Project Topics
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER THREE COMPARATIVE APPROACHES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.
INTRODUCTION
Chapter two presented a literature review on theoretical and conceptual background of IGR. Its link to theories, public participation and public value attests that IGR is a phenomenon that can be tested and applied. Most importantly, IGR includes models and other related concepts for application within public administration. Hence, a conceptual framework through literature includes governance, decentralisation, MLG and collaboration. The concept of service delivery was introduced through common concepts and a generic model. Lastly, a conceptualisation of the importance of potable water as a basic need was presented.
This chapter three focuses on the manner in which Brazil, India and South Africa implement IGR policies in relation to service delivery, with specific examples of potable water. The three countries are selected from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries. The chapter discusses each country, except China, Russia and India, to extrapolate IGR and service delivery matters. The chapter concludes by comparing the relevant emergent issues on IGR from the selected countries.
RATIONALE FOR COMPARATIVE IGR
Institutional frameworks assist with the identification of structural arrangements across various jurisdictions (Ostrom, 2011:9). Local government is also influenced by globalisation in that cities have to manage rapid urbanisation, declining revenue and social ills like corruption (Gangopadhyay, et al., 2006:68). By comparing local government in different institutional arrangements can enrich learning on IGR between cities. Thus, local government institutions should learn from one another.
South Africa is a member of BRICS, a collaborative international body named after the constitutive countries, but formed originally by the Federative Republic of Brazil, Russian Federation, Republic of India, and People’s Republic of China. (Van der Merwe, 2011, cited in Laïdi, 2012:632). The investment bank Goldman Sachs coined the acronym, BRIC, in 2001 with reference to Brazil, Russia, India and China’s position within the international business community (Cheru, 2011:48). South Africa joined in April 2011 (Kahn, 2011:493) and the acronym changed to BRICS. The aforementioned indicate that BRICS countries collaborate due to their common socio-economic interests. In particular, South Africa became part of BRICS to (i) strengthen political and economic relations, (ii) advance the regional and a general African agenda, (iii) pursue the influence of a global governance agenda and (iv) enhance inter-BRICS cooperation (Zuma, 2013:18-19).
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS IN BRAZIL, INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
This section analyses Brazil, India and South Africa. In particular, the legislative background of the three countries and the extent to which it influences IGR in each of them. This section ends with a comparison of issues with regard to IGR and service delivery, especially potable water.
South Africa
Section 40 of the 1996 Constitution established the three spheres of government, with a qualification that they were to be distinctive, interdependent and interrelated. Radin (2007:365) states that, before the democratic era commenced in 1994, the focus was predominantly on vertical relationships. Currently, the emphasis is on both dimensions. It does illustrate that contemporary IGR in South Africa does concern itself with dimensions of vertical and horizontal relationships, albeit with some degree of inequality. In line with this, Kahn et al. (2011:12) indicate that the national sphere has more power than the lower spheres. In contrast, Malan (2014: 56-57) asserts that the principles of co-operative government recognise the interdependence of the spheres in South Africa. According to the author, this institutional arrangement focuses on partnership and the related values of cooperation, coordination and conflict avoidance. As such, any IGR would need to incorporate the values of cooperative government into its operations. Thus, it is notable that South Africa applies horizontal and vertical relations in terms of policy interaction between the national and sub-national departments.
The nature of the South African IGR is characterised by constitutionality and the three spheres of government at national, provincial and local levels. In South Africa, the 1996 Constitution is the supreme law of the country and it establishes South Africa as a unitary state (Watts, 2001:22-23; Siddle et al., 2012:69-70; Van der Waldt, 2007:17). Certain schools of thought elsewhere in this thesis, argue that South Africa has a hybrid system of unitary and federal features. The fact is that South Africa has demarcated boundaries and functions of the sub-national spheres as in federal systems (Kahn et al., 2011: 38; Van der Waldt, 2007:17; Haysom, 2001:43), but is also a unitary state with a constitutional democracy (Reddy & Govender: 2013:79).
