One of the three cities in the GCR, ekurhuleni, falls second last, and some way (0,15) behind the mean. the manufacturing base in Ekurhuleni has suffered as a result of the global recession, while service delivery has also been poor, and unhappiness with the quality of service delivery in Ekurhuleni correspondingly high.
Ekurhuleni needs to elevate its investment platforms to avoid a lengthy (or even terminal) decline.
There is a marginal 0,12 difference (out of 10) between the mid-range cities and municipalities, from tshwane in third place to emfuleni, third from the bottom. if targeting is to include a spatial element, this should help inform the provincial strategy.
The GCR includes some high performing municipalities – notably Randfontein (0,2 above the mean) and Midvaal (0,17 above the mean) and two high-performing metropolitan municipalities – Tshwane and Johannesburg. Westonaria, however, consistently scores lowest in virtually all aspects of service delivery.
Westonaria is the poorest municipality in Gauteng, reflected in its overall score of 5,77.
The only significant positive score came in the health dimension, with reasonable scores for family, community and housing.
Negative scores included the dimensions of work, security, socio-political and global.
In Ekurhuleni, which got an overall average score of just 6.10 (the provincial average was 6.25), the score was pulled down primarily by the ‘work’ dimension – i.e. the high levels of unemployment – and by the socio-political dimension, suggesting poor social capital. Scores were pushed up by infrastructure, in particular, followed by housing and health. Government investment seems to be pushing scores up, but the poor economy and low social capital are having a very negative effect.
In Emfuleni, which had an overall score of 6.21, scores were pushed up by the housing and infrastructure dimensions of quality of life. As in many other parts of the province, however, the ‘work’ dimension pulled scores down – not least because of the absence of work (‘work’ thus measures unemployment).
In Mogale, scores were driven up by positive results in the areas of infrastructure, followed by housing and health. Scores were pulled down by ‘work’ and the socio-political dimension. Many other dimensions, such as family, community and connectivity scored reasonably well.
In Merafong, as in many other places, government investment in health, housing and infrastructure pulled scores up. While the ‘work’ dimension pulled scores down – as everywhere else – it is notable that most dimensions in Merafong scored reasonably well, and only the ‘work’ dimension had a significant negative impact.
In Lesedi, scores were pulled up by three dimensions in particular, namely housing (by some margin), followed by infrastructure and health. As elsewhere, the ‘work’ dimension pulled scores down significantly, followed by the socio-political dimension.
In Johannesburg, four of the ten dimensions of quality of life scored above the provincial average of 6.25, namely (in descending order) infrastructure, housing, health and family. Another two were above Johannesburg’s own score of 6.32, namely connectivity and community. The scores that pulled Johannesburg down came primarily from the ‘work’ dimension, followed by socio-political issues.
Tshwane scored an impressive 6.33 on the overall index, with its score pushed by by positives in housing, infrastructure, family and health. Good scores were also to be found in connectivity and community, but the negatives came in from the work and socio-political dimensions of the index.
In Midvaal, the negative dimensions were ‘work’, and then ‘global’ (one’s overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction with one's life) and ‘socio-political’. The positives, which scored well, were housing, infrastructure, health and family. Other dimensions also scored well including community, connectivity and security.
In Randfontein, which had the highest overall score of 6.45, the results were pushed up by high scores in the dimensions of housing, followed by infrastructure, family and health, with still good scores in connectivity, community and security. The negative scores were primarily ‘work’ and ‘socio-political’.