The Urban Book Series

Donald Okeke

Integrated Productivity in Urban AfricaIntroducing the Neo-Mercantile Planning Theory

The Urban Book Series

Aims and Scope

The Urban Book Series is a resource for urban studies and geography researchworldwide. It provides a unique and innovative resource for the latest developmentsin the field, nurturing a comprehensive and encompassing publication venue forurban studies, urban geography, planning and regional development.

The series publishes peer-reviewed volumes related to urbanization, sustainabil-ity, urban environments, sustainable urbanism, governance, globalization, urbanand sustainable development, spatial and area studies, urban management, urbaninfrastructure, urban dynamics, green cities and urban landscapes. It also invitesresearch which documents urbanization processes and urban dynamics on anational, regional and local level, welcoming case studies, as well as comparativeand applied research.

The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects,policy makers, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview ofcontemporary urban studies and innovations in the field. It accepts monographs,edited volumes and textbooks.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14773

Donald Okeke

Integrated Productivityin Urban AfricaIntroducing the Neo-MercantilePlanning Theory

123

Donald OkekeAfrican Settlements Research Group,Department of Urban and RegionalPlanning

University of NigeriaEnugu, Enugu StateNigeria

ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic)The Urban Book SeriesISBN 978-3-319-41829-2 ISBN 978-3-319-41830-8 (eBook)DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41830-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016945967

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or partof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmissionor information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromthe relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor theauthors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein orfor any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer NatureThe registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland

Foreword

In this book, Integrated Productivity in Urban Africa: Introducing theNeo-Mercantile Planning Theory, the author endeavours to and successfully makesa valuable contribution to the theme by introducing neo-mercantile planning theoryto the development of spatial systems. Consequently, this unique treatise focuses onthose components that direct integrated productivity within the urban componentsof Africa spatial systems. The book addresses the resilient gap in existing knowl-edge and related approaches through application of planning instruments as anecessary measure in redressing the urban productivity question typical of theAfrican economic systems.

The contents of the book is well structured in terms of the reigning perceptionsof urban productivity in Africa and the building blocks consisting of definitions,terminology, methodology, analysis and conclusions. The book includes a criticalassessment of the neoliberal philosophy and its interface with related theories fromboth urban and regional perspectives.

Both academics and practitioners share the need to formally address the chal-lenge of integrated productivity in the African spatial context through the adoptionof applicable planning theory based on neoliberal influences and developments.Dr. Okeke points out that the neoliberal planning serves as the delivery instrumentwithin neoliberal economies. In focusing on the failure of neo-liberal planningtheory and practice deriving mainly from inherent vitiation of green growth andspatial justice in Africa, the critical thinking and analytical abilities of the writer arebrought to bear.

In particular, the writer addresses compliances to neoliberal participatory plan-ning within certain national spatial systems of South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia andTanzania and its implications for the transformation in the education systems. It isessential to rethink the role of current education, training and practice, if sustainabledevelopment in both economic space and spatial development is the focus.

v

The book proposed a new direction in the application of neo-mercantilism, andthe way its related theory and planning instruments is developed. It rethinks thetraditional planning and development orthodoxies and approaches in terms of analternative theory with supporting territorial planning framework instruments topromote spatial integration. It establishes the development of alternative spatialplanning theory within Africa, a continent that is historically and otherwise beingdominated by the influences and impacts of colonial legacies as far as spatialplanning and development are concerned. This book contributes to the developmentof international theory in line with existing spatial, economic and political realitieson the African Continent. I believe the work is a ground-breaking publication as itconcerns the understanding of urban spatial systems and planning in Africa.

Prof. Carel B. SchoemanUnit for Environmental Sciences and Management

NWU (Potchefstroom Campus), South Africa

vi Foreword

Preface

The relevance of this book draws from the engagement with sourcing new Southernperspectives on urban and regional planning. For a long time and until now, thereexists a resilient gap in knowledge regarding the determination of appropriateplanning instruments for redressing urban productivity decline which has plaguedAfrican economy. The intellectual community has contended with this challenge inthe context of global hegemonic influences on planning theory. The dynamics inplanning theory exacerbated with the ascendance of neoliberalism as global eco-nomic orthodoxy since 1980s. This reality unleashed changes epitomized inneoliberal planning theory. Neoliberal planning serves as delivery instrument inneoliberal political economy. After more than three decades of experimentation,neoliberal planning theory is called to serious question due to indications of its poorperformance in the delivery of green growth and spatial justice in Africa.

Regardless the generally appreciable level of compliance to neoliberal partici-patory planning and the above average compliance identified for some Africancountries specifically South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia and Tanzania, the move forreforms in the curriculum of planning education in favour of neoliberal planningmodel is literarily put on hold following recent recourse to rethink neoliberalparticipatory planning paradigm. The rethink, which is intended to reinforce thetheoretical arsenal of planning, informed the sub-theme of South-South engage-ments: new Southern perspectives on urban planning in the 2014 AAPS conference.The forthcoming 2016 World Planning Schools Congress: Global Crisis, Planning& Challenges to Spatial Justice in the North and the South, organized by the GlobalPlanning Education Association Network (GPEAN), is also concerned withexploring Southern perspectives for planning.

