Coega and the Illusion of Proximity: Why Growth Still Bypasses Motherwell

A Development Success — Seen from a Distance

On paper, the Coega Industrial Development Zone is one of South Africa’s most compelling post-apartheid economic success stories.

Stretching across more than 9,000 hectares and anchored by the Port of Ngqura, the zone has evolved into a globally competitive industrial hub. Designed to attract export-oriented investment, it has drawn billions of rand into sectors ranging from automotive manufacturing to energy and logistics.

Recent data reinforces that narrative of progress. According to the Coega Development Corporation, employment within the zone rose to over 11,000 jobs by mid-2025 — a notable increase reflecting continued investor confidence and expansion.

From a national policy perspective, this is precisely what Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are meant to do: catalyse growth, attract capital, and build industrial capacity.

Yet just 20 to 30 kilometres away, in Motherwell, a different reality unfolds — one that challenges the assumption that proximity to growth naturally produces shared prosperity.

The critique raised by Mike Pantsi speaks directly to this contradiction. His concern is not whether Coega has succeeded in attracting investment, but whether it has fulfilled its broader developmental promise: to uplift the communities on whose doorstep it stands.

This tension is not unique to Coega. It reflects a deeper structural challenge within Development Economics — the persistent gap between economic growth and inclusive development.

Motherwell: Growth’s Unintended Bystander

Motherwell is not a peripheral settlement. It is one of the largest townships in the Nelson Mandela Bay metro, home to tens of thousands of residents and historically positioned as a labour reservoir rather than an economic hub.

Despite its closeness to Coega, the township continues to face:

• High unemployment
• Limited economic activity
• Strained social infrastructure

Recent labour data paints a stark picture. In 2025, unemployment in Nelson Mandela Bay climbed to 26.4%, with the expanded rate reaching 35%.

At the provincial level, the situation is even more severe. The Eastern Cape’s unemployment rate has surged to 42.5%, with youth unemployment estimated at around 54% — a crisis described by business leaders as economically and socially unsustainable.

As Denise van Huyssteen of the Nelson Mandela Bay Business Chamber warned:

“Nearly one in two young people in our province cannot access employment.”

This is the paradox: industrial growth on one side, deepening socio-economic distress on the other.

The Myth of Automatic Spillover

At the heart of the Coega-Motherwell disconnect lies a flawed assumption — that economic growth, once initiated, will naturally “spill over” into surrounding communities.

This idea has long been embedded in Development Economics. Build the infrastructure, attract investors, create jobs — and benefits will diffuse outward.

But Coega illustrates the limits of that model.

Industrial zones are not neutral spaces. They are highly structured environments designed for:

• Efficiency
• Global competitiveness
• Capital mobility

These priorities shape who benefits.

Firms operating within Coega are integrated into global supply chains. They require:

• Technical skills
• Industry-specific experience
• High productivity standards

For many residents of Motherwell, these requirements remain out of reach — not due to lack of potential, but due to systemic barriers.

The Skills Divide: Opportunity Without Access

One of the most persistent structural gaps is the mismatch between jobs created and skills available locally.

Statistics South Africa has consistently shown that education is a decisive factor in employment outcomes. Individuals with tertiary qualifications face significantly lower unemployment rates than those without matric.

This creates a layered inequality:

• Coega generates opportunities
• But those opportunities are captured by a relatively skilled labour pool
• Many local residents remain excluded

The result is not just unemployment, but visible exclusion — where opportunities exist in sight, yet remain inaccessible.

This dynamic fuels frustration and undermines the legitimacy of development itself.

Governance: The Fragile Link Between Vision and Delivery

The Coega project did not emerge in isolation. It was part of a broader development vision involving multiple stakeholders:

• Municipal authorities
• Provincial departments
• Academic institutions
• Business chambers

However, the ability to translate that vision into coordinated action has been uneven.

Over the past decade, Nelson Mandela Bay has faced recurring governance instability — marked by political turnover, coalition fragility, and administrative disruptions.

These challenges have tangible consequences:

• Delayed infrastructure projects
• Weak alignment between education and industry
• Inconsistent implementation of development programmes

As analysts have noted in broader SEZ studies, even well-designed industrial zones can coexist with “increased poverty levels” and “stagnant infrastructure development” when local governance fails to integrate economic and social planning.

In this context, Coega’s limitations are not simply a matter of intent — they reflect systemic coordination failures.

The Missing Middle: Where Development Breaks Down

Between Coega’s industrial ecosystem and Motherwell’s communities lies what might be called the “missing middle” — the institutional and economic space where integration should occur, but often does not.

Three critical gaps define this space:

1. Weak Local Supply Chains

Local businesses struggle to access procurement opportunities within Coega. Without targeted support, township enterprises remain disconnected from industrial value chains.

2. Limited Skills Pipelines

Training systems are not sufficiently aligned with industry needs. While institutions like Nelson Mandela University play a role, the scale and targeting of skills development remain insufficient.

3. Labour Market Disconnect

There are few effective mechanisms to match local job seekers with opportunities inside the zone.

Without these linkages, development becomes spatially adjacent but economically disconnected.

Infrastructure: Beyond Roads and Ports

One of the most compelling aspects of the critique raised by community voices is the focus on social infrastructure.

Economic development is often measured in:

• Investment flows
• Job numbers
• Output growth

But communities experience development through:

• Schools
• Libraries
• Recreational facilities
• Safe public spaces

In areas like Motherwell, these systems remain under strain.

This matters because economic participation is not only about jobs — it is about capability. Without strong social infrastructure, communities cannot fully engage with nearby economic opportunities.

A Broader African Pattern

Coega’s story mirrors experiences across the continent.

From Ethiopia’s industrial parks to Kenya’s export zones, a consistent lesson emerges:
industrialisation alone does not guarantee inclusive development.

Zones can succeed economically while failing socially.

The difference lies in policy design:

• Are there strong local procurement frameworks?
• Are skills pipelines directly linked to industry?
• Is infrastructure development integrated across sectors?

Where these elements are absent, inequality persists — even in the shadow of growth.

The Social Cost of Exclusion

The risks of this disconnect extend beyond economics.

When communities witness:

• Significant investment nearby
• Limited personal benefit
• Persistent poverty

It creates a sense of marginalisation that can have broader consequences.

As van Huyssteen cautions, youth exclusion at current levels is

“economically unsustainable and socially destabilising.”

This is not abstract. It affects:

• Social cohesion
• Crime rates
• Long-term investment stability

Industrial zones cannot thrive indefinitely in environments marked by deep inequality.

Reframing the Question: From Growth to Inclusion

The key question is no longer whether Coega has succeeded.

It has — within the parameters it was designed for.

The more urgent question is whether those parameters are sufficient.

If development is defined narrowly — in terms of investment and output — Coega is a success.

If it is defined broadly — in terms of social transformation and inclusion — the picture is more complex.

Bridging this gap requires a shift in approach:

• From passive spillovers to active integration
• From infrastructure-only thinking to human-centred development
• From isolated industrial zones to connected local economies

Conclusion: The Distance That Still Matters

The distance between Coega and Motherwell is measured in kilometres.

But the real distance is structural.

It is the distance between:

• Opportunity and access
• Growth and inclusion
• Vision and lived reality

Until that distance is addressed, Coega will remain a symbol of both achievement and limitation — a reminder that development, without deliberate inclusion, can coexist with the very inequalities it was meant to overcome.

And for communities like Motherwell, the promise of proximity will remain just that: a promise, not yet fulfilled.