IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rbs/ijbrss/v11y2022i10p277-291.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leaving no one behind in a participative integrated development planning process in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • John Mamokhere

    (University of Limpopo, Department of Research Administration and Development)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the IDP process for improved public participation and thereafter assess the barriers to the design and implementation of the IDP. The IDP process was developed to improve strategic planning and ensure that no one is left behind at the grassroots. This was done by promoting public participation in municipal affairs. Many South African municipalities have been struggling to use the IDP process to improve public participation. A mixed-methods approach to investigate the participative IDP process and barriers, using the Greater Tzaneen Municipality (GTM) as a case study was adopted. The methodology included 400 respondents who were chosen through a probability sampling technique and probed to complete the online survey using a closed-ended questionnaire guide, and 10 respondents were also chosen through a non-probability sampling technique and were face-to-face interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The key results revealed that poor public participation exists in the study area due to a lack of encouragement from responsible authorities. Many barriers hinder the effective design and implementation of the participative IDP process, such as protests, working in silos, a lack of institutional resources to address the competing needs of communities, and a lack of transparency, accountability, and consultation. Lastly, the lack of oversight by the municipality in the adoption of e-participation has been discovered as a barrier to the design and implementation of participative IDP process during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study concludes by providing a few recommendations to enhance participative IDP process. The GTM should at all times uphold democratic principles by ensuring active and effective public participation, transparency, and accountability in municipal affairs. South African municipalities, especially GTM, should develop innovative institutional and organizational skills to make better use of their resources, solve socioeconomic barriers, and enhance service delivery. Key Words:Democratic, E-participation, Leaving No One Behind, Public Participation, IDP Process, SDGs, Service delivery backlogs,

Suggested Citation

  • John Mamokhere, 2022. "Leaving no one behind in a participative integrated development planning process in South Africa," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 11(10), pages 277-291, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:277-291
    DOI: 10.20525/ijrbs.v11i10.2238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs/article/view/2238/1620
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i10.2238
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i10.2238?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. France Khutso Lavhelani Kgobe & John Mamokhere, 2021. "The Value of Public Participation in Land-Use Planning for Redeeming Congestion in South African Municipalities," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 26(1), pages 17-31, Decembrie.
    2. Cavaye, Jim, 2001. "Rural Community Development - New Challenges and Enduring Dilemmas," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 31(2), pages 1-16.
    3. John Mamokhere, 2022. "Pragmatic implementation and promotion of good governance principles in realizing Sustainable Development Goal Six (6) in South Africa," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 11(6), pages 20-32, September.
    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. Albert Irambeshya, 2024. "Older People Reimagining and Envisioning Preventive Care Through Land Acquisition: Evidence From Rwanda," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    2. Phuong T. Nguyen & Sam Wells & Nam Nguyen, 2019. "A Systemic Indicators Framework for Sustainable Rural Community Development," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 335-352, June.
    3. John Mamokhere & Daniel F Meyer, 2022. "Including the excluded in the integrated development planning process for improved community participation," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 11(4), pages 286-299, June.
    4. Heilbrunn, Sibylle, 2005. "Entrepreneurship, Social Capital and Community Development: The case of Israeli Kibbutz," Journal of Rural Cooperation, Hebrew University, Center for Agricultural Economic Research, vol. 33(2), pages 1-16.
    5. Phuong T. Nguyen & Sam Wells & Nam Nguyen, 2021. "Systemic Indicators for Rural Communities in Developing Countries: Empirical Evidence from Vietnam," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 203-226, April.
    6. Mohammed Faez Hasan & Noor Salah Abdelnaby Al-Ramadan, 2022. "Using Options Futures Derivatives Weather in Hedging," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 31(1), pages 430-436, May.
    7. Vaznonienė Gintarė & Kiaušienė Ilona, 2018. "Social Infrastructure Services for Promoting Local Community Wellbeing in Lithuania," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 340-354, June.
    8. Navarro, Andres & Tapiador, Francisco J., 2019. "RUSEM: A numerical model for policymaking and climate applications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.

    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:rbs:ijbrss:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:277-291. 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: Umit Hacioglu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbffea.html .

    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.