Legitimating Business Improvement Districts in Johannesburg: a discursive perspective on urban regeneration and policy transfer

Abstract

This article considers the transfer of the Business Improvement District model to South Africa from a discursive perspective. It examines the ways in which the private sector (property and business owners) has justified the adoption of the model and how it has moulded the concept to Johannesburg’s inner city. Drawing on critical discourse analysis, this article focuses on legitimation strategies, locating them within broader social practices and power relations within the framework of urban revitalization policies implemented after the democratic transition. By focusing on legitimation strategies, and more particularly on their linguistic and semiotic aspects at the micro level, the article shows how the analysis of language use, particularly through a socio-cognitive approach (Van Dijk, 2009), can contribute to uncovering the opinions, attitudes, ideologies, norms and values of social actors. It can also offer insights into a local reinterpretation of a globally circulating model. The comparative analysis of two case studies highlights changing assumptions and attitudes, at least in local rhetoric, and demonstrates how the imported model has been reshaped not only by different discourses associated with various social practices but also by changing policy demands. By considering discourse as an instrument of the social construction of reality as well as an instrument of power and control, the chosen approach also underlines the way in which inequalities are reproduced and maintained in Johannesburg.

Keywords

Business Improvement Districts critical discourse analysis Johannesburg policy transfer urban regeneration

Introduction

Urban regeneration policies have attracted much interest in academic and practitioner literature. What was labelled a ‘pervasive metaphor’ (Furbey, 1999: 419) has established itself within the urban policy lexicon in various geographical contexts and has led to a wide range of policies and strategies. Scholars have demonstrated that these continually evolving responses reflect the fluctuating definitions of urban regeneration, the various conceptualizations of urban problems, and the different ways in which the causes of poverty, deprivation and economic decline are framed (Beauregard, 1993; Lloyd et al., 2003; Dargan, 2007).

Recently, debates on urban regeneration have been triggered by the global diffusion of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) from North America to Europe and other continents (Hoyt, 2006; Ward, 2006; Pütz, 2008; Cook and Ward, 2012; Eick, 2012; Marquardt and Füller, 2012; Lippert, 2012), including into South Africa (Miraftab, 2007; Dubresson, 2008, Peyroux, 2008; Didier and Morange, 2009). BIDs are self-taxing perimeters in which business and property owners agree to pay an additional tax (levy) in order to maintain and upgrade public spaces, principally through the provision of additional services such as security and cleaning, but also increasingly landscaping, marketing, branding and social services. They are often based on public–private partnerships. As is the case in Europe, South Africa’s adoption of this model (under the name of City Improvement Districts, or CIDs) was motivated by the success of certain emblematic US BIDs, which stand as powerfully convincing examples of ‘best practice’ for national and local policy makers (Füller 2012). This process took place in a context of political change and urban transformations linked to the demise of the apartheid regime and shifting economic bases. It coincides with a neoliberal turn, particularly noticeable in urban regeneration policies (Didier et al., 2009).

The transfer of BIDs based on a handful of successful cities raises a number of issues that echo wider debates on urban policies. As stated by Amin and Graham (1997: 417): ‘The problem with paradigmatic examples is that analysis inevitably tends to generalize from very specific cities, both in identifying the changing nature of urban assets and highlighting normative suggestions for policy innovation elsewhere.’ In the case of BIDs, the influential North American examples also question the underlying conceptions of urban problems and constructions of local issues that justify the transfer of the model and subsequently shape the strategies. This calls for an exploration of the meaning and consequences of the circulation of models outside North America, particularly their adoption in contrasted urban contexts such as in Europe and Africa.

In this article I therefore consider the transfer of the BID model to South Africa¹ from a discursive perspective and examine the ways in which the private sector (property and business owners) has justified the adoption of the model and how it has moulded the concept to Johannesburg’s inner city. Drawing on critical discourse analysis (CDA), I focus on legitimation strategies, locating them within broader social practices and power relations in the context of urban revitalization policies implemented after the democratic transition. Legitimation strategies appear all the more relevant to analyze because CIDs in Johannesburg have generated tensions and controversies, as they have done elsewhere. Although not as widely contested as other neoliberal reforms in service delivery, BIDs are at the core of crucial debates in a post-apartheid context owing to their exclusionary effects (Didier et al., forthcoming).

By focusing on the discursive dimension of policy transfer through a critical perspective, this article complements other studies on BIDs and sheds light on aspects that have yet to receive academic attention.

With the exception of Cook (2008) and Ward (2005) in their analysis of the transfer of BIDs to the UK, the concrete discursive strategies used by social actors to establish the legitimacy of BIDs and shape their appropriateness in different urban settings have been under-explored. The literature on the spreading of BIDs has mainly focused on the process of international diffusion (Hoyt, 2006), with a focus on the role of global circuits of policy knowledge (McCann and Ward, 2010) and the integration of BIDs as a new governance and service delivery mechanism in the wider context of neoliberalization processes (Lloyd et al., 2003; Ward, 2006; Miraftab, 2007; Didier et al., 2009). Other approaches have focused on the object of the BID itself and its political and socio-spatial implications, in terms of social exclusion, discrimination and excessive policing of public spaces (Töpfer et al., 2007).

By focusing on legitimation strategies, and more particularly on their linguistic and semiotic aspects at the micro level, I show how the analysis of language use can contribute to uncovering the opinions, attitudes, ideologies, norms and values of social actors and shed light on the local reinterpretation of a globally circulating model. By considering discourse as an instrument of the social construction of reality as well as an instrument of control and power, CDA also provides important insights into the social constitution of power relations and their implications regarding the way in which inequalities are reproduced and maintained in Johannesburg. Although the focus of this article is a South African example, the approach highlights policy implications that could be relevant for European cities where the BID model is currently being adopted or under discussion.