The content of the proposed book is a timely response that postulates a theo-retically compelling Southern perspective of planning in the African context. Giventhe precarious disposition of African political economy and planning experience,the book proposes a new direction, which rethinks neoliberalism as meta-theory ofplanning in Africa. It pioneers an original school of thought that presents a generaltheory of planning for Africa in the twenty-first century.

vii

The book analyzes the development of planning paradigm in Africa since theturn of the twenty-first century. The primary purpose is to provide an insightfulrethink of trends in the development of existing planning orthodoxies. Theseplanning orthodoxies, which were conceived in the 1980s and thereafter with themindset that upholds neoliberal values, are diagnosed to have difficulties withdelivering spatial integration in Africa. Thus the book is particularly curious aboutthe vogue of informality in planning and argues that it derives from the meta-theorythat subjects Africa to dependent capitalism. The book contributes an alternativeplanning theory along with territorial planning framework instruments that aresensitive to the delivery of spatial regional integration for African renaissance.

The wide range of end users anticipated, which embrace the political class, theintellectual elite, and the academia who are concerned with planning, will find thebook useful at the meta-theoretical, theoretical and practical levels. At themeta-theoretical level, neoliberalism as development ideology for Africa is called toquestion. This is done against the backdrop of concerns for epistemologicalfoundations of external domination and ideologies in African political economy.The re-engineering of imperial trends is topical for new regionalism which currentlyengages the attention of the international community—the political class and theintellectual elite especially political scientists and role players at the African Union(AU). The theoretical level discusses the dynamics in the science of planning, itslinks and relationships with meta-theoretical issues, and the contributions of theacademia and research institutes as primary role players in this arena. Thus the bookcontributes planning theory reforms as an entry point to impact the pending reviewof academic curriculum for planning education in Africa. Then at the practical levelthe book serves as food for thought for the intellectual community and as point ofreference for planning consultants and development agencies.

Enugu, Nigeria Donald Okeke

viii Preface

Acknowledgments

May I acknowledge the divine providence which propelled the delivery of this workand the team spirit of my wife, Agatha and children, Paschal, Anita-Christie,Audry-Rose, and JohnPaul; also my elder brother Eric for his inspirational talks.I am grateful to Prof. C.B. Schoeman, my study leader at North West University(NWU), who inspired my disposition as African region scholar in planning studies.His intellectual guidance and that of my co-study leader Dr. E.J. Cilliers in thedelivery of my research at NWU, which informs the major contribution of thisbook, is herewith acknowledged. In the same vein, I acknowledge Prof. H.S. Steynof the Statistical Consultation Unit, NWU for his practical involvement in myresearch work. I accept responsibility for any omissions and errors.

ix

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Perceptions of Urban Productivity in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Extended Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.2.1 Urban Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.2.2 Spatial Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.2.3 Space Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.2.4 Imperialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121.2.5 Neoliberalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.3 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161.4 Analytical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171.5 Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181.6 Structure of Book Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Part I Theoretical Founding

2 Points of Departure and Major Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.1 Points of Departure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.2 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.3 Major Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.3.1 Theoretical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.3.2 Analytical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Part II Application of Theory to the Reality Within Africa

3 Epistemological Ideologies and Planning (in Africa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353.1 Imperial Space Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353.2 Informality in Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.2.1 Notions of Informality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

xi

3.2.2 Notions of Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413.2.3 Informality and Planning: Notions of Relationships. . . . 43

3.3 Informalization of Cities in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.3.1 Contextualizing Major Arguments

and Presumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.3.2 Diagnosis of Growth Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3.4 Basic Scenario of Planning in Select African Countries . . . . . . . 503.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4 Meta-Theoretical Frameworks of (Spatial) Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . 814.1 Traditional Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814.2 International Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844.3 Neoliberalism as Meta-Theory of Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5 Theoretical Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955.1 World-Systems Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955.2 Growth of Urban (Structure) Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975.3 Growth of Regional Development Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.3.1 The Concept of the Region and Regional(Economic) Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.3.2 Review of Regional Development Theories(from 1930s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.4 Growth of Urban Planning Theory (from 1960s) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105.4.1 Master Planning Paradigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125.4.2 The Participatory Planning Paradigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135.4.3 Theoretical Framework of Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

5.5 Spatial Models for Regional Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1175.5.1 The Extended Metropolitan Region (EMR)

and Growth Triangle (GT) Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1205.5.2 The Poly-centric Model Compared

with the EMR Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1215.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

6 Overview of Urban Planning Principles and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . 1256.1 Dynamics of Paradigm Shift in Planning Perspective . . . . . . . . . 1256.2 Trends in Statutory Planning Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1266.3 Trends in Spatial Planning Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1276.4 Trends in Spatial (Urban) Planning Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

6.4.1 Review of Sustainable Cities Programme(in Nigeria) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

xii Contents

6.5 Trends in Planning Practice: A Case Studyof the Resilience of Formal Planning Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1366.5.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1376.5.2 Preliminary Literature (Theoretical

and Analytical Frameworks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1386.6 Summary of Basic Scenario of Planning Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . 1426.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

