Scenario Lab · modular engine Demo data
What happens if…?
A transparent elasticity model — not a forecast. Starting figures and response settings come from each country's own live World Bank, IMF, UNDP and ILO data. Every coefficient is visible under “Why?”.
Geographic context City of Cape Town, South Africa
← Back to this area on the mapThis model resolves at national level only. Results below are national projections for South Africa; they are not area-specific and must not be read as outcomes for City of Cape Town. Area finances and allocation options are on the municipal profile.
Loading live figures…
Public investment0 % GDP
Government consumption0 % GDP
Average tax rate0 pp
Education spending0 % GDP
Health spending0 % GDP
Policy objectives
MODELLEDModelled scenario
model elasticity velasticity-0.3 · data demo-2026.10 · assumptions-0.3 · NOT VALIDATED · baseline 2024 → 2034 · confidence Low. Not a forecast.
Key results at 2034: baseline, scenario, difference
Baseline = no policy change. Range = model run at low and high values of 7 effect assumptions. Confidence Low.
| Output | Baseline | Scenario | Difference (central) | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employment (index) | 100.0 | 100.0 | +0.00 | +0.00 to +0.00 | |
| Unemployment % | 32.4 | 32.4 | +0.00 | +0.00 to +0.00 | |
| GDP (US$ bn) | 477.3 | 477.3 | +0.00 | +0.00 to +0.00 | |
| Poverty % | 17.4 | 17.4 | +0.00 | +0.00 to +0.00 | |
| Gini | 54.1 | 54.1 | +0.00 | +0.00 to +0.00 | |
| Debt % GDP | 148.0 | 148.0 | +0.00 | +0.00 to +0.00 |
Objectives at 2034
maximise Employment
no change (+0)
minimise Poverty
no change (+0)
Foundation only — no optimisation yet.
South Africa: baseline vs scenario
| Indicator | 2025 | 2029 | 2034 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic | ||||
| GDP (US$ bn) | B 431.9 S 431.9 Δ +0.00 | B 451.5 S 451.5 Δ +0.00 | B 477.3 S 477.3 Δ +0.00 | |
| GDP growth % | B 1.11 S 1.11 Δ +0.00 | B 1.11 S 1.11 Δ +0.00 | B 1.11 S 1.11 Δ +0.00 | |
| GDP per capita US$ | B 6864 S 6864 Δ +0.00 | B 6760 S 6760 Δ +0.00 | B 6633 S 6633 Δ +0.00 | |
| Employment | ||||
| Employment (index, base 100) | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | |
| Unemployment % | B 32.4 S 32.4 Δ +0.00 | B 32.4 S 32.4 Δ +0.00 | B 32.4 S 32.4 Δ +0.00 | |
| Youth unemployment % | B 59.9 S 59.9 Δ +0.00 | B 59.9 S 59.9 Δ +0.00 | B 59.9 S 59.9 Δ +0.00 | |
| Fiscal | ||||
| Revenue % GDP | B 27 S 27 Δ +0.00 | B 27 S 27 Δ +0.00 | B 27 S 27 Δ +0.00 | |
| Expenditure % GDP | B 31 S 31 Δ +0.00 | B 31 S 31 Δ +0.00 | B 31 S 31 Δ +0.00 | |
| Fiscal balance % GDP | B -4 S -4 Δ +0.00 | B -4 S -4 Δ +0.00 | B -4 S -4 Δ +0.00 | |
| Debt % GDP | B 83.2 S 83.2 Δ +0.00 | B 112 S 112 Δ +0.00 | B 148 S 148 Δ +0.00 | |
| Trade | ||||
| Exports % GDP | B 30 S 30 Δ +0.00 | B 30 S 30 Δ +0.00 | B 30 S 30 Δ +0.00 | |
| Imports % GDP | B 33 S 33 Δ +0.00 | B 33 S 33 Δ +0.00 | B 33 S 33 Δ +0.00 | |
| Trade balance % GDP | B -3 S -3 Δ +0.00 | B -3 S -3 Δ +0.00 | B -3 S -3 Δ +0.00 | |
| Investment | ||||
| FDI % GDP | B 1.5 S 1.5 Δ +0.00 | B 1.5 S 1.5 Δ +0.00 | B 1.5 S 1.5 Δ +0.00 | |
| Domestic investment % GDP | B 16 S 16 Δ +0.00 | B 16 S 16 Δ +0.00 | B 16 S 16 Δ +0.00 | |
| Human development | ||||
| Poverty % | B 17.4 S 17.4 Δ +0.00 | B 17.4 S 17.4 Δ +0.00 | B 17.4 S 17.4 Δ +0.00 | |
| Gini | B 54.1 S 54.1 Δ +0.00 | B 54.1 S 54.1 Δ +0.00 | B 54.1 S 54.1 Δ +0.00 | |
| Household income (index) | B 99.6 S 99.6 Δ +0.00 | B 98.1 S 98.1 Δ +0.00 | B 96.2 S 96.2 Δ +0.00 | |
| Education (index) | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | |
| Health (index) | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | |
| Infrastructure & energy | ||||
| Electricity demand (index) | B 101.5 S 101.5 Δ +0.00 | B 107.7 S 107.7 Δ +0.00 | B 116.1 S 116.1 Δ +0.00 | |
| Infrastructure gap (index) | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | B 100 S 100 Δ +0.00 | |
Human development check
- Who benefits? —
- Who loses? —
- Does poverty improve? No / unclear (0.0pp)
- Does inequality improve? No / unclear (0.0)
- Does employment improve? No / unclear (0.0)
- Does household income improve? No / unclear (0.0)
- Does access to opportunity improve? No / unclear (education & jobs)
Regional effects
Qualitative regional effect ESTIMATED
Known channels between members, listed below. Direction only — no numbers.
