ICTs in Development - Who Benefits?

Published in Volume 14 of the Journal of International Development in 2002, this case study explores the use of geographic information systems (GIS) in the process of development, land reparation, and restitution on the Cato Manor Development Project in Durban, South Africa in the year 2000. The author employed interviews with stakeholders, participant observation, and archival information analysis to document the process by which former residents, removed from the area during the Apartheid era, challenged the intervention of the development agency.

According to Odendaal, the study shows that GIS is not necessarily a value-free tool. Technical inequalities were embedded in the development project where access to technological knowledge became a determining factor in the development process. The seemingly irrational and emotional arguments presented by the claimants stood in contrast with the technical rationality of the GIS tool utilised in the settlement process of land reparation. However, non-technical arguments were important for the legitimacy of a process aimed to advance the inclusion of disfranchised communities.

Evaluation/Research Methodologies:

The author worked at the Cato Manor Development Association (CMDA), a development organisation for Cato Manor (Durban, South Africa), at the time when former residents, removed from the area during the Apartheid era, brought to court claims against CMDA development plans. CMDA was a non-profit organisation established through public (national, provincial and local government) and private (consultants) collaboration as the result of debates on integrated urban development solutions addressing the housing and social needs of the poor. During the 10 months of the court proceedings, the researcher studied the settlement agreement process by which CMDA handled the claims brought to court in the context of the land reparation spirit and the original development.


The study examined the goals inherent in the development process, the tools employed to achieve them (e.g. GIS), and the values and biases embedded in these tools. The research methodology included interviews with key stakeholders, observations at legal proceedings, perusal of primary documentation such as the court transcripts as well as relevant meeting minutes, and attendance at public meetings.

Key Findings/Impact:

The author found that CMDA's approach to planning and development in Cato Manor, which mainly relied on the application of the GIS tools, was technocratic, mechanical, and inflexible, leaving little space to accommodate restoration claims and mediation processes. This tendency was also reflected in the land settlement process that followed the court challenge against CMDA by former and displaced residents of this area.

As a response to the interdict introduced by 446 claimants before the Land Claims Court, CMDA agreed on engaging in a land settlement process with claimants. The settlement required a feasibility study for restoring land to claimants. The process was a GIS-driven planning exercise assessing each claim based on certain criteria: ownership, topographical elements, geo-technical stability, and planned projects. As a result of the application of GIS as management tool, only 24 of the claims were deemed feasible to restore while 94.6% of the claims were rejected or considered non-feasible.

The study concludes that the notion of public interest presented by the development agency as reflected in the settlement process was centered on implementation and outcomes, mainly informed by the technical tool used in designing the projects: the GIS. Therefore, the settlement process that followed the court hearing was driven by technical concerns and methods rather than mediation and conflict resolution procedures. This case study raises questions about how beneficiaries of development programmes are represented in the design of interventions that heavily rely on advanced technological tools (e.g. GIS).