Original Research

Optimising governance to improve basic service delivery in the South African local government: A conceptual paper

Ntebaleng J. Makoae, Moses M. Gasela

Received: 12 Jan. 2026; Accepted: 29 Apr. 2026; Published: 05 June 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Background: Governance plays a crucial role in the provision of basic service delivery in any local government context.

Objectives: The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework on the influence of governance on basic service delivery in the South African local government context.

Method: This study used a systematic literature review (SLR) approach. It is entirely based on secondary sources of information, such as conceptual papers, books, journal articles, the internet and articles published between 2004 and 2025. Key constructs of ‘revenue collection in municipalities’ and ‘local government revenue’ were used in the searches of academic databases which included SCOPUS, IBSS, JSTOR and Google Scholar.

Results: It was found that corruption and misuse of resources, public mistrust, decrease in revenue collection, political interference, health and environmental risks, infrastructure decay, service delivery protests and social unrest are antecedents and costs of weak governance in the South African municipalities, resulting in adverse impact on service delivery. A further finding is that public confidence, legitimacy with stakeholders, good performance, professionalisation of local government, community involvement and participation as well as financial stability and sustainability are the outcomes of good governance.

Conclusion: The literature suggests that good governance is associated with improved service delivery outcomes.

Contribution: Using the institutional theory, the study contributes to the immersed understanding of the critical role played by governance to service delivery in local government within the Global South. The findings of the investigation have practical and theoretical implications for the academia, policy makers and public officials.

Keywords: governance; basic service delivery; municipalities; institutional theory.

Introduction

This study aims to develop a conceptual framework to optimise governance practices in the South African local government for the purpose of improving the delivery of basic services to local communities. Although approaching it from different angles, a scan of recent and reliable sources such as Mphanya et al. (2025), Sadike (2025), the National Treasury (2023) and the Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA 2024) reveals a plethora of challenges on the phenomena of interest to the study (governance practices and basic service delivery) in South African local government in general.

The quality of governance is a critical determinant of service delivery outcomes in municipalities, where governance failures have resulted in the collapse of essential services (Bester, 2024). These failures have sparked frequent community protests, often expressed through road blockages and the burning of tyres, as widely reported in the media (OFM News, 2021).

Service delivery disruptions, including deteriorating infrastructure, recurring electricity and water outages, and declining waste management, have powered widespread public dissatisfaction in the South African government (News24, 2025; OFM News, 2025). These challenges emphasise the urgent need to strengthen governance structures to ensure sustainable, accountable and efficient service delivery. Hence, the knowledge gap exists, as there have been no conceptual studies which have been conducted in the context of local government on the phenomenon of governance and basic service delivery. Thus, the contributory value of the study in theory and practice is contextual.

Municipalities in South Africa face issues like financial mismanagement, maladministration and poor performance; most municipalities have been placed under administration in recent years due to systemic governance problems and ongoing ‘unclean’ audits (AGSA, 2024). Years of political instability, weak institutional capacity and mismanagement have undermined its ability to meet even the most basic needs of residents (Mphanya et al., 2025).

The ongoing failure of the municipalities to fulfil their constitutional responsibilities ultimately required provincial interventions by many provincial governments. For instance, in early 2025, the Free State provincial government placed the Majhabeng local municipality under administration according to Section 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Sadike, 2025). This intervention aimed to restore governance stability and improve basic service delivery. At that time, the municipality had defaulted on payments to Eskom and water boards, accumulating debts exceeding R14 billion, which caused repeated service disruptions and nearly complete operational breakdowns. The aforesaid R14 billion pertains to one municipality alone in the context of 257 municipalities in total, which make up the South African local government sphere. Along with these financial crises, ongoing allegations of corruption and a pattern of irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditures further eroded public trust (Monyane, 2025). These issues highlight a serious breach of the municipality’s constitutional duties, especially Section 152(2), which requires municipalities to use their capacity to provide sustainable services and promote development, and Section 153(a), which obliges municipalities to prioritise community needs in budgeting and planning.