South Africa performs well regarding the target to improve access to potable water (Banerjee et al., 2011:191; Kahn et al., 2001:116; Smith & Morris, 2008:432). In 1994, South Africa only had a 60% success rate in terms of accessibility to potable water but by 2012, 95% of households had access to water infrastructure at a Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) standard or higher (Republic of South Africa, Development Indicators Report of 2012:35). Despite this recorded progress, there are still challenges such as the fact that only 58% of the population have access to safe drinking water in Southern Africa (Banerjee et al. 2011:2). Although this regional average is lower than South Africa’s rate, it should be noted that the 95% access is an average indicator for the entire country. As such, a thorough investigation is needed of specific areas, such as the informal settlements with poor and vulnerable communities (Hernandez & Lopez, 2011:93), to determine the state of water access.
By the end of the MDGs in 2015, South Africa had achieved the goal of halving the number of people who do did not have access to potable water, by increasing access to 90.8% from 61.8% in 1994 (Republic of South Africa, Statistics South Africa, 2015:xxix). South Africa’s s high level of potable water access can be attributed to government’s policy choices, strategic direction and allocation of resources (Republic of South Africa, Statistics South Africa, 2015:103). Part of the policy choices could include ensuring a successful implementation of services like potable water in poor communities through IGR.
India
Maheshwari, 2003:42, 129 says that India commenced a process of drawing up a Constitution when the country attained freedom from British colonial rule in 1947 and the process was completed in 1950. The author confirms that the Indian Constitution is dedicated to facilitating a sovereign, democratic republic committed to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity among people.
The country’s Constitution exhibits a federal character with a distinct unitary bias (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2004:15). This paradoxical federal form of government, which also showcases a unitary character, provides an interesting contrast because South Africa is a unitary country with federal characteristics, as stated above. The drafting committee of the Constitution assured members that India is a federal state, as it fulfils the requirements of a federal system. For example, the Constitution partitions the legislative and executive authority between the centre and the units (Chauhan, 2010:37). Chakrabarty and Pandey (2008:37) reiterate that the drafting committee of the Constitution said that India is circumstantially unitary and federal because it may be the former on matters of war declaration but federal on other policy directives.
It is of importance that India emerged from the colonial British rule on 15 August 1947 to become a united, peaceful country (Maheshwari, 2003:42; Chakrabarty, et al. 2008:37) Notably, the country’s British colonial background is another similarity with South Africa. India had to consider these issues of colonial fragmentation to arrive at the decision to ensure unity, multi-level governance and formation of seven union territories (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2004:15). The Indian government is made up of 28 states (Heller, 2009:133) and seven union territories (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2004:8).
Although the Indian Constitution is the oldest, its IGR system is effectively as evolving as the one of South Africa. India enacted the 73rd and the 74th Amendment Acts in 1992 and enforced in 1993. According to Chauhan (2010:44), these amendments have given statutory recognition to a three-tier system of governance: Centre (Union government), State level (State Government) and Local level (Local government)”. The amendments were concerned with raising the status of the elected bodies and setting up of district planning committees (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2004:158). The specific implication for the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 is to strengthen the popular local institutions, called Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) (Mishra, 2003:183). PRIs focus on self-government of the people in rural India (Chakrabarty et al., 2008:269). The 74th Amendment of the Constitution, on the other hand, is geared towards empowering the Urban Local Bodies, which are municipalities with more administrative and financial powers (Johnson, 2003, cited in Pahwa & Beland: 2013:3).
A further subdivision of local government into ULBs and PRIs could be an indication of an assurance that local government addresses needs contextually. Local government in India existed even during the colonial times; the 1992 constitutional amendment simply elevated it to a tier of government with functions and resources (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2004:158). By instituting the 74th Amendment, India committed itself to decentralisation (Sarker, 2014:105).
In terms of planning and implementation, a spirit of cooperation is enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It provides for all tiers of government to conduct respective functions in integrated manner and consideration of assigned functions.