7 Analysis of Current Reality (Principles and Practice) . . . . . . . . . . . 1497.1 Functional Flow of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1497.2 Deductions of Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

7.2.1 Timeframe Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1517.2.2 Regional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1527.2.3 MCA Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1527.2.4 Perception Analyses of Desktop Case Studies . . . . . . . . 1567.2.5 SWOT Analyses/Own Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

7.3 Test of Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1607.4 Scenario Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1627.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Part III Synthesis and Statement of New Theory

8 African Renaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1698.1 African Renaissance—a Theory of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 1698.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

9 Neo-Mercantilism as Development Ideology (in Africa) . . . . . . . . . . 1819.1 Neo-Mercantilism: A Rationale for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1819.2 Neo-Mercantilism as Development Ideology (for Africa) . . . . . . 1849.3 Neo-Mercantile Versus Neoliberal Development Ideologies . . . . 1889.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

10 Introducing Neo-mercantile Planning Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19310.1 Neo-African Spatial Development Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

10.1.1 Major Argument of Neo-African SpatialDevelopment Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

10.1.2 Neo-mercantile Planning Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19810.1.3 Neo-mercantile Planning Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20010.1.4 Neo-mercantile Planning Theoretical Framework . . . . . 20210.1.5 Elements of Neo-mercantile Planning Theory . . . . . . . . 203

Contents xiii

10.2 Spatial Integration Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21410.3 Urban Spatial Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21910.4 Measure of Time-Efficient Coefficient for the Classification

of Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22110.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Part IV Contribution to New Knowledge, Application andApproaches

11 New Knowledge in Planning (in Africa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22711.1 Visioning Process for Spatial Integration Network in Africa . . . 227

11.1.1 Priority Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22811.1.2 Vision Exposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22811.1.3 Vision Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

11.2 Priority Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23111.2.1 Assessment of Current Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23111.2.2 Priority for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23511.2.3 Proposed Action Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23511.2.4 Typology of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

11.3 Implementation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23811.3.1 Institutional Requirements and Implementation

Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23911.3.2 Manpower Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24211.3.3 Financial Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24211.3.4 Legal Reforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24211.3.5 Monitoring Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

11.4 Calendar of the Action Plans for Spatial RegionalIntegration in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

11.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

xiv Contents

Abbreviations

AAP African Association of PlannersAAPS African Association of Planning SchoolsADB/ADF African Development BankAGOA Africa Growth and Opportunity ActAMCHUD African ministerial conference on housing and urban developmentAPRM African peer-review mechanismASDP African spatial development perspectiveASEAN Association of South East Asian NationsAU African UnionCAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development ProgrammeCAP Commonwealth Association of PlannersCBA Community-based approachCBD Central Business DistrictCCD Convention to Combat DesertificationCDS City development strategyCEMAT European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional

PlanningCEN-SAD Community of Sahel-Saharan StatesCODESRIA Council for the Development of Social Science Research in AfricaCOMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern AfricaDCs Development corridorsDRC Democratic Republic of CongoEAP Environmental Action PlanECA Economic Commission for AfricaECCAS Economic Community of Central Africa StatesECOWAS Economic Community of West African StatesEMR Extended Metropolitan RegionEPM Environmental Planning and ManagementESDP European spatial development perspectiveEU European Union

xv

FDI Foreign direct investmentGDP Gross domestic productGDS Growth and Development StrategyGIS Geographic information systemGT Growth TriangleHOS Heckscher–Ohlin–SamuelsonICT Information and communication technologyIDP Integrated development planningILO International Labour OrganizationIMF International Monetary FundIPPP Integrated physical planning approachIRDA Integrated Regional Development ActLEED Local Economic Empowerment and DevelopmentMCA Multi-criteria analysisMDG Millennium development goalMPA Master planning approachNAIRU Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemploymentNBG NEPAD Business GroupNEPAD New perspectives on Africa developmentNIRDA National Integrated Regional Development ActNSDP National spatial development perspectiveNWU North West UniversityO&OD Opportunities and obstacles to developmentOAU Organization of African UnityPSDS Spatial development strategy/frameworkPUDs Planned unit developmentsR&D Research and developmentRAIDS Resource-based African industrial and development strategyRIFF Regional Integration Facilitation ForumSADC Southern African Development CommunitySAP Structural Adjustment ProgrammeSCP Sustainable Cities ProgrammeSDF Spatial development frameworksSDIs Spatial development initiativesSEED State Economic Empowerment and DevelopmentSEP Sustainable Enugu ProjectSEPM Strategic environmental planning and managementSIP Sustainable Ibadan ProjectSIPA Spatial integration planning approachSIPs Spatial integration planningSKP Sustainable Kano ProjectSMEs Small and medium enterprisesSUDP Strategic Urban Development PlanSWOT Strength, weakness, opportunity and threatTIPs Thematic Integration Planning

xvi Abbreviations

UDF Urban development frameworksUGBs Urban growth boundariesUK United KingdomUMP Urban Management ProgrammeUN United NationsUNCHS United Nations Center for Human SettlementUNDAF United Nation’s Development Assistance FrameworkUNDP United Nation’s Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nation’s Environmental ProgrammeUSA United State of AmericaUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWAEMU West African Economic and Monetary UnionWHO World Health Organization

Abbreviations xvii

Chapter 1Introduction

Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen andthinking what nobody has thought ……SIFE.