Reports from the Auditor-General of South Africa continue to expose poor governance practices, misuse of public resources, and low compliance levels across most municipalities (AGSA, 2024). These issues stand in sharp contrast to the vision set out in the 1998 White Paper on Local Government, which described municipalities as accountable and responsive institutions expected to work closely with communities to promote social and economic development (Republic of South Africa, 1998). However, planning tools such as the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and the Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan (SDBIP) are often outdated, poorly aligned with current socio-economic conditions and developed without adequate community consultation (Sadike, 2025). This lack of responsiveness deepens the gap between policy objectives and municipal practice. In this context, it is clear that there is a need to explore how governance failures contribute to service delivery problems and how governance mechanisms can be enhanced to restore performance, rebuild community trust and improve basic service delivery in the South African local government.

The National Treasury (2023) emphasises that municipal sustainability relies on four key pillars: institutional arrangements, financial health, financial governance and service delivery. According to Local government’s 2023–2024 Annual Report, governance structures such as the mayor, speaker, chief whip, mayoral committee, council portfolios, budget and IDP steering committees, internal audit, risk management, municipal public accounts committee (MPAC) and performance monitoring bodies are all in place (Local government, 2023/24). Key leadership positions, including the municipal manager and chief financial officer, are also filled. Despite these formal systems, service delivery problems continue, revealing a gap between institutional design and actual execution. This persistent disconnect between governance and service delivery highlights the main challenge facing the municipalities: the failure to meet their constitutional mandate to provide sustainable and reliable basic services.

Given the numerous contextual challenges related to the phenomenon of interest to the investigation, including governance and basic service delivery, which have been explained in, it is clear that there is a knowledge gap in the context of local government. This conceptual paper could help close that gap in both theory and practice, contributing to the field. A further discussion on the potential added value of the study for policymakers, practitioners and academia.

This paper is organised as follows. The first part covers the research design and methodology of this conceptual investigation. It is followed by an exposition of its ethical considerations. The analysis of the relevant theoretical framework and literature pertaining to the phenomenon of interest is presented, culminating in a synthesis of the key themes which were unmasked in the study. Finally, the study conclusions and recommendations are presented, which include the conceptual framework of the study.

Research methods and design

This study used a systematic literature review (SLR) approach. It is based upon secondary sources of information such as conceptual papers, books, journal articles, the internet and articles published between 2004 and 2025. Key constructs of ‘revenue collection in municipalities’ and ‘local government revenue’ were used in the searches of academic databases, which included SCOPUS, IBSS, JSTOR and Google Scholar.

Theoretical framework and analysis of relevant literature

Key definitions

Governance and basic service delivery are key concepts of this study. Their meanings will be examined in detail to establish the accepted and adopted definition. This helps to properly situate the study. Governance will be discussed first, followed by basic service delivery.

Governance

Governance is a widely discussed topic in public administration and development studies, with scholars such as Peters et al. (2022), Asthana et al. (2024) and others offering different views on its meaning depending on the context. The insights from international, African and South African settings provide valuable theoretical background for this study.

Peters et al. (2022) describe governance as the process of forming and achieving collective goals, emphasising coordination among multiple actors rather than government acting alone. Building on the same idea as the previous author (Peters et al., 2022) but from a different perspective, Asthana et al. (2024) see governance as the process of decision-making and implementing (or not implementing) those decisions, stressing that accountability, transparency, equity, participation, and the rule of law are key components of good governance. Comparing the two sources (Asthana et al., 2024; Peters et al., 2022) shows that they approach governance from different angles: Peters et al. (2022) focus on politics and coordination among multiple actors. This perspective helps municipalities because services depend on how councils, departments, utilities, and communities collaborate. The weakness is vagueness in procedures: coordination is highlighted but not linked to specific metrics like fault-repair times or water-outage days. Asthana et al. (2024) offer a conditions-based approach, concentrating on accountability, transparency, equity, participation and the rule of law, which provides a clear checklist. The downside is that communities might just go through the motions, and results could be biased because the assessment is based on a crisis scenario.

Approaching the concept of governance from an African perspective, Olaniyan (2023) asserts that governance involves authority and accountability to the community, stewardship of resources, leadership and the exercise of direction and control. Stressing the importance of trust and stewardship in local governance systems.

An analysis of Olaniyan’s (2023) contribution emphasises that community stewardship and trust can address gaps in state capacity, especially in areas where formal systems underperform, such as in Virginia. Olaniyan (2023) demonstrates how these community-based approaches can help fill these gaps, particularly in places like Virginia. Closer to home in South Africa, Sebola (2021) argues that governance effectiveness is assessed through accountability systems and leadership capacity, with weak institutional mechanisms often undermining municipal service delivery. Sebola (2021) offers South African-specific insights, explaining failure through weak leadership and poor accountability. This highlights why services break down but leaves ambiguity about what to prioritise and focuses more on upward accountability (audits, compliance) at the expense of downward accountability (citizen satisfaction, perceived quality). In municipal practice, it suggests pairing audit and consequence management data with citizen-facing indicators.