The first section of the article presents a theoretical and methodological framework based on the social and cognitive approach of Van Dijk (2009) and ‘the grammar of legitimation’ of Van Leeuwen (2007). The second section places the case studies within the context of political, urban and economic change that have characterized the post-1994 period in Johannesburg. It then analyses some of the discursive properties of the legitimation strategies in two different CIDs with a focus on the construction of social reality (in relation to urban and economic decline) and on the representation of social actors and social groups that underline the argumentation. The third section summarizes key research results. The comparative analysis highlights changing assumptions and attitudes, at least in local rhetoric, and demonstrates how the imported model has been reshaped not only by different discourses associated with various social practices but also by changing policy demands.

Discourse and power in policy transfer and urban regeneration

The discursive power of actors involved in policy transfer has been emphasized in relation to their capacity to justify policy transfer and promote policy ideas. Attention has been paid to the way these individuals ‘construct the intellectual infrastructure for cross-national learning and create justifications for transfer’ (Stone, 2001: 22). The discursive resources of these ‘policy entrepreneurs’ (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996: 345) have been underlined: ‘They help transfer the intellectual matter that underpins policies. They can provide the rhetoric, the language and scholarly discourse to give substance and legitimacy to certain preferred positions in the manner of discourse coalitions’ (Stone, 2001: 21).

The influence of ‘policy entrepreneurs’ can be linked to broader debates on the political influence of experts and their ability to identify and define problems and subsequently shape policy arguments and solutions. Because policy ideas tend to emerge independently of public discussion, these debates have underlined the democratic risks and challenges of practices that contribute to marginalizing citizen participation (Fischer, 1993).

The role of ‘policy entrepreneurs’ in the international spread of the BID model has been emphasized, and more particularly the role of what Stone (2001: 7) calls ‘transnational policy communities of experts and professionals’. This is well illustrated by the adoption of BIDs in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. They witnessed national and international ‘policy networks’ – composed of property owners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), public agencies, private consultancy firms, elected officials – actively engaged in sharing information, ideas and resources with the support of international organizations such as the International Downtown Association (IDA), the Association of Town Centre Management (ATCM) or the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (Hoyt, 2006). Although acknowledging this trend, I focus here on the construction of legitimacy by local actors and the ways in which they mobilize both international references and local representations to support their strategies. I shed light on the diversification of the model by looking not only at what is transferred but also into the ideology, attitudes, norms and values that underline policy transfer (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996). As demonstrated by Ward in the context of the UK (2005: 10), the transfer of BIDs may indeed be supported by an ‘anti-government ideology’.

Discourse analysis, in particular critical approaches rooted in linguistics, appears relevant to identify the assumptions and ideologies underpinning policy transfer. These approaches allow us to better apprehend the ways in which social actors reinterpret globally circulating models and integrate them within their strategies for change.

CDA approaches have proven to be appropriate for the analysis of legitimation strategies in relation to organizational change within business structures and corporations, particularly with regard to controversial actions (Vaara and Tienari, 2008; Erkama, 2010). CDA has also been mobilized to address issues in the field of urban policies, such as the development of new discourses within local governments (Salskov-Iversen, 1997), power relationships in partnerships (Hastings, 1999) or landlord communication strategies (Taylor, 1999). These approaches have also been used to analyse the legitimation strategies behind the mobilization of BIDs within the UK (Cook, 2008).

The socio-cognitive approach of Van Dijk relates to the socio-psychological dimension of the CDA field. His work focuses on the relationships between discourse, power, dominance and social inequalities (Van Dijk, 1993). His approach acknowledges that modern power includes a major cognitive dimension: ‘(…) the exercise of power usually presupposes mind management, involving the influence of knowledge, beliefs, understandings, plans, attitudes, ideologies, norms, and values’ (Van Dijk, 1993: 257). Power is considered here in its social dimension and not from a purely individual perspective. Van Dijk distinguishes legitimate and acceptable forms of power from abusive power referred to as dominance.

Drawing on social representation theory, Van Dijk understands cognition as ‘the set of functions of the mind, such as thought, perception, and representation’ and stresses the importance of collective frames of perceptions, i.e. mental representations, conceptualized as ‘models’ (Van Dijk, 2009: 64,65). His interest lies in the ‘socio-cognitive interface of discourse, that is, the relations between mind, discursive interaction and society’ (Van Dijk, 2009: 65). Van Dijk distinguishes ‘context models’, which are pragmatic and relate to the conditions, properties and constraints of the communicative situation, and ‘event models’, which are semantic and subjectively represent the event to which the discourse refers (Van Dijk, 2009: 65, 76). Event models are subjective in that they refer to ‘personal interpretations of events’ but they have ‘a social basis, because they instantiate socially shared knowledge and possibly also group ideologies’ as people selectively interpret and represent not only the events themselves but also their opinions about said events (Van Dijk, 2009: 77). Van Dijk’s approach is rooted in linguistics and pays attention to the detailed structures, strategies, properties and functions of text and talk and their influence on the readers. This approach led to the analysis of discursive strategies such as grammatical structure, lexical style, syntax and rhetorical figures.

Van Dijk has drawn on Van Leeuwen’s ‘grammar of legitimation’ to analyse legitimation strategies, in particular in relation to controversial political actions (Rojo and Van Dijk, 1997). Van Leeuwen (2007) developed a framework for analysing elements of the language of legitimation as they occur in public communication as well as in everyday interaction. Four major categories of legitimation are identified: authorization is based on custom (conformity and tradition) and law, impersonal or personal authority, or expertise; moral evaluation refers to value systems; rationalization refers to the specification of purpose, functions, strategies and effectiveness; mytho-poesis is legitimation conveyed through narratives, i.e. stories about what good or bad may happen when one does (or does not) do what is expected. Considering the constraints of this article, only the first three dimensions of legitimation are presented.