Abstract The resilience of the epistemological foundations of imperialism isdiagnosed to be the problem with urban productivity in Africa. Planning responsesfail to address this malaise because planning scholarship barely extends beyond theconsideration of the science of planning. The meta-theory of planning, whichengages the influence of development ideologies on planning, is seldom considered.This omission disenfranchises planning in the chessboard of political economy. Atthe moment, planning in neoliberal dispensation is delivering dependency in whichspatial systems in Africa function as imperial instruments. An extended definitionof terms is given in anticipation of the launch of the new planning theory.

Keywords Imperialism � Epistemology � Resilience � Formal planning �Neoliberal planning � Productivity � Informalization

1.1 Perceptions of Urban Productivity in Africa

Urban productivity decline is a common feature associated with African economy. Ithas been severally related to urbanization without growth. James Hicks of the WorldBank gave a graphic representation of this reality in 1998 and argued that over thepast 35 years the root cause of this phenomenon is not known (Hicks 1998). Inestablishing his position, he indicated that over the 1970–1995 period, the averageAfrican country’s urban population grew by 5.2 % per annum while its’ GDPdeclined by 0.66 % per year. This scenario has not significantly changed. Whatobtains in recent times is ‘growth without development’ still underlain with decliningproductivity. That is to say, growth expressed in positive GDP diagnosed in thecontext of increasing poverty and unemployment. Increase in investment, especiallythrough FDI, seem not to generate transformative growth of social systems in Africa.The perplexing growth which occurs has engaged the attention of the internationalcommunity over the years. Although since the turn of the twentieth century, the

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016D. Okeke, Integrated Productivity in Urban Africa,The Urban Book Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41830-8_1

1

concern of the international community is more out of fear that the declining Africaneconomy may adversely impact the global economy and not sympathy for Africa.

There are several perceptions of the performance of African economy.Perception approaches varies and with reference to the dominant informal economyin Africa Owusu (2007) diagnosed three positions: reformist, institutionalist andneo-Marxist. At the moment institutionalist perspectives are very influential inpolicy circles and have been incorporated into the work of neoliberal economists,policy advisors and non-governmental organizations, partly because it conforms tothe global push for neoliberal and supply-side economics (World Bank 1989: 10).The reformist perspective shares most of the indifference of the institutionalistposition towards exploitative capitalist economy in which Africa is at the downside. On the contrary, the neo-Marxist position is curious about the exploitativerelationships in capitalist production and distribution. The world system driven byglobalization subjugates this position in favour of institutionalist perceptions whichis receptive to the epistemologies that retain Africa in dependency.

Given the dominance of institutionalist perception, urban predicaments haveincreasingly ceased to be considered in the context of the epistemologies of Africancivilization. Although in the psyche of imperialists who endorse external domina-tion, African civilization is a nullity. This impression, which is expressed implicitlyin literature, has the tendency of signalling the dearth of an annals approach indiagnostic research for African development. What often obtains is spot evaluationsfraught with banal diagnoses of causalities in African urban dynamics. It is notuncommon to notice symptoms of this lapse tucked in here and there in accounts ofurban planning in Africa as presented by some African scholars, particularly thosecommissioned by external assistance agencies. Most of these studies are related toUN research efforts to transcribe urban planning in Africa. To this end attention isdrawn to three topical studies, namely, reassessment of urban planning in Africancities in 1999; a regional overview of the status of urban planning and planningpractice in Anglophone (sub-Saharan) African countries in 2009; and revisitingurban planning in sub-Saharan Francophone Africa in 2009.

This contribution shares the neo-Marxist concerns that appeal to redressing thesubmersion of Africa in dependent capitalism. Therefore, it recalls that the Africaneconomy is built on epistemological foundations of external domination whichreflect in environmental and labour capital exploitation (Nabudere 2003). This isresponsible for polarized pattern of development otherwise economic dualism issometimes equated with inequality. The scenario is known to fundamentallyinfluence the nature of urbanization in Africa and by implication economic growthand productivity. Hicks (1998) speculates that there could be some remainingdistortions in Africa’s urban economies and urbanization process that need to beidentified and rectified. His speculation confirms a possible disconnect betweenurbanization and economic growth in African countries. Although there is littleindication of an underlying theory which ties urbanization and economic growthtogether. Information available on their relationship such as the economy of scaleargument is often verbal and/or analytically speculative, dealing with correlationsrather than theoretically compelling causations (Graves and Sexton 1979).

2 1 Introduction

The African economy is the outcome of major political and socio-economictransformations in the form of colonization and the installation and management ofcapitalism, which defined historic systems in African civilization sincemid-fifteenth century. As Comfort Chukuezi (2010) stated ‘the process of capitalistpenetration of World economy and subordination of the Third World to the capi-talist system is effectively described in the works of authors such as Frank (1971)Bairoch (1975) and Wallerstein (1974)’. Deriving from these works Chukuezi aptlydeduced that the African economy, as it is the case with those of other developingcountries, is located at the periphery of the international capitalism. These econo-mies are structured to meet the needs of the capitalist system (Roberts 1978; Santos1979; Lowder 1986). They are made to assume a dependency status through var-ious mechanisms such as the control of commodity markets, the activities of themultinational companies and their subsidiaries, the control of the source of creditand interest rates and siphoning of resources from the indigenous society, etc.(Chukuezi 2010: 131).

