This article discusses the methodological challenges of a service delivery survey in Khayelitsha, a township in Cape Town, South Africa. The survey aimed to gain a better understanding of the relationship between citizen participation and the environmental challenges facing residents in this urban area. Khayelitsha is a township prone to violence. Encountering violence during fieldwork can alter the way researchers execute research, yet this often remains unacknowledged in 'objective social science', especially in probability sampling. The article examines the effects of the risk felt by researchers on the research method employed in quantitative surveys. It shows that deliberating on this aspect of the research process is both necessary and useful, especially in terms of recognising the need to factor fear or uncertainty into the ways in which research processes unfold.

Part of determining the democratic content of relationships between citizens and governance networks revolves around understanding how ordinary citizens are able to access governance networks, either directly, or indirectly though representatives. For citizenship to have any meaningful content for ordinary people, especially those who historically have been denied political and socio-economic rights, the promise of participatory democracy must lead to perceptions of ability to influence. Through the use of a survey instrument constructed to gauge perceptions of efficacy and responsiveness of local governance institutions, this article explores how citizens in Khayelitsha, Langa and Delft experience governance and service delivery in relation to their perceived ability to exercise either a direct or indirect form of agency in relation to decision-making. The article illustrates that in relation to the ordinary person in the street, perceptions of agency are weak, with corresponding levels of dissatisfaction in democracy. This is in contrast to much stronger perceptions of agency amongst community leaders in community organisations.

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.

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.

Summary Aid, in the form of financial aid and investment, has become increasingly prevalent in both bilateral and multilateral partnerships in the BRICS. In Africa, the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation provides the official framings for forms of development assistance to the continent, with financial forms of aid available through the New Development Bank and the China–Africa Development Bank (CADFund). This article explores how Chinese international development assistance has influenced South Africa's economic growth and development strategies and is reshaping South Africa as “gateway” to Africa and continental leader. Special economic zones (SEZs) have become a prioritised form of BRICS development collaboration particularly in terms of Chinese trade and investment expansionism into Africa through South Africa. Chinese international development assistance and foreign direct investment in South Africa in particular are very notable and have been strengthened during the Chinese official state visit prior to the Johannesburg BRICS Summit in 2018. The article critically analyses the development policy discourse on BRICS spearheading an alternative model of South–South international cooperation by examining the Coega SEZ in South Africa, hailed as the most SEZ in Africa. The article critically examines the development alternative potential of the Coega SEZ.