The two CIDs analysed in this article were selected from the six legislated CIDs and the seven voluntary or informal ones implemented in the inner city. They were chosen on the grounds of their differentiated socioeconomic profiles: one (the Central Improvement District) is a corporate and business district within the Central Business District (CBD); the other is a low-income residential area within the inner city (Legae La Rona City Improvement District). As such they are emblematic not only of different types of urban and social issues but also of two types of discourse about urban regeneration and urban governance, as shown by their Business Plans (BP). The first BP (2001) displays a functionalist and managerial vision of the city. The second (2006) formulates a more socially aware and inclusive discourse, in line with the shift in public discourses. Finally, they are managed by different categories of stakeholders: the Central Johannesburg Partnership (CJP), a non-profit organization that initiated the adoption of the BID model in Johannesburg in the early 1990s; and an inner-city property development company with a large number of properties that include mostly residential rental units. This choice covers different social practices and perspectives.

The BP was selected as an object of analysis because it is the sole document presenting the CID’s visions, strategies and activities. The BP is also a key document in the legalization process; it is used to gain the support of property owners and to obtain approval from local authorities. It therefore displays an explicit argumentation about the relevance and appropriateness of the CID. Once the majority of property owners have approved and the CID is legalized, the payment of the levy becomes compulsory for all property owners within the perimeter.

The BP provides a description of the socioeconomic environment and an identification of the issues to be addressed. As a genre (text type), the BP belongs to corporate discourse and is associated with a style influenced by corporate and business vocabulary. Particular processes of producing, distributing and consuming texts, as well as their ‘compositional structure’, are associated with this genre (Fairclough, 1992: 126). As for the CIDs, the BP is constrained by the Gauteng City Improvement Districts Act (1997), which dictates the choice of topics and their hierarchical importance (and therefore frames the context model). A common outline with five sections is specified: CID identification; CID description and motivation; existing and proposed services in the CID area; CID budget (over a period of three years); attachments (the list of property owners having signed the petition and any other document assumed relevant by the author of the BP). The Act also specifies that the consistency of the CID with current land development and urban policies must be demonstrated. The management of CIDs is also specified in the Act.²

Legitimation strategies in two contrasted CIDs

The CID model was adopted in the 1990s as government structures and the delivery of public services were undergoing major reforms. Between 1995 and 2000, previously racially segregated local governments were amalgamated into a ‘Unicity’, the new metropolitan authority designed to overcome the divisive legacy of apartheid. Urban integration – as a redress for past imbalances – and the improvement of material conditions were at the heart of policy debates (Beall et al., 2002; Tomlinson et al., 2003; Parnell and Robinson, 2006). This was a period of intense social tension. A portion of the inhabitants of the former ‘white’-only suburbs boycotted property rates during institutional restructuring. Social movements contested the privatization and outsourcing of public services that followed (Bond, 2007).

Concomitant with these processes, the inner city was suffering from economic decline and physical degradation. In addition to the deindustrialization process and the loss of related employment, the CBD was gradually affected by the rise of suburban economic nodes in the former ‘white’ only areas from the 1970s onward; the loss of major department stores in the 1980s; and accelerated ‘capital flight’ in the 1990s, with large companies and even the Johannesburg Stock Exchange relocating to the suburbs in a context of growing concern over crime, poor public transport and lack of parking facilities. As a result, offices were increasingly vacant, rents fell, property values sank and municipal rates followed (Tomlinson, 1999; Beavon, 2004).

The end of statutory racial segregation and discrimination has led to major sociodemographic change in the inner city. The original population of certain former ‘white’ inner-city neighbourhoods, such as Yeoville, Hillbrow and Berea, moved to suburban neighbourhoods in the 1980’s. They were replaced, first by Indians, then by a predominantly African population, leaving escalating repression and violence in overcrowded townships. The new residents of the central city, although poorer than their former counterparts, were relatively well off; the central city is not where poverty is concentrated (Tomlinson, 1999; Morris, 1999). Migration from other African countries has also fuelled the inner city, and immigrants are said to contribute to the growth of the informal trading sector and of the narcotic trade (Simone, 1998). Squatting, overcrowded buildings and the collapse of landlord–tenant relationships have led to further deterioration of housing and living conditions. Crime has increased sharply (Beavon, 2004). Tomlinson (1999: 1655) points out that the Johannesburg central city had become ‘the critical point of integration between black and white, rich and poor, and – in the minds of many – order and disorder’.

Socioeconomic profile and the management of the two CIDs

The CJP established and manages the Central Improvement District. It is a non-profit organization that federates major business and corporate structures and provides consulting services for public and private stakeholders. The CJP actively lobbied for the adoption of BIDs through various strategies including launching pilot CIDs in the CBD, organizing study tours of US BIDs for representatives of the public and private sectors, and participating in the formulation of the 1997 Vision of the Inner City with the cooperation of the IDA (see Tomlinson, 1999, for an analysis of the influence of the IDA on perceptions of decline in the 1990s). The CJP also assisted the provincial government in drafting the CID legislation (CID Act).

The district (legislated in 2003) has been managed as a voluntary improvement district since 1995 and covers 25 city blocks. The area is characterized by large office buildings with mixed retail on the ground floor and by a major shopping complex. The district encompasses the Gandhi Square bus terminal, which has been redesigned by a property housing company with large assets in the inner city (see Peyroux, 2008). There are some retail components on the ground floor and the upper floor spaces of the buildings fronting the Square are dominated by trade and commerce (CJP, 2001).

