Much of the focus in the literature on participatory development has been on the demand side and on the extent to which citizens succeed in pressuring the state to deliver basic services. Less attention has been focused on the supply side of participatory development, namely on how state institutions give effect to development policies. PostApartheid South Africa is replete with policies and legislation supporting participatory processes and yet in practice this has seldom lived up to the ideals espoused. This article examines the delivery of public housing in poor communities in three municipalities in South Africa and argues that there is a mismatch between how the formulators of policy understand participation and how it is interpreted by beneficiary communities and local officials. It concludes that considerably more attention needs to be focused on why officials fail to translate national policies into action if participatory democracy is to attain any legitimacy in the population at large. Points for practitionersEffective citizen engagement in decision-making processes is the key factor in participatory development programmes. Enabling legislation and policy is essential to the process but it is not sufficient to ensure participation. The design of participatory programmes will thus need to take into account the capacity of communities to organize themselves and will need to factor in the means and time to develop their ability to engage effectively. Officials managing participatory development projects need to undergo formal training so that they understand that the manner in which beneficiaries participate is as important the actual activities in which they are involved.

No abstract

No abstract

Since the advent of democracy in 1994, South Africa has undergone an extensive process of state reform aimed at overcoming the legacy of Apartheid and at building a more egalitarian social and political order. Whilst progress has been made in reforming the state infrastructure, the pursuit of an inconsistent economic growth path has meant that inequality and poverty remain serious challenges to the social order. The inability of oversight institutions to control powerful political interest groups, furthermore, has led to the growth of public sector corruption and to power struggles within the ruling alliance. From a BRICS perspective this suggests that the current governance challenges in South Africa need to be taken into account when factoring in its future role in the partnership.

Globally, policy environments have become increasingly more complex with the growth in the number of wicked problems, such as that posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. In their response to these problems, public administrations have, from necessity, become heavily reliant on their intergovernmental relations systems, as the challenges posed generally require multilevel responses. This paper analyzes the role of intergovernmental relations in shaping the responses of the BRICS countries when confronted with COVID-19. We develop an analytical framework to understand the dynamics of intergovernmental relations in these countries. Based on this we assess the capacity of the state and political systems to manage intergovernmental relations and ensure effective responses to the COVID-19 crisis. This framework is based on an analysis of three dimensions of the policy domain: the political and state system, formal and informal institutions, and the political alignment between them. Whilst state and political systems were found to be instrumental in formulating an immediate response to the crisis, informal institutions and political processes also played a prominent role in determining the extent to which strategies were implemented, particularly in countries that are more decentralized. Countries lacking the robust formal institutions needed to facilitate intergovernmental relations and to ensure swift policy responses, tend to deliver ineffective and inefficient results when confronted with wicked problems.