This had a profound impact on support structures for productivity in Africansocieties. Notable is the change in mindset from transcendental ends in pursuit ofnation building to value systems that portray desperate pursuit of materialwell-being, the worship of private property and the polarization of wealth andincome (Dembele 1998). This is followed with structural changes in the spatialsystems particularly the space economy commonly tagged economic geography andthe city. The structure of spatial systems and their cities was primarily a result of themanner in which they had been integrated into an international capitalist systemfrom the sixteenth century, and the continuing pattern of integration underperipheral capitalism which is very different from the capitalist mode of productionin the developed capitalist countries (Chukuezi 2010: 131). The spatial systemsbecame imperial instruments for the delivery of external interests expressed initiallyin European mercantilism but now in Euro-American and Chinese mercantilism inthe context of prevailing neoliberal global economic orthodoxy.

Therefore, the incidence of imperial space economy in Africa dates back tomid-fifteenth century at the wake of European mercantilism. The colonial experi-ence exacerbated the situation leading to the incidence of imperial colonial townsand the reordering of trade routes. Essentially the economic geography wasrewritten to facilitate policy objectives of extraction and exploitative trade relations.Besides the redistribution of trade routes, cities in Africa became hybrids aninevitable product of intervening culture and policy formulation hegemony spurnabroad. African cities no longer derive from indigenous values, attitudes andinstitutions. They ceased to be responsive to indigenous enterprise and culture. As itwere ‘African cities’ became cities in the Diaspora in their homeland. Indeedindigenous African cities are technically near extinct.

Over the years, the epistemology of external domination remained resilient in theplanning and development of the city. Since the turn of the twenty-first century, theinformalization of cities is underway courtesy of the receptive attitude towards theinformal sector. This scenario is favourably disposed to the persistence of

1.1 Perceptions of Urban Productivity in Africa 3

pre-capitalist social formations and indigenous economies that act against the fullco-modification of land (in some regions) and labour in the capitalist economy thatwas introduced (Simone 1998). Already isolated urban hierarchies with limitedlinkages has developed in the urban region mainly in the form of urban-ruraldichotomy and the fragmentation of the private sector with extroverted modernsector sparsely related with the local economy (Hicks 1998). The spatial expressionof this trend reveals the incidence of pseudo-urbanization in which tertiary sectorrather than productive economic activities stimulate growth.

The informalization process found expression in neoliberal planning traditionwhich emerged in mid-twentieth century at the hills of severe criticism of classicmaster planning paradigm. It became the global planning orthodoxy for the deliveryof neoliberal global economy in the 1980s. Its basic mechanism implicated para-digm shift in spatial planning perspective from detailed to framework planning. Thetransition to neoliberal planning theory which suggests the reinvention of planning,received tacit support from UN-Habitat and the works of Watson (2009) which iscentred on the doctrine of informality in planning and the works of Roy (Roy 2009)which is centred on the doctrine of informality as epistemology of planning. As aresult addressing cross-cutting issues rather than core issues in planning became thevogue. Environmental management and decentralization policies now effectivelyusurp urban policies. Hence attention drifts from spatio-physical aspects of urbanform, expressed in the urbanity of cities, to urban quality issues that dwell ondegradation in socio-economic and environmental terms. This explains in part thefrail relation between modernist and post-modernist planning.

Consequently, planning practice became increasingly informal and pragmaticand coincidentally in the context of urban productivity decline in Africa. Thethematic treatment of planning dominated planning practice thus leading to theemergence of sectoral planning. Sectoral planning caused the subject matter ofplanning to transit to poverty issues. Thus pro-poor planning received impetus andthis heightened the fortunes of informality as a core determinant factor of planninginitiatives. The planning initiatives pay lip service to integration because they lackthe theoretical bases to address it. The unfolding features underpin the tenets ofneoliberal planning theory and independent nations tend to find their own synthesisdepending on their local conditions. However, as the tenets of neoliberal planninginfluence planning initiatives, the resilience of formal planning theory is noticed andremarkably acknowledged by UN-Habitat.

Against this backdrop, current trends in development planning point to theapproach of UN-driven new regionalism and the resilient cities concept. This trendis likely to dwarf the attention that sprouted on the concept of spatial justice shortlybefore the infiltration of the new regionalism and resilient city concept. The tenetsof spatial justice do not seem to share the common objective of imperialism in theglobal logic of restructuring as it is the case with new regionalism and perhapsresilient cities concepts. So far the theoretical base of new regionalism indicates amarket-driven concept for managing Euro-American and Chinese mercantilism inneo-imperial terms. This is linked with free-trade relations. Its focus on supportingspatial systems within nation-states links it with the resilience doctrine. This is why

4 1 Introduction

the determination of the resilience of cities in Africa calls for conceptual definitionotherwise a repeat of the resilience of imperial cities to changes in favour of Africanrenaissance during the independence period in mid-twentieth century is likely toreoccur. So far it is not clear how the resilience doctrine relates with re-engineeringthe epistemological foundations of imperialism in the development of spatial sys-tems in Africa. In the current syndrome of globalization, resilience to imperialismprovides an alternative school of thought for delivering the political economy ofAfrican countries. This relates more with the study objectives of spatial justice.Perhaps through this avenue, attempts could be made to rework the epistemologiesin spatial systems that retain African economy in dependency.