The CIDs implemented in the CBD’s corporate and business areas from the mid-1990s onwards reflect a functionalist and managerial vision of the city that also dominated public discourse. In line with the national shift towards neoliberal policies by the ruling African National Congress (ANC), urban policies (the 1997 Vision of the Inner City, the 2002 Joburg 2030 policy document, and the 2003 Inner City Regeneration Strategy) were driven by growth and the ‘African World Class City’ paradigms. These policies promoted a vision whereby social conditions were harnessed to the economy. The corporate business community supported them, in contrast to the anti-privatization movement (Beauregard and Tomlinson, 2007). These CIDs, and the CJP, have been the targets of harsh critics from the Gauteng Hawkers Association, which denounces the eviction of hawkers from street pavements and informal markets and their subsequent relocation to formal markets.

The Legae La Rona City Improvement District (legislated in 2008) has been operated as a voluntary CID since 2005. It was initiated by a property company that provides housing by refurbishing, upgrading or reconverting degraded and/or abandoned buildings, which it buys in part through a municipal programme. The district is a densely populated residential area (with rental and sectional title apartment buildings and houses) situated in the northern part of the inner city (Berea). It is dominated by apartment buildings built in and after the 1960s for the most part. Some houses date from the 1920s and 1930s. A number of schools, one park and various religious organizations are found in the district. Currently there are no formal businesses or commercial facilities (shopping, entertainment, recreational services) in the area (Legae La Rona, 2006).

This CID, along with another one located in the neighbouring area of Hillbrow (eKhaya Neighbourhood), illustrates a discursive shift towards a more socially aware vision of the city. This shift has been noticeable within a number of policy documents from the mid-2000s onwards (see, for instance, the 2006 Growth and Development Strategy, the 2008/9 Draft Integrated Development Plan³ and the 2007 Inner City Regeneration Charter). These documents demonstrate an attempt at developing a more balanced approach to urban development and have re-emphasized the developmental role of the local state, following the national shift from the emblematic Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR⁴) programme to the new macro framework of the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative state policy (ASGI-SA). Though the growth and ‘World Class’ paradigm remains, there is an attempt to enlarge the pool of beneficiaries of economic growth through the expansion of the safety net. Both inclusionary housing and a more developmental approach to informal trading, which acknowledges the role of the ‘second economy’, have been promoted.

Semantic domain

The semantic domain of the Central Improvement District’s BP is business, corporation and urban management. The overall activities are those advocating CIDs as an appropriate tool for urban management. The local setting is not only the planned Central Improvement District but also the contiguous areas where voluntary CIDs have been implemented. The stated aim of the CJP is to formalize all voluntary CIDs located in the CBD. The spatial perspective is therefore larger than the district and encompasses the whole inner city, whose trends, assets and issues are described along with those specific to the district. The BP’s addressees/readers are referred to as ‘property owners’, ‘property owners and/or tenants’ or ‘local business community’. They are addressed directly, as shown by the use of the possessive adjective ‘your’ (‘your area’), which can be read both as property ownership and a more general sense of belonging to the place. The use of this adjective also emphasizes the unity and homogeneity of the group that the CJP claims to represent, as the advocate of its interests.

The semantic domain of the Legae La Rona’s BP is the residential economy, urban management and governance. The overall activities are those advocating CIDs as an appropriate instrument not only for urban management but also for fostering partnerships with metropolitan authorities and building social cohesion. The local setting is the district, with some references to the neighbourhood areas (Hillbrow, Yeoville), which are mentioned as part of the urban regeneration strategies led by public authorities. The spatial perspective therefore partly encompasses the perimeter of public interventions as the consistency of the CID with Land Development Objectives and Integrated Development Plans is stated. The addressees/readers are both the metropolitan authorities (as addressees of the introductory letter) and the members of the association. They are not addressed directly. They are designated under two categories, which reflect a broader social basis for the CID: the ‘Directors and Members’ comprise property owners and representation of the City of Johannesburg and ‘residents’; the ‘Stakeholders’ comprise ‘property owners, housing managers, caretakers, residents’. The property owners are also referred to as ‘the petitioning owners of rateable properties’ when addressing the legal process of submission.

Authorization

The CJP is the author and the voice behind the Central Improvement District’s BP. It is made explicit through the use of the personal pronoun ‘we’ (‘we believe’) and the possessive pronoun ‘our’ (‘in our experience’). Two pages are dedicated to the presentation of the CJP (date of establishment, role and functions). Legitimate authority is vested in the CJP both in terms of personal authority, i.e. its status and role as representative of the private sector, and in terms of expert authority, the legitimacy being provided by its claimed international and local expertise as a consulting and management agency in Johannesburg as well as in other South African cities. The lexical selection reinforces the legitimacy: there is a repeated use of adjectives emphasizing the appropriateness and relevance of its interventions, which also implies adapting them to the local context:

Since its inception, the CJP has investigated international and local trends in urban renewal and has become the acknowledged Johannesburg private sector organization focusing on all aspects of urban renewal through a) the development and lobbying for appropriate urban policies and b) itself directly implementing or acting as catalyst for a variety of relevant urban interventions. (p. 2)

One of the successful interventions pioneered in South Africa by the CJP . . . has been the establishment and management of Improvement Districts, a strategy developed over the past nearly thirty years in the US and now implemented in a number of other countries including Canada and Jamaica, and in the process of investigation in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. (p. 2)

Following an extensive period of studying the Improvement District model the US, the CJP assisted the Gauteng Provincial Government in the drafting of appropriate City Improvement District legislation as part of the Vusani Amadolobha initiative. (p. 2)

The legitimacy of the CID as an object is vested by the law and legal procedures. The BP underlines conformity to the CID Act and to municipal by-laws when dealing with the management of informal trade. The consistency of CIDs with other policies as required by the Act is not indicated. Reference is made only to the CJP’s participation in the 1997 visioning exercise and to its collaboration in the security field in a CCTV project supported by the City and Business Against Crime, a private organization.