Taken together, the literature suggests that the quality of municipal governance, and therefore service outcomes, depends on the interaction of: coordination mechanisms across state and non-state actors (Peters, 2022); an enforceable accountability framework with measurable standards that balances upward and downward accountability (Asthana et al., 2024; Sebola, 2021); and locally legitimate stewardship that builds trust while remaining rooted in statutory controls (Olaniyan, 2023). This supports evaluating governance not only based on structures and norms but also through performance indicators such as service reliability, response and repair times, complaint resolution, capital expenditure execution and citizen satisfaction, which reflect actual delivery improvements.

The accepted definition for this study is that governance is the system of rules, roles and relationships through which municipal leaders, institutions, communities and other actors coordinate to set and achieve collective goals; make, implement and review decisions; and are held accountable to enforceable standards both upward and downward to ensure the delivery of ethical, efficient and responsive basic services within statutory controls such as laws and regulations. This definition is chosen because it links governance directly to service delivery outcomes, reflects both global and African perspectives, and emphasises accountability as key to restoring trust in municipalities like local government. The study will assess governance through delivery performance indicators: service reliability, response and citizen satisfaction.

Basic services delivery

It appears there is a consensus among management authors such as Roder DeWan et al. (2023) and Mphanya et al. (2025) that service delivery refers to providing public goods and services to communities, focusing on efficiency, accountability and responsiveness. Although these scholars broadly agree on the meaning of basic service delivery, it is also clear that they define it in various ways, emphasising different aspects of governance and community needs. According to Okeng and Diala (2024), service delivery is a human right and a core part of the social contract between the state and its citizens, highlighting the legal obligations of local governments to meet basic needs. Roder-DeWan et al. (2023) suggest that service delivery redesign is a process aimed at improving accessibility and quality across different sectors, especially healthcare. Okeng and Diala (2024) adopt a rights-based perspective rooted in legal and social contracts, while Roder-DeWan et al. emphasise a process-oriented approach focused on ongoing redesign to enhance access and quality. Building on these perspectives (Okeng & Diala, 2024; Roder-DeWan et al., 2023), Mphanya et al. (2025) define municipal service delivery as performance outcomes influenced by governance capacity, infrastructure maintenance and accountability, with failures occurring when these inputs break down.

From a different perspective, considering all the contributions cited thus far, Hanson et al. (2020) argue that the service redesign should be co-designed, country-led, adapted to the context and fit for purpose. Hanson et al. emphasise a participatory, process- and co-design framework that highlights the importance of aligning service redesign with local context and stakeholder needs.

Their approach encourages collaborative involvement of local actors such as community members, service users, and practitioners to ensure that reforms are both relevant to the local context and socially integrated. In contrast, Mphanya et al. emphasise empirical, place-based evidence demonstrating how governance dynamics and infrastructure influence service delivery outcomes.

For this investigation, basic service delivery is defined as the provision of public goods and services that are efficient, accountable and responsive to community needs. It is grounded in the social contract, developed with stakeholder input, and involves ongoing improvements to boost accessibility and quality while tackling governance and infrastructure issues in local government.

Institutional theory

As expected, many theories could be explored regarding the phenomenon. However, for this study, the institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) is considered relevant due to its broad applicability across different contexts. Additionally, the theory helps to explain local government’s challenges with compliance, accountability and systemic failures. The theory is introduced with its origins, supporting scholars, critics and limitations, and is applied to the context of basic services provided by local government.