The Indian Constitution provides for a division of functions and financial resources between the central and state governments and lays down the mechanism for the devolution of federal resources to states.The Commonwealth Secretariat (2004:8) outlines the following constitutional provisions:
- Both regulatory and developmental administration falls in the sphere of the state. This includes areas such as police, law and order, agriculture, education, housing and basic services, industries, health, forests and fisheries.
- There is a concurrent list that contains areas such as economic and social planning and labour, where the central and state governments jointly frame and implement policies.
According to the Commonwealth Secretariat (2004:157), negotiation and co-operation is the central idea of co-operative federalism. India uses an “Inter-state Council where matters of mutual interest can be discussed and decided by central and state governments”. Structural arrangements such as this Inter-state Council are important to establish and maintain relations because they provide a formal and legal platform to thrash out governance and service delivery issues.
All public institutions are important for the citizens. However, some play a special role, as they provide character to the country and its form of governance like democracy. These institutions become embedded in the constitution, for they are supposed to espouse values of integrity, objectivity, independence and freedom from political tempers (Maheshwari, 2003:49). Institutions such as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India are important for IGR, as they contribute to cooperation (Chakrabarty et al., 2008: 58). They are similar to South Africa’s institutions, as enshrined on chapter 9 of the 1996 Constitution. Radin (2007:368) outlines institution instruments as including formal roles and relationships, patterns of authority and leadership. Thus, institutions assist with confirming a form of government, IGR system and co-operative government that a country could have adopted.
To locate a context of IGR within the framework of the government of India, a simulated structure of government is worth a brief examination. The origin of a sense of political integration and administrative unification was adopted during British colonial rule since 1835, which culminated in the adoption of a Westminster-type government with the rule of law. Thus, Parliamentary democracy and the administrative systems are a British legacy (Maheshwari, 2003:25). Unlike in South Africa where the phrase ‘spheres of government’ is used (Levy, et al., 2001:5); in India ‘tiers’ of government is used to refer to levels (Pal, 2003:1830; Commonwealth Secretariat, 2004:9). Figure 3.1, portrays the set-up of a government of India with reference to an implicit IGR system. It does portray a hierarchical arrangement within the IGR system.
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DECLARATION
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL OVERVIEW AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
1.3 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.6 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.7 METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
1.8 LITERATURE REVIEW
1.9 THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF THE STUDY
1.10 DEMARCATION OF THE STUDY
1.11 CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS
1.12 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW: INTERGOVERNMETAL RELATIONS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
2.3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2.4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS: THEORIES, CONCEPTS AND APPROACHES
2.5 ORIGINS, CONCEPTS AND MODELS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
2.6 SERVICE DELIVERY THEORIES AND ITS MODELS
2.7 CONCEPTUALISING POTABLE WATER DELIVERY
2.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER THREE: COMPARATIVE APPROACHES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 RATIONALE FOR COOPERATIVE IGR
3.3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS IN BRAZIL, INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
3.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FOUR: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS: INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND GAUTENG PROVINCE
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW: IGR IN SOUTH AFRICA
4.3 COOPERATIVE GOVERNMENT AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA
4.4 STRATEGIC REVIEWS FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA
4.5 BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY OF POTABLE WATER
4.6 INSTITUTIONS OF IGR AND POTABLE WATER
4.7. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 PHILOSOPHICAL METHODOLOGY
5.3 RATIONALE FOR A QUALITATIVE APPROACH
5.4 TYPE OF RESEARCH
5.5 CASE STUDY APPROACH
5.6 RESEARCH TECHNIQUES
5.7 ENSURING THE QUALITY OF THE STUDY
5.8 ETHICS IN THE STUDY
5.9 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER SIX: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS
6.3 ANALYSIS OF SETS OF DATA
6.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER SEVEN: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 RESEARCH PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
7.3 SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS
7.4 FINDINGS
7.5. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.6 CONCLUSIONS
7.7 FURTHER RESEARCH
REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS: DELIVERY OF POTABLE WATER TO POOR COMMUNITIES IN DIEPSLOOT OF GAUTENG PROVINCE