In the Legae La Rona’s BP, legitimation is vested in personal authority. The author and the voice expressed are those of the CID association (the letter introducing the report is signed by the CID chairperson). The CID is presented as a ‘non-profit association’ and referred to by the name of ‘Legae La Rona City Improvement District’. There is a logo of the CID entitled ‘Legae La Rona. Our place’ and a slogan ‘For a Better Area’ on the front page. Most actions are attributed to the CID association, with a focus on material actions emphasizing leadership: the CID ‘initiates’, ‘improves’, ‘creates’, ‘encourages’, ‘works to uplift’, ‘pursues objectives’. Actions are also attributed to property owners. They are specified as affective (they ‘take care of’) or cognitive (property owners and residents ‘have confidence’). In contrast to the 2001 BP, there is a personalization of actions; they are often agentialized.

Legitimacy is vested in both the property owners as individuals and in the CID association. The text puts forward what has already been accomplished using positive adjectives. A social dimension is given to the CID activities through the use of the term ‘social cohesion’ and its hierarchical place when stating objectives.

In addition to the CID Act, the CID is justified in terms of its integration into public interventions as required by the Act. The text includes an extract from the Regional Spatial Development Framework 06/07 that details the development objectives for the Berea/Hillbrow area, formulated in terms of ‘pro-active absorption of the poor’, ‘balanced shared growth’ and ‘facilitated social mobility’ (p. 15). The specific aims of public policies therefore influence the formulation of the CID project. Whereas the first BP studied emphasized CIDs as a ‘private sector intervention’, this BP focuses on the collaborative and partnership dimension of the CID through the repeated use of terms such as ‘complementary’ and ‘supportive’.

In the Central Improvement District’s BP, conformity legitimation (‘because that’s what everybody else does/most people do’, Van Leeuwen, 2007: 96–7) takes the form of an explicit comparison in which BIDs are presented as a long-established practice that has spread to numerous countries (see first quotation). The commonality of BIDs is reinforced through manifest and sequential intertextuality:⁵ the BP displays photos from BIDs in the USA, including the well-known example of Times Square, as well as extracts from the press and reports on BIDs in the USA and in the UK, all of which state their efficiency and success. Examples of CIDs in other South African cities are also mentioned, along with their positive results (see below).

In the Legae La Rona’s PB, the sole conformity introduced in the BP is the one relating to public authorities’ policies and goals. In contrast to the first BP, there are no references to CIDs in the USA or in other South African cities. The origin of the CID model is not specified.

Moral evaluation

The moral evaluation in the first BP is based on a claim of rightness and fairness made explicit through the use of the adjective ‘equitable’, which implies a sense of justice dictated by reason and conscience and a natural sense of what is fair or reasonable to all parties.⁶ The call for the equal treatment of all echoes the demands of the anti-apartheid struggle. Here, though, it relates not to human rights but to needs formulated in the field of urban management:

As is the case in almost all South African’s urban conurbations, the effect of rapid urbanization following the decades of apartheid control mechanisms has taken its toll and the older, more established areas in particular, are subject to urban blight, increasing criminal activity and the presence of the urban poor. Any revitalization intervention must be sympathetic to the real human needs of our times but equally must introduce equitable urban management in order to maintain acceptable standards. (p. 5)

This narrative presents a cause-and-effect analysis that oversimplifies the complex issues at stake behind urban decay. The selective presentation of urbanization presupposes a common ground and a certain amount of common knowledge about the country’s political history. The democratic transition is simply alluded to through a reference to the removal of the emblematic influx control, which was imposed on non-white populations (‘apartheid control mechanisms’). As indicated by Van Dijk in his analysis of context models, only information considered relevant and appropriate to the readers (here the property owners) is mentioned. The expression ‘taken its toll’ emphasizes the adverse effect of ‘unconstrained’ urbanization on the areas under consideration. The formulation with the present tense (‘are subject to urban blight’) implies that these areas had been spared under apartheid. The negative consequences of urban change following political change are reinforced by the negative descriptive terms.

The text goes on to oversimplify democratization by reducing it to the massive arrival of new populations. The legacy of apartheid is referred to only with regard to physical space. The representation of the event underlines a functionalist vision of the city:

The democratic process over the past five years in particular has resulted in an influx of informal traders, mini-bus taxis, etc. The City was not previously physically designed to accommodate the needs of these sectors. (p. 19)

The language of morality also refers to equity among the property owners themselves, and more particularly with regard to the issue of free-riding:

Once the CID is declared, then all property owners within the area have to contribute. This avoids the situation of a small number of property owners revising [sic] to contribute to the cost of the intervention whilst sharing in the benefits. (p. 6)

The most common themes that emerge in relation to moral evaluation in the second BP are related to motivation, engagement and commitment from the private sector, but the focus is also on cooperation and partnership with public authorities. Transactive material actions (actions that are presented as actually having an effect on people or things; Van Leeuwen, 2009: 155) are formulated (‘enable’, ‘facilitate’, ‘engage resources for’). Qualities regarding commitment and engagement introduce a polarization between ‘good’ property owners, who make long-term investments in the area, and ‘bad’ ones associated with speculation (‘high-risk high-return investors with no commitment to improve their properties’).

In contrast to the 2001 BP, there is no reference to the political past or to the legacy of apartheid. Only one sentence refers to the process of urban decline in general, but with no explanation regarding its causes. The term ‘degeneration’ and the use of both adjectives ‘physical and social’ to characterize it, emphasizes the extent of the decline but also points towards a sense of lost morals.

