
Bek, D & Taylor, I, 2001. Evaluation of spatial development initiatives: Case studies of the Maputo
Development Corridor and the west coast investment initiative. Development Policy Research
Unit, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Blazek, J & Netrdova, P, 2009. Can development Axes be identified by socio-economic variables?
The case of Czechia. Geografie-Sbornik Ceske Geoficke Spolecnosti 114(4), 245–62.
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 15

Bohm, RA & Patterson, DA, 1975. Interstate highway and the growth and distribution of popu-
lation. Traffic Quarterly 29(1), 178–84.
Bond, P, 2002. Local economic development debates in South Africa. Logo, Cape Town.
Brand, A, Geyer, HS, & Geyer, HS Jr., 2015. Corridor development in Gauteng, South Africa.
GeoJournal, doi:10.1007/s10708-015-9683-x.
Brooks, F, 2010. Kwazulu-Natal spatial economic development strategy (PSEDS): Promoting urban
and rural linkages in the best interest of rural and urban development. Department of Local
Government and Traditional Affairs, Pietermaritzburg.
Brundige, D, Dawson, E, Massey, M & Moore, S, 2011. An economic development strategy for the
Trans-Kalahari corridor. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester.
Cape Town, 2012. Cape Town spatial development framework 2012: City space, planning Cape
Town. Cape Town: Cape Town Metropolitan Government.
Campbell, M, Hauptfleisch, A & Marx, H, 2009. The impact of the Maputo Development Corridor
on Socio-economic Development: A review of the Legislative and Regulatory Framework. TG59
People in Construction Conference, 12–14 July, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 39–54.
Chapman, D, Pratt, D, Larkham, P & Dickins, I, 2003. Concepts and definitions of corridors: evi-
dence from England’s Midlands. Journal of Transport Geography 11(1), 179–91.
Crush, J, Rogerson, CM, 2012. New industrial spaces: evaluating South Africa’s spatial development
initiatives (SDI) programme. South African Geographical Journal 83(2): 85–92.
CTMM (Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality), 2012. Cape Town spatial development frame-
work 2012: city space, planning cape town. Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality, Cape Town.
De, P & Iyenga, K, 2014. Making the case for economic corridors in South Asia. In De, P & Iyenga,
K (Eds.), Developing economic corridors in south asia, 1st ed. Mendaluyong, Asian Development
Bank, 1–14.
Friedmann, J, 1966. Regional development policy: A case study of Venezuela. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Furundzic, DS & Furundzic, BS, 2012. Infrastructure corridor as linear city. Paper delivered at 1st
International Conference on Architecture and Urban Design, Tirana, 19–21 April.
Gálves-Nogales, E. 2014. Making economic corridors work for the agricultural sector. FAO, Rome.
Gauteng, 2011. Gauteng spatial development framework 2011. Gauteng Provincial Government,
Johannesburg.
Gauteng, 2014 Gauteng growth management perspective. Gauteng Provincial Government,
Johannesburg.
Geyer, HS, 1987. The development Axis as a development instrument in the Southern African
development area. Development Southern Africa 4(2), 271–01.
Geyer, HS, 1989a. Industrial development policy in South Africa — the past, present and future.
World Development 17(3), 379–96.
Geyer, HS, 1989b. The terminology, definition and classification of development Axes. The South
African Geographer 16(1/2), 106–20.
Geyer, HS & Steyn, DS, 1989. The measurement of intra-metropolitan geo-economic space in South
Africa: The PWV area as an example. Town and Regional Planning Journal 26, 8–18.
Hanekom, F, 1982. The spatial structure of an economic system. In Hanekom, F. (Ed).
Decentralization towards 2000: A perspective on the good hope plan for the promotion of indus-
trial development as an element of a coordinated regional development strategy for South Africa.
Juta, Cape Town, 3–38.
Hansen. NM, 1972. Growth centers in regional economic development. Collier-McMillan, London.
Hartzenberg, T, 2001. South African regional industrial policy: from border industries to spatial
development initiatives. Journal of International Development 13(1), 767–77.
Hilhorst, JGM, 1973. Development axes and the diffusion of innovation. Development and Change
4(1), 1–104.
Hirschman, AO, 1958. The strategy of economic development. Yale University Press, New Haven,
CT.
Hurd, RM, 1924. Principles of city land values. The Record and Guide, New York.
16 W. DZUMBIRA ET AL.