Unfortunately, the dispositions of neoliberalism and neoliberal planning theorytowards informality accede to the disregard of the epistemological foundations ofimperialism in the development of spatial systems in Africa. The degeneration ofplanning into informality consolidates these foundations of imperialism whichimplicates mindset and development ideology issues, the structure of cities andspace economy issues, the orientation of global political economy that schemes toretain Africa in capitalist materialism, the resilience of poverty rooted in depen-dency theory of the world system, and ultimately exploitative regionalism. Theseepistemologies, which are by no means exhaustive, are not compatible withenhanced urban productivity in Africa. A change subsumed in renewed planningapproach to rework spatial systems is imperative to enhance urban productivity inAfrica.

In strategizing for renewed planning approaches, it is imperative that newrealities in the outlook of imperialism have to be put into consideration. As suchwhile imperialism is still regarded as the bane of urban productivity in Africa it hassince dropped physical coercion in favour of social management to deliver struc-tured coercion of governmentality. Development approaches in contemporaryAfrica now have to contend with imperialism of administration and imperialism asinternational administration. The former interprets the system that prevailed inwhich the emerging ruling class at independence continued acting the script alreadywritten by the departing colonizers (Majekodunmi and Adejuwon 2012: 197). Thiscaused economic dependence as epistemology of imperialism to be resilientregardless political independence. The changes in the traditional system of base vis-à-vis culture, value system and worldview remained valid and resilient to reversion.Added to this development are vestiges of imperialism as international adminis-tration (Hawksley 2004: 22). This is manifested in the activities of UN-Habitat toaid development in African countries, which tend to turn from support to control(Okeke 2015: 191). This has heightened fears of neo-imperial plot as hidden agendain hegemonic development ideologies and processes. Nevertheless any renewedeffort that will effectively enhance productivity in African countries will have tocontend with these realities.

It is conclusive that spatial systems in Africa function as imperial instruments.A change in the functioning of the spatial systems is inevitable and dependent on

1.1 Perceptions of Urban Productivity in Africa 5

renewed planning. Some measure of radical approach is required to effect necessarychanges that involve direct engagement with demobilizing the new wave ofimperialism. To this end this book attempts to introduce a planning theory based onan independent study that analyzed spatial development paradigm for regionalintegration in Africa. The study conducted in 2010–2015 period in South Africasets out to review the quiet revolution that is sweeping through planning concepts inthe context of new imperialism. To this end, the first wave of growth managementin the 1960s and 1970s (Berke 2002: 24) justified the choice of 1960s as a limit toretrospection. The review placed emphasis on African experience to consider therational for the revolution in planning theory. The study was guided with territorialplanning principles along with the mindset that contemplates integration for Africanrenaissance which underpins growth visions for Africa. On account of the studyorientation a substantive and not classic planning theory is in contention. Theprospective theory portends to derive from convergent hypothesis of endogenousgrowth as it is established in regional development theories. However, the theorypresumes the demobilization of neoliberalism as development ideology in Africa.

1.2 Extended Definition of Terms

The terms isolated for extended definition play systemic role in the diagnosis ofplanning theory and practice in Africa. This subsection provides a theoreticallycompelling operative meaning of these terms, in some cases as new constructs ofexisting knowledge. This is considered necessary to provide a level plying groundand common threshold for subsequent analysis.

1.2.1 Urban Environment

It is common practice to relate urban phenomena to demographic increases andallied demographic indicators such as employment structures. The urban environ-ment is seldom perceived in practice as a dynamic ecosystem that is influenced bynatural processes energized with design priorities. This informs the partial under-standing of its patterns of growth and change. Subsequently widespread misun-derstandings of urban form and the recurrent misdirection of spatial planning areidentified. Edwardo (1990: 35) shares this view and Sternberg (cited in Arbury2005: 59) reinforced it with his argument that urban design lacks a cohesive the-oretical foundation. The two approaches of perceiving the urban environment givenbelow are new constructs, which will apply in this discourse.

First, the systems approach illustrated in Fig. 1.1 below upholds the idea that theurban environment is structured in three inter-related layers of natural systems

6 1 Introduction

comprising the system of base, the deep structure and the superficial structure. Thesystem of base indicates site-morphological factors of culture, technology, envi-ronmental factors, value system, world views, cosmology, etc. These factors informor impact the deep structure which deals with space-activity relationships. The deepstructure generates activity systems which are analyzed in different ways to explainland use functions, densities, distributions and growth and change characteristics inthe urban environment. The expression of the activity systems in space indicates thesuperficial structure. This is the spatio-physical form in the visual realm of urbanenvironment that has been widely addressed in theories of urban structure. It rep-resents the expression of the resulting spatial organization of activity systems thatcharacterize the urban environment. A further analysis identifies cultural andspiritual influences at the social-psychological and supernatural realm of the urbanenvironment.