Rationalization

Van Leeuwen (2007: 101) distinguishes instrumental rationalization, which refers to the goals, uses and effects of the practices, and theoretical rationality, which refers to a natural order of things. He mobilizes the category ‘teleological action’ founded on the principle of success (whether it works or not) and on the rationality of the means and the ends (Van Leeuwen, 2007: 101).

As in the UK (Cook, 2008), the BID model is described as both successful and appropriate in the Central Improvement District’s BP. The argumentation is based on evidence (facts and figures) collected in South Africa and in the USA. The text also draws on newspaper articles to demonstrate the efficiency of CIDs in terms of office rentals and vacancies in Johannesburg. A quote and an extract from a report of a retail survey in Johannesburg city centre are used to show decreases in crime and efforts to integrate street and informal traders within the CID area.

The rationality of means and ends is expressed from the perspective of the property owners. The lexical style used to describe the issues at stake relies on numerous negative terms: ‘physical decline of the inner city infrastructure’; ‘empty buildings and vacant shops’; ‘disinvestment from the city centre’; ‘unmanaged informal trade’; ‘congested pavement’; ‘continued corporate exodus’ (p. 25). Photos from the CID area are used to illustrate these issues.

This negative depiction of the environment accompanies the negative representations of certain categories of social groups (the ‘out-group’). The use of terms such as ‘illegal’ legitimates a form of intervention against these groups (‘illegal and often drugged up parking attendants’). There is a stigmatization of social groups who are explicitly designated as responsible for the situation and whose needs are not taken into consideration: ‘street children are becoming a large problem in the area under consideration’ (p. 20); ‘noise pollution was also identified as a major problem. Main culprits are the formal retailers at the ground level’ (p. 20); ‘litter is a problem in non-CID areas, overflowing dustbins and litter on pavements/kerb sides. Litter seems to be a bigger problem where there is a density of informal traders/taxi ranks’ (p. 19).

There is a polarization between the government and the private sector through the negative characterization of the local authorities and the positive presentation of the private sector, which is associated with efficiency and success. The lexical choice emphasizes this polarization, as shown by the negative terms taken from business vocabulary: ‘constrained local government administration, resulting in a lack of functional capacity, delayed decision-making and loss in operating efficiency’ (p. 25). There is no explanation regarding the origins or causes of the constraints. A reader familiar with Johannesburg will assume that reference is being made here to the municipal amalgamation process, which has led to functional and financial problems.

Such words contribute to the creation of a biased, polarized model of events in which actors are clearly differentiated ‘between the Good and the Bad’ (Van Dijk, 2009: 71). This mental model of government can be read as a direct instantiation of more generalized attitudes about public authorities, which is a characteristic of a neoliberal economic discourse that praises the efficiency of the private sector. This event model instantiates ideological propositions that are introduced through a number of assumptions. These assumptions are taken from external sources and relate to other geographical contexts, namely the USA. Intertextuality is again present through the transfer of arguments from one text to another, without acknowledging contextual differences. As underlined by Fairclough (2003), assumptions are related to ideology as they seek universal status for this particular representation and vision of government:

An article researching the formation of Improvement Districts in the USA a number of years ago stated: ‘In spite of enormous public investment in infrastructure and transportation systems in downtowns, local governments generally lack the resources and political will to save them on their own. Business and property owners now recognize that it is up to them to lead efforts to rebuild and revitalise business districts and to overcome the perception (and reality) that they are unsafe and dirty.’ (p. 22)

Rationalization, in terms of means and ends, reveals tensions and ambiguities regarding the issue of public and private interests. Again the text relies on a statement from an external source, the IDA, to support its argumentation. This statement introduces the idea that the benefits of CIDs are not restricted to a particular section of the population or to a specific perimeter:

The international Downtown Association operating out of Washington D.C. has identified a number of general benefits that ID can bring about, many of which extend far beyond their actual service boundaries. (p. 8)

Other arguments regarding the benefits of the CID make reference to the link between particular interests (those of the property owners) and general interests. One of the stated benefits is ‘helping to improve sales and occupancy rates, thereby increasing a community’s overall tax base’ (p. 8). The benefits for property owners are, however, highlighted in the BP: ‘The services and activities of ID are tailored to meet the specific needs identified by the local business community that funds them’ (p. 8).

In the Legae La Rona’s BP, rationalization is based on an argumentation about the success and efficiency of CIDs. This, however, does not rely on evidence based on facts and figures related to other CIDs abroad or in South Africa. It is rooted in the positive trends observed in the district. The description of the socioeconomic and physical conditions of the area, while pointing towards a number of issues, is no longer a story of decline but is a positive statement about current signs of regeneration (increase in property transfer values, occupancy rates and length of tenancies) and the assets and potentials of the area in terms of accessibility, housing stocks (refurbished and upgraded buildings) and community facilities (educational, social and recreational). The argumentation relies on only one external source – a website dealing with properties – to present the recent increase in the Sold Price Index.

Issues are formulated in the field of residential economy and relate mostly to the physical conditions of the housing stock, the management of buildings and public spaces and safety and security issues, although there is no emphasis on the latter. The text stresses the links between urban and economic change and residential demand and presents a double-sided perspective (from the property owners and the metropolitan authority) by emphasizing the growing demand for ‘affordable’ residential properties and the capacity of property owners to respond.

The description of housing issues introduces a polarization within the ‘in-group’ between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ property owners in terms of their commitment to urban regeneration and their management practices. The text points not to categories of persons but to categories of land tenure (‘sectional titles buildings’) and housing stock (‘old houses’) and associates them with mismanagement (‘internal governance and financial difficulties’) and illegal activities (squatting, unlicensed businesses) without naming them (‘activities in contravention of the residential zoning provisions’). Social issues and others’ needs are briefly mentioned, in relation only to the displacement of tenants and the eviction of squatters from refurbished buildings. The text calls for ‘urgent and sympathetic attention’ from both public and private stakeholders.

