Volume II - The Northern Cape Provincial Spatial Development ...

Kimberley, Pampierstad, Kathu, Upington, Groblershoop, Orania and Springbok). In
terms of the Infrastructure theme the larger established centres achieved the highest
ratings (i.e. Kimberley, Upington, Calvinia, Colesberg and De Aar). With repect to
Economic Activities, the same pattern is reflected in the larger centres, where a self-
generating economy of scale is in operation (i.e. Kimberley, Upington, Kuruman,
Pampierstad, De Aar and Springbok). In this regard it is significant that towns like
Ritchie, Hartswater and Jan Kempdorp, with its irrigation-agricultural economic base,
performed very competitively. ∗
• At a generalised level Table 3.8 and Figures 3.10–3.14 present the municipalities with
good and poor development performance and municipalities with high and low human
needs. In Figure 3.10 and Table 4.6b only six municipalities are rated High and Very High
on the Development Potential scale.
• As expected, the latter municipalities usually also accommodate the better-off
Development Potential towns. While eight of the towns with High and Very High
development potential are located in municipalities with equal development potential
ratings, 82 of the Medium and Low Development Potential towns are located in
municipalities with the same lower order status (Table 4.8).
• On the other hand, the co-incidence of towns and municipalities with the same Human
Need level is not so clear cut, i.e. 16 towns with Medium/Low/Very Low ratings are
situated in municipalities with High Needs levels (Table 4.9). Eleven municipalities
display High and Very High Needs scores. From Figure 3.18 it appears that the location of
better-off towns and municipalities do not co-incide very well – an indication that poverty
showes up throughout the province. Naturally, there are many exceptions to this broad
generalisation patterns which should be explained for individual cases.
Table 4.8 Cross-tabulation of Town and Municipality Development classes
Town
Development
Municipality Development Class
Class
Low Medium High Very High Total
Low 10 (45.4) 22 (31.9) 2 (9.1) 0 34 (29.6%)
Medium 11 (50.0) 39 (56.5) 14 (63.6) 0 64 (55.7%)
High 1 (4.6) 8 (11.6) 5 (22.7) 1 (50.0) 15 (13.0%)
Very High 0 0 1 (4.6) 1 (50.0) 2 (1.7%)
Total 22 (100.0%) 69 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%) 2 (100.0%) 115 (100.0%)
∗ It should be pointed out that by using relative measures such as percentages and z-scores instead of absolute
numbers as input for the calculation of indices, afforded smaller centres an equal opportunity to perform against
the bigger centres.
89