IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/deveza/v17y2000i2p263-276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development Debate and Practice Revisiting the South African magisterial districts of 1999

Author

Listed:
  • Manie Geyer
  • Mark Orkin
  • Pali Lehohla
  • John Kahimbaara

Abstract

During the constitutional talks that preceded the democratic election of South Africa in 1994, final agreement could not be reached on the position of all new provincial boundaries. This resulted in so-called 'hard' and 'soft' boundaries, the former referring to sections of boundaries on which there was general agreement, and the latter to those where there were still differences of opinion about their position between the negotiating parties. Yet, as the building blocks of the new provinces and as the regional units most often used for planning and administrative purposes, it is the magisterial districts that were most severely distorted by the system of apartheid. In view of the changes that are taking place in the local government system of South Africa currently, especially the new district boundaries that have been announced by the Demarcation Board in November 1999, the distorting effect apartheid had on the boundaries of the previous magisterial districts, is demonstrated in this article. Various distortions are pointed out and changes are suggested which could significantly improve local, provincial and national governance in South Africa, if implemented.

Suggested Citation

  • Manie Geyer & Mark Orkin & Pali Lehohla & John Kahimbaara, 2000. "Development Debate and Practice Revisiting the South African magisterial districts of 1999," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 263-276.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:deveza:v:17:y:2000:i:2:p:263-276
    DOI: 10.1080/713661398
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713661398
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/713661398?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:deveza:v:17:y:2000:i:2:p:263-276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CDSA20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.