Institutional theory, first introduced by Meyer and Rowan (1977) and later expanded by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), suggests that organisations adopt structures and practices not only to improve efficiency but also to gain legitimacy within society. Scott (2014) and Peters (2019) support this perspective, arguing that legal, professional, and cultural pressures drive municipalities to implement mechanisms such as Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and ward committees. More recently, Barbar (2025) emphasises that institutional theory should be understood in the context of institutional voids in emerging settings, while Finocchiaro Castro et al. (2025) provides empirical evidence that institutional quality influences cost efficiency in social services at the local government level. Critics like Donaldson and Preston (1995) and Kraatz and Block (2008) argue that the theory overlooks the roles of leadership and individual decision-making, while Oliver (1991) notes that organisations may appear to comply with reforms without genuinely changing their operations. A major limitation of the theory is that it explains why reforms are adopted but not whether they lead to improved outcomes. In the local government’s case, this helps explain why adherence exists on paper but does not translate into effective service delivery. The theory is relevant to this study because it illustrates that structures may be in place on paper but can fail in practice; this seems to be the case in local government.

Governing body responsibilities

Studies such as Fourie and Van der Waldt (2023), Magagula et al. (2022) and Ngubane and Wotela (2024) highlight common responsibilities, identify weaknesses in oversight and accountability and argue that these shortcomings are central to explaining persistent service delivery failures, especially in the case of local government.

Governing bodies in local government, such as municipal councils, mayors and their committees, hold the ultimate responsibility for guiding municipalities towards effective service delivery. Their main duties include approving strategic plans and budgets, monitoring performance, safeguarding financial resources and ensuring that administrations act with integrity and accountability (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s152; Fourie & Van der Waldt, 2023; Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000, ss4–6; Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003, ss52–53).

Recent empirical studies, such as Verhelst and Peters (2025), Magagula et al. (2022) and others from different contexts, shed light on both the expectations placed on governing bodies and the challenges they face in fulfilling these responsibilities. In the Netherlands, Verhelst and Peters (2025) surveyed over 1,500 councillors and found that effective oversight depends on both personal factors, such as councillors’ skills and attitudes, and institutional supports, including access to staff assistance, support from party groups and training opportunities. Similarly, Lerusse (2025) confirmed findings from the Belgian study (Verhelst & Peters, 2025) that councillors heavily rely on performance and financial information to set priorities, but many lack the training to interpret technical data effectively.

Studies from the African context confirm these governance challenges. Magagula et al. (2022), writing about district municipalities in South Africa, emphasise that district councils have a responsibility to support local service delivery, yet political interference and resource constraints often weaken this role. Echoing the previous source (Magagula et al. 2022), Ngubane (2024) highlights the role of mayors as political heads of municipalities, noting that transformational leadership styles are linked with stronger oversight, better consequence management and more effective municipal turnaround strategies. Together, these studies demonstrate that African governing bodies are expected not only to exercise oversight but also to provide leadership and institutional support, responsibilities that are frequently undermined by political dynamics and capacity limitations.

South African literature often explores recurring themes related to the scope and challenges of governing body responsibilities. Fourie and Van der Waldt (2023) find that municipal councillors and oversight committees, such as Municipal Public Accounts Committees (MPACs), play a vital role in holding administrations accountable for financial and performance results, but many councillors are still underprepared and lack the technical skills to scrutinise complex reports. Shava (2025) notes that the absence of consequence management systems undermines accountability, as officials frequently face no penalties for poor performance or misconduct. Studies in the South African context suggest that although governing bodies in South African municipalities are officially mandated to exercise vigorous oversight, their effectiveness is often limited by capacity issues and the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms.

Taken together, recent sources, such as Magagula et al. (2022) and Ngubane (2024), highlight consistent trends. Councils and mayors are expected to provide strategic direction, approve budgets, monitor performance and uphold ethical conduct (Magagula et al., 2022; Ngubane, 2024). However, weaknesses remain; oversight capacity is limited, councillors often lack technical expertise, committees struggle to enforce accountability and political interference undermines independent decision-making (Fourie & Van der Waldt, 2023; Shava, 2025). Strengthening leadership and institutional capacity remains a recurring priority (Verhelst & Peters, 2025).

The next section presents an overview of the relevant typology of basic services, describing the categories of services that municipalities are required to provide and their importance for community well-being.

Relevant typology of basic services

This study examines four essential services: water, sanitation, refuse removal and electricity, which are constitutionally mandated functions of municipalities under section 152(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. These services are vital for community well-being and socioeconomic development, as they directly impact public health, safety and livelihoods (Bester, 2024). When poorly provided, they lead to public dissatisfaction, community protests and governance crises (Mamokhere, 2025; Matloga et al., 2024). In the South African local government, repeated failures in these services have caused widespread frustration and unrest, as reported in both Auditor-General reports and local media (AGSA, 2024; OFM News, 2025). Recent academic research highlights that the efficiency of these services largely depends on the strength of governance systems and municipal leadership (Amusa & Fadiran, 2024; Bester, 2024).