In contrast to the first BP, the attitudes towards public authorities are expressed only once through a general statement about the ‘absence of capacity of local government’. This statement is, however, contradicted in the argumentation about current public interventions in the area. Tensions between public and private goals are not apparent because the argumentation blends public and private interests. It uses a nomination strategy, which introduces a wide range of social actors’ categories (property owners, residents, workers, visitors, teamers, service providers, governmental departments, NGOs, community-based organizations, churches, religious organizations) when stating the benefits of CIDs. The text also uses terms that convey a shared interest (‘issues of common concerns’, ‘issues of mutual concerns’). The objectives of the CID as stated in the text reinforce the commitment to both public and private interests because the CID is aimed at ‘protecting both private and public investments’.

Concluding remarks

The comparative analysis of the two case studies shows changing assumptions and attitudes within legitimation strategies, at least rhetorically, and demonstrates how the imported model is reshaped by different discourses associated with varying social practices, but also by changing policy demands.

Different versions of social reality (in relation to urban and economic decline) as well as different characteristics of social actors and social groups are discursively presented. The first CID is constructed as a necessity in a context described in terms of accelerated economic decline, concerns over crime, deregulation, lack of control over the environment and perceived failures of the public authorities in delivering what are considered appropriate standards of services by the private sector. This discursive strategy is based on a claim for fairness and rightness, which seeks to protect and promote sectoral interests. The argumentation is based on a subjective representation of social reality, which masks the extent and signification of political change and conceals the needs of other social groups. It conceals the existence of competing interests and does not acknowledge different economic rationalities (formal/informal, profit-driven/survival) within the inner city. Because the discursive strategy relies on intertextuality to support its argumentation, namely the transfer of arguments from US and UK sources, there is an interplay of different discourses and ideologies. The polarization between the government and the private sector can be read as a direct and explicit expression of certain tenets of a neoliberal economic discourse about the supposed efficiency of the private sector. This transfer of argumentation glosses over societal issues specific to the South African context, e.g. the constraints facing metropolitan authorities regarding the redress of past imbalances and the need for redistribution.

In the residential CID, the stakeholder formulates and tackles more socially oriented issues such as the reconstruction of the social fabric through the strengthening of social cohesion. The event referred to in the BP is not so much the decline and the physical degradation of the neighbourhood as the positive signs of urban renewal observed over the past few years. The subjective representation relies on local experiences and local observations. The use of socially oriented vocabulary and the acknowledgement of the importance of public–private partnerships in mobilizing urban assets are in line with the quest for ‘social inclusion’ and the ‘shared growth’ concept put forward at the local and national levels by shifting urban policies. Contrasting with the commercial and corporate CID, there is no polarization between the government and the private sector, but a blending of public and private interests. Because the CID association seeks legitimacy from public authorities, it is presented in terms of civic support for government interventions. Emphasizing moral qualities such as engagement and commitment, the discursive strategy promotes a positive representation of property owners aware of their social responsibilities and stigmatizes speculators. This policy mix promotes a vision whereby profit-driven activities and social concerns are not mutually exclusive. What we witness is a combination of an entrepreneurial logic with a more socially sensitive stance on property management and governance, which extends to public space. However, this approach – based on promoting social capital, trust and social networks – remains a means to safeguard and support the capital investment of the property development company in the inner city and to attract wealthier tenants. Beyond the shift in the construction of purposes and the intended social effects of the discourse, one should not overlook the fact that CIDs remain basically mechanisms geared towards the creation of urban enclaves and the protection of sectoral interests (through the property vote system and the ring-fencing of expenses) and contribute to exacerbating intra-urban inequalities. Furthermore, the tool’s capacity to adapt and the evolving justification in line with policy demands could impede the formation of alternative strategies of urban regeneration. All of these legitimation strategies and the assessment of the role of the BID model in policy-making could provide the basis of a fruitful comparative approach with European cities.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Amin

Graham

(1997) The ordinary city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 4(38): 411–429.

Beall

Crankshaw

Parnell

(eds) (2002) Uniting a Divided City. Governance and Social Exclusion in Johannesburg. London: Earthscan.

Beauregard

(1993) Voices of Decline: The Post War Fate of US Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.

Beauregard

Tomlinson

(2007) The discourse of governance in post-apartheid Johannesburg. In: Segbers

(ed.) The Making of Global City-regions. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 237–257.

Beavon

(2004) Johannesburg. The Making of the City. Pretoria: University of South Africa Press.

Bond

(2007) Decommodifying electricity in post-apartheid Johannesburg. In: Leitner

Peck

Sheppard

(eds) Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. New York: Guilford, 157–178.

CJP [Central Johannesburg Partnership] (2001) Central Improvement District, Business Plan. October.

Cook

(2008) Mobilising urban policies: The policy transfer of US Business Improvement Districts to England and Wales. Urban Studies (45): 773–795.

Cook

Ward

(2012) Conferences, informational infrastructures and mobile policies: the case of Business Improvement Districts in Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2): 137–152.

10.

Dargan

(2007) Conceptualising regeneration in the New Deal for Communities. Planning Theory & Practice 8(3): 345–362.

11.

Didier

Morange

(2009) Identités territoriales, contrôle de l’espace et choix d’un système de sécurisation dans les quartiers riches du Cap. In: Bénit-Gbaffou

Fabiyi

Peyroux

(eds) Sécurisation des quartiers et gouvernance locale. Enjeux et défis pour les villes africaines. Paris: Karthala, 141–166.

12.

