When migration becomes a municipal crisis: The local face of a continental challenge

Migration might be debated nationally and discussed continentally but it is experienced municipally.

While public attention often focuses on borders, visas, asylum systems and national immigration policy, the practical consequences of migration are most visible at local government level. It is municipalities that absorb the pressures associated with rapid population growth, increased demand for services, housing shortages, infrastructure strain, informal economic expansion and social tension.

The reality is not unique to South Africa. Across the world, cities and municipalities increasingly find themselves at the frontline of migration dynamics. Yet in South Africa, where local government is grappling with fiscal constraints, infrastructure backlogs, unemployment and service delivery problems, migration has become an additional layer of complexity that many municipalities were never designed to manage.

The result: a continental development challenge increasingly manifests itself as a municipal governance crisis.

Beyond immigration: the real pressure points

Nationally, the municipal infrastructure funding backlog stands at about R122 billion (Salga, 2025), with a local government fiscal gap of R58bn. This is the context into which migration pressures arise.

Migration itself is not the crisis.

The real challenge emerges when population growth outpaces the institutional capacity of municipalities to respond effectively.

Every new arrival, whether from another country, province or district, requires access to some combination of:

• Housing;
• Water and sanitation;
• Healthcare;
• Education;
• Transport;
• Economic opportunity; and
• Public safety.

Municipal planning systems are typically based on projected population growth and expected revenue streams. When population growth significantly exceeds projections, municipalities experience growing pressure across multiple service delivery systems simultaneously.

In this context, migration becomes less an immigration issue and more an institutional capacity issue.

The challenge is therefore not simply who is arriving but whether municipalities possess the systems, resources and coordination mechanisms required to absorb growth in a sustainable manner.

The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality: A case study

The City of Johannesburg provides one of the clearest examples of the dynamic.

Public debates frequently reduce the city’s challenges to immigration alone. Yet a closer examination reveals a far more complex reality.

The pressures visible in the inner city are shaped by the interaction of multiple factors:

• Migration;
• Urbanisation;
• Unemployment;
• Housing shortages;
• Informal economic activity;
• Infrastructure decay; and
• Governance constraints.

The reality is that the City of Johannesburg’s challenges are not merely migration problems. They are systems challenges.

Understanding this distinction is essential if policymakers hope to move beyond reactive responses towards sustainable solutions.

The numbers help illustrate the scale of the challenge:

• Johannesburg’s annual population growth is estimated at 1.2% to 2.2% (UN data);
• The city’s housing backlog stands at about 500 000 units (City of Johannesburg, 2024);
• Informal settlements have grown from 182 in 2016 to 343 in 2024, nearly doubling;
• More than 500 000 people live in informal settlements across 180 000 households; and
• Gauteng as a whole is projected to receive 1.4 million in-migrants between 2021 and 2026 (Statistics SA).

Service delivery strain is visible: City Power experiences continuous losses because of illegal connections and the Rand Water network is operating under severe strain.

Isolating migration from the interconnected forces produces simplistic explanations that fail to address underlying causes. Johannesburg’s challenges are not merely migration challenges; they are systems challenges as well.

The six interdependent lenses for understanding the municipal dimension

The municipal dimension of migration becomes clearer when examined through six interdependent lenses.

Institutional complexity

Migration affects numerous municipal functions simultaneously.

Housing departments confront increased demand for accommodation. Economic development units face growing pressure to facilitate employment opportunities. Health services experience rising patient volumes. Education facilities face mounting congestion. Infrastructure systems face increasing demands to support larger populations.

Yet no single department owns the issue.

The result is a complex institutional environment in which responsibilities are dispersed across multiple entities.

Implementation systems

Many policy responses assume that municipalities possess the operational systems necessary to absorb rapid population growth.

In practice, implementation capacity often lags behind policy ambition.

Municipalities might receive mandates without corresponding financial resources, technical capabilities, integrated data systems or implementation architecture.

The gap between policy intention and delivery reality continues to widen.

Institutional machinery

National migration systems and municipal service delivery systems frequently operate as parallel structures rather than as components of a single coordinated machinery.

Home Affairs might manage documentation.

Municipalities manage service delivery.

Economic departments focus on growth.

Labour authorities focus on employment.

The absence of integration between the systems often creates operational friction and policy fragmentation.

Governance and Coordination

Migration sits at the intersection of multiple spheres of government.

National government controls immigration policy.

Provincial governments coordinate development planning.

Municipalities deliver services.

Without effective coordination mechanisms, the burden frequently shifts downward to local government, which must manage consequences without controlling many of the underlying drivers.

Stakeholder complexity

Migration generates competing expectations among stakeholders.

Businesses often seek access to labour and skills.

Organised labour seeks protection for local workers.

Communities demand access to opportunities and services.

Civil society prioritises rights and inclusion.

Municipalities must navigate the competing interests while maintaining social cohesion.

This is not merely an administrative challenge; it is a governance challenge.

Development-Linked Financial Architecture

Perhaps the most overlooked dimension of migration management is finance.

Most responses remain heavily enforcement-oriented, focusing on policing, compliance and border management.

While the functions remain important, they do little to address the economic conditions that drive migration pressures.

Development-Linked Financial Architecture offers an alternative perspective.

Instead of treating migration solely as a control problem, it encourages investment in local economic development, labour absorption initiatives, municipal infrastructure, township economies and regional growth corridors.

In doing so, it seeks to address root causes rather than symptoms.

From municipal pressure to municipal resilience

The future of migration management might ultimately depend on the resilience of municipalities.

Resilient municipalities are not those that avoid migration pressures.

Rather, they are municipalities capable of absorbing change while maintaining service delivery, social stability, economic inclusion and institutional effectiveness.

This requires:

• Better population data;
• Stronger planning systems;
• Integrated governance structures;
• Improved stakeholder coordination; and
• Development-oriented investment.

Most importantly, it requires recognition that migration cannot be separated from broader development realities.

A different conversation

South Africa’s migration debate has become increasingly polarised. Yet the question facing municipalities is not whether migration exists.

The question is whether local institutions possess the capacity to manage its consequences effectively.

Migration might be debated in Parliament.

It might be negotiated through diplomacy.

It might be regulated through legislation.

But it is experienced in communities, neighbourhoods, informal settlements, transport systems, clinics, schools and local economies.

In other words, it is experienced municipally.

Until migration is understood as both a development systems challenge and a municipal governance challenge, policy responses will probably remain fragmented, reactive and increasingly unsustainable.

The path forward requires moving beyond simplistic narratives towards a more integrated understanding of how people, institutions, infrastructure, economies and governance systems interact.

Only then can municipalities move from being passive recipients of migration pressures to becoming active participants in building resilient and inclusive local development systems.

Migration might begin as a border issue but it ultimately becomes a local governance issue. Until municipalities are recognised as central actors in migration management, South Africa’s responses will probably remain fragmented, reactive and increasingly unsustainable.

Dr Lehlohonolo Gabriel Mambona is an implementation systems architect specialising in public economics, institutional delivery and development systems.