The first subsection discusses water and sanitation. It is followed by an explanation of refuse removal and waste management. The final part covers electricity.

Water and sanitation

Limited access to basic services like water and energy in rural and peri-urban areas is associated with persistent poverty and inequality in South African municipalities (Amusa & Fadiran, 2024). These communities often experience rapid population growth and unplanned settlement expansion, which put additional pressure on municipal infrastructure and planning systems (Bester, 2024). This situation is relevant to Virginia, where communities heavily rely on the local government for basic services. Despite their vital role, many municipalities face challenges such as ageing infrastructure, water shortages and poor maintenance, threatening sustainable water and sanitation delivery (AGSA, 2024; Mudzusi et al., 2024). These structural problems cause recurring service interruptions and backlogs, highlighting the urgent need for improved governance and planning to achieve fair service delivery.

Auditor-General South Africa (2024) assesses how well municipal spending on basic services works, finding that many municipalities do not use their resources effectively, resulting in poor service outcomes. In the South African local government, frequent water outages and sewer blockages are commonly reported, showing how weaknesses in governance and planning directly impact the quality of water and sanitation services delivered to communities.

Refuse removal and waste management

Waste removal is crucial for maintaining clean and safe communities. When waste collection is inconsistent or inadequate, it causes environmental pollution, illegal dumping and health dangers. Niyobuhungiro et al. (2025) studied waste management practices in informal areas and discovered that gaps in planning and governance often lead to unsafe disposal methods, impacting vulnerable communities the most, with smoke exposure from burning waste and contamination near water sources, which contribute to environmental pollution and health issues.

In South African local government, infrequent refuse collection has led to widespread illegal waste disposal, causing environmental damage and community dissatisfaction. Mngomezulu et al. (2024) further emphasise that inefficient resource use worsens these issues, indicating that improving waste management needs better planning and stronger accountability systems.

Electricity

Electricity is essential for households, businesses and public institutions, supporting economic activity, education and overall quality of life. Mphanya et al. (2025) include electricity provision as a key service in their assessment of municipal performance, demonstrating that financial mismanagement and inefficient governance often result in unreliable supply.

Furthermore, in South African local government, a large debt to Eskom has created risks of widespread disconnections, threatening the stability of electricity services. Auditor-General South Africa (2024) notes that political interference and lack of technical skills are common obstacles to reliable electricity delivery in many municipalities. Fixing these issues requires transparent financial management and strong leadership.

Governance challenges affecting basic services

The delivery of basic services is directly impacted by the quality of municipal governance. Monyane (2025) identifies factors such as corruption, weak institutional capacity and poor accountability as key causes of service delivery failures in South African municipalities. Similarly, Bester (2024) introduces a framework for enhancing municipal service delivery performance, known as the Five Pillars of Municipal Functionality. These pillars include governance and leadership, financial management, infrastructure management, service delivery and effective communication plus stakeholder engagement, which are interdependent elements necessary for municipalities to operate effectively. This framework offers a structured way to diagnose issues and guide reforms aimed at restoring reliable basic services.

When public participation is limited, services often do not meet the actual needs of the community. Matloga et al. (2024) emphasise that meaningful citizen involvement is crucial for improving planning and ensuring that services like water, electricity, sanitation and waste management address local priorities.

Water, sanitation, refuse collection and electricity are not just utilities; when governance is weak, communities face water outages, sewer spills, uncollected waste, power disruptions and a gradual loss of trust in the municipality. In the South African local government, improving these services depends on strengthening governance systems, ensuring efficient resource use and engaging communities in decision-making. This integrated approach can create a reliable and sustainable service delivery model, rebuild trust and enhance residents’ quality of life in South Africa.

Relevant governance principles of the governing bodies

The section starts with an explanation of the main approaches to governance, specifically rules-based versus principles-based. To build a solid theoretical foundation for this discussion, it then reviews major governance codes and frameworks in both the international and African contexts. The final parts of the section provide an overview of empirical evidence and applications related to governance principles of governing bodies, including issues and trends.