Second, the spatial approach illustrated in Fig. 1.2 below visualizes three spa-tially segregated sections of the urban environment, namely the urban core area, theinner ring comprising the urban fringe defined as that cultural development thattakes place outside the political boundaries of central cities and extends to the areasof predominantly agricultural activity (Arpke 1942), and the outer ring (rural hin-terland). The different sections maintain systemic relationships in what constitutes(in spatial terms) the functional region of the urban economy. These sections dis-play functional coherence revealed in the form of the flow of socio-economicactivities. It is observed that the spatio-physical distribution of these activitiesmaintain critical relevance in this approach as can be seen in the borderless citiesconcept of ASEAN countries.

Fig. 1.1 The three layers ofurban environment. SourceOwn construction (2011)

1.2 Extended Definition of Terms 7

1.2.2 Spatial Planning

This aspect of planning concept referred to as ‘spatial planning’ was apparentlytaken for granted until the modernist period in planning (i.e. 1970s–1980s) when itdrew considerable attention and underwent re-engineering. As the wave ofchange-gained momentum spatial planning concept started shifting fromproduct-oriented to process-oriented activity, a process that was triggered by heavycriticisms against the master plan instrument. At the outset the master planningcritics (Altshuler 1965; Friedmann 1965; Meyerson 1973; Hansen 1968) adoptedthe technique of diffusing attention from design attributes of spatial planning tosocio-economic concerns.

As a theoretical concept, spatial planning diverts attention from the statutoryattributes of planning (as represented by statutory planning concept) to the broadspectrum of non-statutory attributes that apply on a wider scale. So in terms ofcoverage of issues and scale of operation, spatial planning is a more integratedconcept. Indeed it is an activity that may take different forms in different contexts,depending on institutional and legal context, or variations in planning cultures andtraditions (Healey 1997) Hence spatial planning discourse seldom proffers con-ceptual definition for spatial planning although Planning Officers Society, 2004maintain that there are ‘many definitions of spatial planning in existence’. There aredefinitions but often times these definitions are not theoretically compelling. Theyare either implied or subsumed in assessment statements of the quality of urbandevelopment. However, Adams et al. (2006: 45) presented compelling explanationsin their analysis of regional development and spatial planning in an enlargedEuropean union. Amongst other explanations spatial planning remained steadfast asa non-statutory, area-related public sector task.

The ‘Torremolinos Charter’ adopted in 1983 by the European Conference ofMinisters responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) presented one of the earliestdefinition of spatial planning. It states as follows:

Fig. 1.2 The three segmentsof the urban environment.Source Own construction(2011) derived from literature

8 1 Introduction

Regional/spatial planning gives geographical expression to the economic, social, culturaland ecological policies of society. It is at the same time a scientific discipline, an admin-istrative technique and a policy developed as an interdisciplinary and comprehensiveapproach directed towards a balanced regional development and the physical organizationof space according to an overall strategy.

The Royal Town Planning Institute offered two definitions. One is that ‘spatialplanning is critical thinking about space and place as the basis for action andintervention’ and the other defines spatial planning as ‘making of place andmediating of space’ (Kunzmann 2004: 385). According to Wales Spatial Plan:

‘Spatial planning is the consideration of what can and should happen where. It investigatesthe interaction of different policies and practices across regional space, and sets the role ofplaces in a wider context. It goes well beyond “traditional” land use planning and sets out astrategic framework to guide future development and policy interventions whether or notthese relate to formal land use control’ (Welsh Assembly Government 2008: 3).

In an independent representation of spatial planning Adams et al. 2006 statedthus: ‘spatial planning seems to reflect a more ambitious holistic approach to ter-ritorial development, incorporating all actors in a region to follow a joint vision forthe development of a geographically-defined territory’. They also stated that ‘spatialplanning is a particular form of public policy, one that claims to be focused on thespatial dimensions of a wide range of other sectoral policies, from economicdevelopment, transportation and environmental protection through to health, cultureand language’. Furthermore they explained that ‘the holistic feature of spatialplanning results from its cross-disciplinary nature, linking social and economic, aswell as cultural and environmental dimensions of urban and regional development’(Adams et al. 2006: 50). Another independent representation states that SpatialPlanning is the management of change, a political process by which a balance issought between all interests involved, public and private, to resolve conflictingdemands on space (Cilliers 2010: 73).

Given these definitions, it is upheld that spatial planning deals withspace-activity relationships and the distribution of resource utilization. It isnon-statutory and derives from spatial aspects of different categories of planningranging from local land use plans to trans-national spatial development frameworksexpressed in ‘territorial planning’ sometimes referred to as ‘Territorial Cohesion’.Strategic spatial planning is identified to focus on the physical design of areas andthe management of land use change through ‘town planning schemes’, whichdetailed the land uses allowed and their intensity.’ (Todes et al. 2010: 416). Alsocomprehensive spatial planning is identified with enlarged content, which looks atthe spatial dimension of all strategic policies and aim at integrating and coordi-nating all space-consuming activities in a geographic territory. It goes beyondtraditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for thedevelopment and use of land with other policies and programs which influence thenature of places and how they function. Spatial planning hereafter refers to thisdefinition (impression).

