IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/nonpfo/v13y2022i2p119-139n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges to Nonprofit Organization Participation in Social and Development Policy Planning in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Nwauche Sokeibelemaye

    (Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work,University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

  • Flanigan Shawn Teresa

    (School of Public Affairs, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr, MC 4505, 92182-0001 San Diego, CA, USA)

Abstract

In South Africa, government relies significantly on NGOs in the delivery of social services (Patel, L. 2012. “Developmental Social Policy, Social Welfare Services and the Non‐Profit Sector in South Africa.” Social Policy & Administration 46 (6): 603–18). The services NGOs provide in areas such as early childhood development, education, health care, skills development, food security, elder care, and other arenas form part of South Africa’s framework for achieving its long-term development goals. Also aligned to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this government-NGO shared vision for development highlights the importance of NGOs in the development ecosystem. At the policy level, government explicitly refers to NGOs as stakeholders and development partners. However, at the level of practice, questions remain about NGOs’ participation in planning for the development to which they so significantly contribute, and the extent of NGOs’ role in increasing participation in democratic processes. In an effort to better understand whether NGOs adequately participate in development planning processes in South Africa, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 73 participants, including NGO leaders and relevant key informants from national, provincial and municipal levels of government. The interview data were supplemented with content analysis of government documents. In spite of the fact that NGOs’ involvement in development planning is explained by the state as a good governance principle ensuring meaningful participation of stakeholders (Republic of South Africa: Department of Social Development 2017, United Nations Development Programme 2011), the research findings suggest that NGOs’ participation in the development planning process is deficient. This deficiency stems from institutional and policy issues including the lack of a framework for participation, government’s perception of NGOs and neglect of the NGO sector, and political issues such as partisan political activity in spaces of participation and engagement. The democratic potential of NGO participation is also hindered by organizational issues relating to the amorphous nature of the NGO sector, apathy of NGOs and a fragmented NGO sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Nwauche Sokeibelemaye & Flanigan Shawn Teresa, 2022. "Challenges to Nonprofit Organization Participation in Social and Development Policy Planning in South Africa," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 119-139, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:nonpfo:v:13:y:2022:i:2:p:119-139:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/npf-2021-0049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0049
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/npf-2021-0049?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goulet, Denis, 1989. "Participation in development: New avenues," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 165-178, February.
    2. Lyon, Andrew & Hunter-Jones, Philippa & Warnaby, Gary, 2017. "Are we any closer to sustainable development? Listening to active stakeholder discourses of tourism development in the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve, South Africa," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 234-247.
    3. Andrew Crane & Trish Ruebottom, 2011. "Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 77-87, March.
    4. E. A. Brett, 2003. "Participation and accountability in development management," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 1-29.
    5. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    6. Michel Tshiyoyo, 2019. "Non-governmental organisations as alternatives for service delivery in contemporary states," International Journal of Management Practice, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(1), pages 127-146.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sneddon, Chris & Fox, Coleen, 2007. "Power, Development, and Institutional Change: Participatory Governance in the Lower Mekong Basin," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 2161-2181, December.
    2. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    3. Pilar Useche, 2016. "Who Contributes to the Provision of Public Goods at the Community Level? The Case of Potable Water in Ghana," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 34(6), pages 869-888, November.
    4. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Pablo Aragonés‐Beltrán & Mª. Carmen González‐Cruz & Astrid León‐Camargo & Rosario Viñoles‐Cebolla, 2023. "Assessment of regional development needs according to criteria based on the Sustainable Development Goals in the Meta Region (Colombia)," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 1101-1121, April.
    7. Sophie King, 2014. "Cultivating political capabilities among Ugandan smallholders: good governance or popular organisation building?," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 19314, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    8. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    9. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Teea Kortetmäki & Anna Heikkinen & Ari Jokinen, 2023. "Particularizing Nonhuman Nature in Stakeholder Theory: The Recognition Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 17-31, June.
    11. Catherine Ragasa & Cristina Alvarez-Mingote & Paul McNamara, 2024. "Bottom-Up Approaches and Decentralized Extension Structures for Improving Access to and Quality of Extension Services and Technology Adoption: Multi-level Analysis from Malawi," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 36(5), pages 1093-1146, October.
    12. Yimin Cheng & Xiaoyu Zhou & Kai Yao, 2023. "LGBT-Inclusive Representation in Entertainment Products and Its Market Response: Evidence from Field and Lab," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(4), pages 1189-1209, April.
    13. Katharina Löhr & Christian Hochmuth & Frieder Graef & Jane Wambura & Stefan Sieber, 2017. "Conflict management programs in trans-disciplinary research projects: the case of a food security project in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1189-1201, December.
    14. Deribe Assefa Aga & N. Noorderhaven & B. Vallejo, 2018. "Project beneficiary participation and behavioural intentions promoting project sustainability: The mediating role of psychological ownership," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 36(5), pages 527-546, September.
    15. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    16. Victoria Wells & Nick Ellis & Richard Slack & Mona Moufahim, 2019. "“It’s Us, You Know, There’s a Feeling of Community”: Exploring Notions of Community in a Consumer Co-operative," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 617-635, September.
    17. repec:sae:envval:v:18:y:2009:i:2:p:153-176 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Thomas Kiptanui Tarus & Joel K Tenai & Joyce Komen, 2020. "Does Ownership Structure Affect Risk Management? Evidence from an Emerging Economy, Kenya," Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance Research, Scientific Publishing Institute, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10.
    19. Ana F. Ferreira & Heike Zimmermann & Rui Santos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "A Social–Ecological Systems Framework as a Tool for Understanding the Effectiveness of Biosphere Reserve Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-26, October.
    20. Viveros, Hector, 2017. "Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    21. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:nonpfo:v:13:y:2022:i:2:p:119-139:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.