Didier

Peyroux

Morange

(2009) La diffusion de la formule des City Improvement Districts à Johannesburg et au Cap: régénération urbaine et agenda néolibéral en Afrique du Sud. In: Bénit-Gbaffou

Fabiyi

Peyroux

(eds) Sécurisation des quartiers et gouvernance locale. Enjeux et défis pour les villes africaines. Paris: Karthala, 85–112.

13.

Didier

Morange

Peyroux

(forthcoming) City Improvement Districts and ‘territorialized neoliberalism’ in South African cities. In: Künkel

(eds) Neoliberal Urbanism and its Contestations - Crossing Theoretical Boundaries. New York: Palgrave.

14.

Dolowitz

Marsh

(1996) Who learns from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies 44(2): 343–357.

15.

Dubresson

(2008) Urbanisme entrepreneurial, pouvoir et aménagement. Les CID au Cap. In: Dubresson

Jaglin

(eds) Le Cap après l’apartheid, Gouvernance métropolitaine et changement urbain. Paris: Karthala, 183–215.

16.

Eick

(2012) The co-production of purified space: hybrid policing in German Business Improvement Districts. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2): 121–136.

17.

Erkama

(2010) Power and resistance in a multinational organization: Discursive struggles over organizational restructuring. Scandinavian Journal of Management 26(2): 151–165.

18.

Fairclough

(1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

19.

Fairclough

(2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Longman.

20.

Fischer

(1993) Policy discourses and the politics of Washington think-tanks. In: Fischer

Forester

(eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press, 21–42.

21.

Furbey

(1999) Urban ‘regeneration’: Reflections on a metaphor. Critical Social Policy 19(4): 419–445.

22.

Hastings

(1999) Analyzing power relationships in partnerships: Is there a place for discourse analysis? Urban Studies 36(1): 91–106.

23.

Hoyt

(2006) Importing ideas: The transnational transfer of urban revitalisation policy. International Journal of Public Administration 29: 221–243.

24.

Legae La

Rona

(2006) Establishment of CID. Legae La Rona City Improvement District (Berea).

25.

Lippert

(2012) ‘Clean and safe’ passage: Business Improvement Districts, urban security modes, and knowledge brokers. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2): 167–180.

26.

Lloyd

McCarthy

McGreal

Berry

(2003) Business Improvement Districts, planning and urban regeneration. International Planning Studies 8(4): 295–321.

27.

Marquadt

Füller

(2012) Spillover of the private city: BIDs as a pivot of social control in downtown Los Angeles. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2): 153–166.

28.

McCann

Ward

(2010) Relationality/territoriality: Toward a conceptualization of cities in the world. Geoforum 41(2): 175–184.

29.

Miraftab

(2007) Governing post-apartheid spatiality: Implementing City Improvement Districts in Cape Town. Antipode 39(4): 602–626.

30.

Morris

(1999) Bleakness and Light: Inner City Transition in Hillbrow, Johannesburg. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

31.

Parnell

Robinson

(2006) Development and urban policy: Johannesburg’s city development strategy. Urban Studies 43(2): 337–355.

32.

Peyroux

(2008) City Improvement Districts in Johannesburg: An examination of the local variations of the BID model. In: Pütz

(ed.) Business Improvement Districts. Geographische Handelsforschung 14. Passau: L.I.S. Verlag, 139–162.

33.

Pütz

(ed.) (2008) Business Improvement Districts. Geographische Handelsforschung 14. Passau: L.I.S. Verlag.

34.

Reisigl

Wodak

(2009) The discourse-historistical approach. In: Wodak

Meyer

(eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications, 87–121.

35.

Rojo

Van Dijk

(1997) ‘There was a problem, and it was solved!’: Legitimating the expulsion of ‘illegal’ migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society 8(4): 523–566.

36.

Salskov-Iversen

(1997) A discursive perspective on British local government’s response to change: A tale of two cities. Discourse & Society 8(3): 391–415.

37.

Simone

(1998) Les migrations africaines et le devenir de Johannesburg. In: Bouillon

(ed.) Immigration africaine en Afrique du Sud. Paris: Karthala, 199–229.

38.

Stone

(2001) Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion on policy ideas. CSGR Working paper, 69/01. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick.

39.

Taylor

(1999) Unwrapping stock transfers: Applying discourse analysis to landlord communication strategies. Urban Studies 36(1): 121–135.

40.

Tomlinson

(1999) From exclusion to inclusion: Rethinking Johannesburg’s central city. Environment and Planning A 31: 1655–1678.

41.

Tomlinson

Beauregard

Bremner

Mangcu

(eds) (2003) Emerging Johannesburg: Perspectives on the Post-apartheid City. New York: Routledge.

42.

Töpfer

Eick

Sambale

(2007) Business Improvement Districts – neues Instrument für Containment und Ausgrenzung? Erfahrungen aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien. PROKLA, Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft 37(4): 511–528.

43.

Vaara

Tienari

(2008) A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review 33(4): 985–993.

44.

Van Dijk

(1993) Principles of discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 4(2): 249–283.

45.

Van Dijk

(2009) Critical discourse study: A sociocognitive approach. In: Wodak

Meyer

(eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications, 62–86.

46.

Van Leeuwen

(2007) Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication 1(1): 91–112.

47.

Van Leeuwen

(2009) Discourse as the recontextualisation of social practice: A guide. In Wodak

Meyer

(eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications, 144–161.

48.

Ward

(2005) Entrepreneurial urbanism and the management of the contemporary city: The example of Business Improvement Districts. Transnational Seminar Lecture Paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for Global Studies.

49.

Ward

(2006) ‘Policies in motion’, urban management and state restructuring: the trans-local expansion of Business Improvement Districts. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(1): 54–75.