1.2 Extended Definition of Terms 9

The inherent procedural/methodological renaissance and scoping define thepoint of departure for comprehensive spatial planning models that encouraged ‘thedesign of spatial framework in which the evolution of society and economy couldbe accommodated (Albers 1986: 22)’. This elicits increased attention on under-standing local contexts and formulating guiding frameworks that inform landdevelopment and management (Landman 2004: 163). However, with these transi-tions to policy analysis and emphasis on procedural changes, spatial planning isendangered as a tool for practical application in direct intervention in geographicspace.

1.2.3 Space Economy

The space economy is contextualized from planning perspective. This effort tookbearing from a traditional subfield of the discipline of geography referred to aseconomic geography. Ab initio economic geography is held to be the study of thelocation, distribution and spatial organization of economic activities across theworld. Technically it refers to the mapping of economic activities in space. Alreadyeconomic geography has taken a variety of approaches to many different subjectmatters including the core-periphery theory, the economics of urban form, therelationship between the environment and the economy and globalization.

Economic geography found expression in classical location theories of regionaldevelopment. Within the 1930s–1950s periods Weber’s (1929) location theory andspatial organization theory that highlights the work of Walter Christaller’s (1933)central place theory, including growth theories represented in divergent and con-vergent hypothesis models especially Myrdal (1957) Cumulative causation theoryand Perroux (1950) Growth pole theory, respectively, were notable approaches. Thestructuralist and institutionalist theories concerned with the input of politicians andplanners in managing regional growth in their constituencies, which dominated the1950s–1980s periods, had little to do with economic geography. Neoclassicaltheories, which rekindled attention on economic geography, evolved in the 1990sleading to Endogenous Growth Theories and Krugman’s (1990) theory of NewEconomic Geography.

As economic inequalities are increasing spatially in the arising new economy,Krugman’s theory introduced the spatial dimensions of regional growth and trade. Itexpressed concern for social, cultural and institutional factors in the spatial econ-omy. The theory enabled economic geographers to study social and spatial divi-sions including the switch from manufacturing-based economies to the digitaleconomy. They either engage in sophisticated spatial modelling or explain theapparently paradoxical emergence of industrial clusters in a contemporary context(Perrons 2004). Emphasis is on growth rather than development of regions in whichcase the actual impact of clusters on a region is given far less attention, relative tothe focus on clustering of related activities in a region (Perrons 2004). Bothapproaches, however, acknowledge the importance of knowledge in the new

10 1 Introduction

economy, possible effects of externalities, and endogenous processes that generateincreases in productivity. At the moment the development of economic geographydrifts along those lines.

The space economy is further considered against the backdrop of urban ecologyvis-à-vis urban economic functions. Similar to economic geography, urban ecologyis concerned with the pattern of distribution of urban functions although it differswith considering distribution in space and goes further to address the dynamics inpatterns of distribution given changes in critical variables such as planning controls.Thus unlike economic geography, the ecology of urban functions does not dwell oneconomic models, specifically descriptive input-output model, constructed to fitinto the traditional models of the economy. Nourse (1968) indicated that this cat-egory of models, which isolate the critical variables causing change in urbaneconomy, show tendencies. The point of departure lies with how the geographicdistribution of economic activity will change with changes in the critical variables.This is why the ecology of urban economics is rather disposed to function withdynamic theories that predict resultant changes in patterns of distribution of urbaneconomic functions within the urban spatial environment. Simulating this categoryof dynamic theories is outstanding and should be given priority attention in researchagenda for planning, especially now that spatial imbalances that accrue from naturalprocesses in the development of economic land use patterns are primarily respon-sible for theoretical predictions that now exist in urban economic analysis andmodel building.

The spatial expression of the space economy as an activity system draws fromthe definition of the urban environment as a system of relationships between threefunctional layers: the system of base which addresses the environmental factors andthe culture and value system of the people in the locality; the deep structure, whichaddresses activity-space relationships; and, the superficial structure, which is theexpression of the urban form in physical space (Okeke 2015). The three layers existin a system of causal relationship and are therefore mutually dependent. Suffice it tosay that the system of base feeds the deep structure and the deep structure in turnfeeds the superficial structure. The superficial structure by way of reaction impactsthe system of base sometimes adversely resulting in climate change, globalwarming, deforestation, etc.

As an activity system the space economy graphically relates to all three layers ofthe urban environment. At the system of base, it relates to the ecosystem of naturalresource and their distribution in space. In planning studies, these resources areregarded as the economic base of the environment. Depending on the worldviewand value system of the human capital, the use of the resource base reflects thelivelihood support system. The support system determines space-activity relation-ships. At the realm of the deep structure of the environment, models of theserelationships are constructed in economic space that exists in mental abstraction.The neoliberal economic models conceived in Africa within the 1970–2000 periodsare typical examples. These models deal with space economy in abstract economicspace as it is the case with Ann Roell Markusen’s (1985) study approach. Themodels are normally translated into physical space through a planning process and

1.2 Extended Definition of Terms 11