Decentralization in Post-Apartheid South Africa

Koelble, Thomas A.; Siddle, Andrew

doi:10.4324/9781315180267-5

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there is no doubt that decentralization remains incredibly popular across the world, It is possible that excitement about its potential as a developmental strategy may have peaked in recent years, as the high expectations of decentralization are not met in countries like Indonesia and South Africa, among others (Koelble and Siddle 2014;Pisani 2014;Wunsch 2008). Similarly, in Uganda the LC system continues to suffer from numerous faults and has failed to live up to the aforementioned expectations of the late 1980s.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decentralization and Development in Contemporary Uganda

Green¹

2018

Decentralization, Democracy, and Development in Africa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decentralization and Development in Contemporary Uganda

Green¹

2018

Decentralization, Democracy, and Development in Africa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In South Africa, the legacy of apartheid has shaped the more recent history of decentralization, including a need to democratize local government and deliver adequate basic services to all (Koelble & Siddle, ). Under the constitution’s “co‐operative government” principles, power is shared between three spheres of government—the national level, the nine provinces and local government, which comprises eight metropolitan municipalities, 44 district municipalities and, below the latter, 205 district municipalities (South African Government, ).…”

Section: Method: a Problem‐driven Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reforming urban sanitation under decentralization: Cross‐country learning for Kenya and beyond

Mason

Oyaya²,

Boulenouar³

2019

Development Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivation Across the Global South, unclear institutional frameworks undermine progress in improving services. Often, ongoing decentralization reforms reduce clarity further. Policy professionals working on institutional reform lack comparative models. Purpose To identify key challenges for the institutional arrangements for urban sanitation in decentralizing contexts, in Kenya and elsewhere, and to propose possible responses. Approach and methods We use key informant interviews and literature review in a problem‐driven analysis, drawing from three comparative case studies: South Africa, Indonesia and Tamil Nadu State. The analysis builds upon research on institutional effectiveness—co‐operation, collaboration and co‐ordination—rooted in game theory and elaborated in the 2017 World Development Report. Findings Three key problems in Kenya are identified: overlaps and competition around sector leadership at national and devolved levels; weak incentives for county governments to commit policy attention and finance, despite devolution; and limited regulatory oversight. Policy implications We identify a range of options for urban sanitation policy‐makers: (a) to engage non‐sectoral authorities in co‐ordinating multi‐sectoral issues across all levels of government; (b) to encourage political commitment to pro‐poor sanitation services at decentralized levels; and (c) to use incentive‐based and risk‐based approaches to regulate decentralized entities and strengthen local capacity for monitoring and enforcement.

show abstract

Decentralization in Post-Apartheid South Africa

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Decentralization and Development in Contemporary Uganda

Decentralization and Development in Contemporary Uganda

Reforming urban sanitation under decentralization: Cross‐country learning for Kenya and beyond

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About