This piece is a reflection on some of the ongoing tensions shaping South Africa’s cities and the way they are beginning to disrupt local economies.

In recent years, protests have resurfaced across multiple cities with a kind of predictability. As election cycles approach, they intensify. The pressure behind them is real—economic strain, limited access, and frustration with how opportunities are distributed.

But it raises a more difficult question.
Are we having the right conversations about what is actually happening in our cities?
Are we paying enough attention to how space is organised, who is allowed to participate economically, and what happens when more people begin to push into areas that were historically out of reach?

Because what we are seeing is not just unrest. It is a response to access. And how we interpret that response will determine whether we build cities that can absorb pressure and expand participation, or cities that respond by restricting both.

The Language of “Cleaning” and the Image of the City

What do people mean when they say, “we are cleaning our country”?
Why does the language of “dirt” appear so quickly when exclusion is being expressed? Is it possible that informality has been consistently framed as something that must be erased? While this is practically disruptive when it manifests as violent protesting, even policy and research perpetuate these ideals silently.

The International Labour Organization, for example, has adopted a transition from informal to formal strategy since 2015. This is despite confirming that Over 60 per cent of the world’s workforce and 80 per cent of enterprises operate in the informal economy. Once something is framed as dirt, it is no longer analysed. It is removed.

For a long time, African cities have been measured against a Eurocentric visual and spatial standard—neat rows, mega malls, tarred roads, and illuminated streets. That standard becomes the reference point for what development should look like. So when that image is placed beside open markets, clustered settlements, interlocking streets, and dense informal trade, the judgement appears immediate.
One is interpreted as order. The other as something that should not exist. This framing does more than describe space. It shapes how people understand participation.

The Pressure to Formalise

Recent protests in South Africa provide a useful lens into this tension.
There is a visible push to formalise quickly—to become “neat,” to align with a particular image of what a functioning city should look like—even as large segments of the population remain economically excluded from those same spaces. The conversations are less about increasing services and infrastructure. It becomes more about formalising to meet a certain aesthetic experience.

When access expands, people do not distribute themselves evenly across the urban landscape. They move toward opportunity. They cluster around economic hubs and begin to build with what is available to them. This is not disorder. It is a response to access.

The role of government and spatial planning should be to make this transition sustainable. To expand access without destabilising the economic centres that people depend on. To introduce structure without removing the capacity for incremental economic activity.

Yet, in practice, it has often become easier to target informal trade—despite its role in supporting multiple households—by associating it with dirt, disorder and crime. The alternative would be to confront the deeper structural question of economic inclusion, which is harder. Instead of focusing on access, planning, and participation, the discourse shifts toward “cleaning.” Toward removing what appears out of place. This framing is psychologically appealing, particularly when it aligns with inherited ideas of what a city should resemble.

Informality as Economic Function

This raises a more fundamental question about the role of informality. In many cases, informality is not simply the absence of order. It is an alternative system of economic participation.
In high-barrier environments, where entry into formal markets is restricted by capital requirements, zoning, and regulatory constraints, informal activity becomes one of the few available pathways for income generation and accumulation.

This is particularly visible in the spatial contrast between Sandton and Alexandra.
Sandton represents a capital-intensive, highly regulated economic space. Alexandra represents a dense, adaptive, and informal economic environment.
However, the relationship between these spaces is not neutral.

Economic exclusion is often embedded within gentrified and formalised areas. Individuals can work within these environments—as cleaners, security personnel, or maintenance workers—but cannot realistically reside or build enterprises within them.

This creates a structural ceiling.
The absence of space for small-scale trade, side businesses, and incremental growth limits the ability of lower-income individuals to transition into higher levels of economic participation.

Circulation, Leakage, and Local Economies

Another dimension of informality relates to how money moves within an economy.
When informal trade expands, a larger share of spending remains within local communities. Transactions occur between small traders, workers, and service providers, creating multiple layers of exchange. This dynamic aligns with the Local Multiplier Effect.

When money circulates within a local economy before exiting, it generates additional value. It supports more participants and contributes to incremental wealth formation.
The inverse dynamic is described by Economic Leakage.
When income flows directly into large, centralised retail systems—particularly those linked to external capital—very little value is retained locally. Earnings are realised, but accumulation remains limited.

In this context, informal trade can function as a mechanism for reducing leakage and strengthening local economic depth.
If income consistently exits the community immediately after it is earned, individuals remain within a cycle of income generation without asset formation.
Spatial Planning and Economic Mobility
The implications for spatial planning are significant.

Urban environments that prioritise form over function—visual order over economic participation—risk constraining mobility rather than enabling it.
The challenge is not whether cities should be structured or regulated.
The challenge is whether that structure allows for multiple entry points into the economy.

An approach that removes informal activity without providing alternative pathways does not eliminate economic pressure. It redistributes it, often in more precarious forms.
Conversely, an approach that integrates informal and formal systems can expand participation while maintaining long-term urban sustainability.

Conclusion

Informality should not be understood solely as a deviation from an ideal urban model. In many cases, it reflects the adaptive capacity of individuals operating within constrained systems.
The central question is not whether informality should exist. It is whether current models of spatial and economic organisation allow for broad-based participation, or whether they restrict it to those who already possess the required capital and access.

As debates around urban development continue, there is a need to move beyond visual comparisons and engage more directly with the underlying economic structures. Because the issue is not simply how cities look. It is how they function, who they include, and whether they create viable pathways for people to build within them.