Jomet, 1979. Johannesburg metropolitan transportation study: A summary of the investigation of

alternative land use and transportation strategies for 2000. Metropolitan Transport Advisory
Council of the Johannesburg City Council, Johannesburg.
Khoza, C & Willemse, L, 2013. Socio-Economic performance of municipalities along the Maputo
Development Corridor (MDC): implications for the national development plan (NDP) of
2011. Town and Regional Planning 63, 49–63.
KZN (KwaZulu-Natal), 2006. Provincial spatial economic development strategy. KZN Planning
Commission, Pietermaritzburg. No. 22 of 2000.
Mitchell, J, 1998. The Maputo Development Corridor: a case study of the SDI process in mpuma-
langa. Development Southern Africa 15(5), 757–69.
Papadaskalopoulos, A, Karaganis, A & Christofakis, M, 2005. The spatial impact of EU Pan-
European transport Axes: City clusters formation in the Balkan area and developmental perspec-
tives. Transport Policy 12(1), 488–99.
Parr, JB, 1999. Growth-pole strategies in regional economic planning: A retrospective view. Part 2.
Implementation and outcome. Urban Studies 36(8), 1247–268.
Perroux, F, 1955. Note sur la notion de pole de croissance. Economie appliqué 7, 307–20.
Pottier, P, 1963. Axes de communication et dévelopement economique. Revue Economique 14,
50–132.
Priemus, H & Zonneveld, W, 2003. What are corridors and what are the issues? introduction to
special issue: The governance of corridors. Journal of Transport Geography, 11(3), 167–77.
Rodriguez, JP, Comtois, C & Slack, B, 2006. The geography of transport systems. Routledge,
New York.
Rogerson, CM, 2001. Spatial development initiatives in Southern Africa: The Maputo Development
Corridor. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 92(3), 324–46.
Romein, A, Jacob, J & de Vries, J, 2003. The multi-scalar complexity of infrastructure planning: evi-
dence from the dutch flemish mega-corridor. Journal of Transport Geography 11(1), 2015–213.
Roodt, MJ, 2008. The impact of regional integration initiatives and investment in a Southern
African cross-border region: The Maputo Development Corridor. African Sociological Review
12(1), 88–102.
RSA (Republic of South Africa), 1975. National physical development plan for South Africa.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, Pretoria.
RSA (Republic of South Africa), 1981. Good hope plan of South Africa. Department of Foreign
Affairs and Information, Pretoria.
RSA (Republic of South Africa), 1995. Growth, employment and redistribution, a macroeconomic
strategy. Department of Finance, Pretoria.
RSA (Republic of South Africa), 2006. National spatial development perspective. Presidency,
Pretoria.
RSA (Republic of South Africa), 2011. New growth plan 2030. Economic Development
Department, Pretoria.
RSA (Republic of South Africa), 2012. National development plan 2030. National Planning
Commission, Pretoria.
Sihlongonyane, F, 2006 Debunking SDIS in South Africa. South African Geographical Journal 88
(2), 138–49.
Simon, D, 2003. Regional development-environment discourses, policies and practices in posta-
partheid Southern Africa. In Grant, JA & Söderbaum, F (Eds.), New regionalism in Africa.
Ashgate, Aldershot, 67–89.
Söderbaum, F & Taylor, I, 2001. Transmission belt for transnational capital or facilitator for devel-
opment? problematising the role of the state in the Maputo Development Corridor. The Journal
of Modern African Studies 39(4), 675–95.
Srivastava, P, 2011. Regional corridors development in regional cooperation. Working Paper Series.
Asian Development Bank.
Taylor, I, 2003. Globalization and regionalization in africa: reactions to attempts at neo-liberal
regionalism. Review of International Political Economy 10(2), 310–30.
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 17

Tekeli, I, 1975. A synthetic approach to development theories. Part 2. METU. Journal of the Faculty
of Architecture 2(1) 97–113.
Tuppen, JN, 1977. Axial Regions: An Appraisal of their Formation Evolution and Definition.
Discussion Papers in Geography No. 4. University of Salford, Salford.
UN-HABITAT, 2010. The state of African cities 2010: Governance, inequality and urban land
markets. UNON, Nairobi.
Van Huyssteen, E, Mans, G, le Roux, A, Maritz, J, Ngidi, M, & Maditse, K, 2015. Updated CSIR/
SACN South African Settlement Typology. CSIR, Built Environment. http://stepsa.org/pdf/
profiler/201508_South%20African%20Settlement%20Typology_Technical_Report.pdf
Warnich, S, & Verster, B, 2005. The Answer is Corridor Development, but what is the Question.
Proceedings of the 24th Southern African Transport Conference, 10–13 July, Pretoria, South
Africa.
Weaver, C, 1978. Regional theory and regionalism: towards rethinking the regional question.
Geoforum 9, 397–413.
Whebell, CFJ, 1969. Corridors: A theory of urban systems. Ekistics (168), 348–53.
World Bank, 2005. Best practices in corridor management. World Bank, Washington, DC.

View publication stats