Modelled regional effect
Not yet implemented. The platform does not calculate effects on other members.
On South Africa
See tables above (MODELLED).On other members
- Lesotho — labour: Migrant earnings and remittances
- Eswatini — trade: Most imports sourced from South Africa
- Botswana — energy: Power trade via Southern African Power Pool
- Namibia — trade: Main import source
- Botswana — revenue pool: Tariff changes alter SACU pool transfers
- Namibia — revenue pool: Tariff changes alter SACU pool transfers
- Lesotho — revenue pool: Tariff changes alter SACU pool transfers
- Eswatini — revenue pool: Tariff changes alter SACU pool transfers
On SACU as a whole
No direct revenue-pool effect from these levers.Budget-constrained intervention package
DERIVEDESTIMATEDAFFORDABLECosts × funding × delivery capacity, FY2025–FY2029. US$ million, nominal (no inflation or FX adjustment). Only CONFIRMED funds pay for the base case. Model funding-1.0 · NOT VALIDATED. Advisory only — governments decide.
You selected City of Cape Town. These are package-level calculations; no local labour-market data was used, so results are not local estimates.
1. Interventions
- Labour-intensive road maintenance · capex 40.0 · opex 6.0/yr
- Expanded public employment programme · capex 0.0 · opex 25.0/yr
- TVET & artisan training expansion · capex 15.0 · opex 8.0/yr
- SMME credit guarantee scheme · capex 0.0 · opex 10.0/yr
- Special economic zone incentive package · capex unknown · opex unknown/yr
2. Funding (US$m per fiscal year — your inputs)
| Source | FY25 | FY26 | FY27 | FY28 | FY29 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Budget reallocation (approved) CONFIRMED | |||||
Infrastructure grant (conditional) CONFIRMED · infrastructure only | |||||
Development bank loan (under negotiation) PROPOSED | |||||
Improved revenue collection POTENTIAL |
Total cost
US$115.0m
Funded (confirmed)
US$115.0m
Funding gap
US$0.0m
Jobs (direct)
921–1,906 temp. job-years
230–550 sustained
| Fiscal year | Arriving | Cost | Funded | Gap | Undeliverable | Unspent carried |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | 35.0 | 35.0 | 35.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| FY2026 | 35.0 | 29.0 | 29.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 |
| FY2027 | 35.0 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.0 |
| FY2028 | 35.0 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.0 |
| FY2029 | 35.0 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.0 |
Not counted in the base case: Development bank loan (under negotiation) (PROPOSED, US$80.0m); Improved revenue collection (POTENTIAL, US$50.0m).
3. Alternatives & stress tests No probabilities assigned.
| Case | Status | Gap | Temp. job-years | Sustained jobs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed package (confirmed funds only) | AFFORDABLE | 0.0 | 921–1,906 | 230–550 |
| If proposed & potential funds materialise | AFFORDABLE | 0.0 | 921–1,906 | 230–550 |
| Lower funding (confirmed −30%) | UNDERFUNDED | 15.0 | 876–1,816 | 80–150 |
| Higher cost (+30%) | UNDERFUNDED | 13.2 | 891–1,845 | 80–150 |
| Delayed delivery (+2 years) | AFFORDABLE | 0.0 | 675–1,398 | 230–550 |
| Lower employment yield (−40%) | AFFORDABLE | 0.0 | 553–1,144 | 138–330 |
4. Challenge an assumption & rerun
Official observations are never edited here.