Rules-based versus principles-based

Rules-based governance relies on detailed requirements established by law or regulation. Organisations must adhere to these rules and may face sanctions if they do not, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s internal control rules. Principle-based governance, on the other hand, involves broad principles and desired outcomes. Boards use their judgment to interpret and apply these principles within their context and then explain their actions and reasoning (Financial Reporting Council [FRC], 2024; Institute of Directors in Southern Africa [IoDSA], 2016).

Major governance codes and frameworks

In the United Kingdom, a principles-based approach, known as ‘comply or explain’, is followed. The UK’s tradition began with the Cadbury Report (1992) and was expanded by Greenbury Committee (1995) on remuneration and Hampel Committee (1998). These developments were unified into the Combined Code and later the UK Corporate Governance Code, which remains principles-based and relies on ‘comply or explain’ (Cadbury Committee, 1992; FRC, 2024; Greenbury Committee, 1995; Hampel Committee, 1998).

In the United States, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 established strict laws to enhance corporate governance after major scandals like Enron and WorldCom. These laws emphasise internal controls, financial reporting and independent audits. The Act is enforced by two main organisations: the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates financial markets and protects investors (SEC), and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which oversees external auditors to ensure accuracy and independence (PCAOB).

In Singapore, the corporate governance system adopts a mixed approach. Companies must adhere to broad principles that establish the overall standards for good governance. In addition, there are more detailed provisions. If a company does not fully comply with a specific provision, it must publicly explain why it chose a different approach. This is known as the ‘comply or explain’ method. It provides companies with flexibility while ensuring transparency and accountability (Monetary Authority of Singapore [MAS], 2018).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/G20 Principles serve as a global benchmark: The 2023 revision emphasises sustainability, resilience, investor stewardship and disclosure more strongly, and it is widely referenced across different jurisdictions (OECD, 2023).

South Africa, King Reports (King IV): King IV is a principles- and outcomes-based code using ‘apply and explain’. It emphasises ethical leadership, performance, adequate controls and stakeholder inclusion, and includes a supplement for municipalities (IoDSA, 2016).

Empirical evidence and applications

Global governance codes provide essential frameworks, but their effectiveness relies on proper implementation. Research shows that rules-based regimes, like those in the United States, improve internal controls and financial oversight. However, they often foster a compliance culture focused on ticking boxes rather than promoting ethical leadership. Conversely, principles-based systems, such as the United Kingdom’s ‘comply or explain’ approach, offer flexibility and encourage innovation but depend heavily on strong leadership and stakeholder trust to prevent superficial reporting (FRC, 2024; OECD, 2023).

In the African context, governance faces challenges from weak institutions, political interference and limited public participation. Matloga et al. (2024) found that many municipalities fail to engage communities effectively, leading to decisions that do not address citizens’ needs. Similarly, Mudzusi et al. (2024) point out issues such as blurred roles between politicians and administrators, weak oversight and poor accountability, which directly harm service delivery. This illustrates that governance principles alone are insufficient without strong leadership and enforcement.

In South Africa, the King IV principles of ethical leadership, accountability, stakeholder inclusivity and transparency are crucial for enhancing municipal performance. Amusa and Fadiran (2024) discovered significant differences in how municipalities allocate resources for essential services such as water, sanitation, electricity and waste management. These inefficiencies often stem from weak financial controls and insufficient oversight. Bester (2024) presents a five-pillars framework, governance and leadership, financial management, infrastructure, service delivery, and community engagement, as a tool to identify and fix dysfunction. His research shows that municipalities with strong governance pillars achieve better and more sustainable results.

Governance failures have evident community impacts. Niyobuhungiro et al. (2025) found that in informal settlements, poor planning and inadequate waste management lead to illegal dumping and serious health risks. These issues stem from a lack of inclusive decision-making and poor resource allocation, both of which are addressed by King IV’s outcomes-based approach.

Overall, the literature shows that the success of governance principles depends on how deeply they are integrated into municipal systems. For South African municipalities, King IV is not just about compliance but about fostering ethical leadership, increasing transparency, and ensuring effective use of resources. In places like local government, where service delivery backlogs and public distrust are common, these principles offer a framework for reform. Stronger oversight, meaningful community participation and accountability can help shift municipalities from crisis management to sustainable service delivery.

Effective governance is crucial for enhancing municipal services in South Africa. When King IV is properly implemented, it can rebuild trust, boost accountability and ensure efficient service delivery, helping municipalities tackle systemic issues like those faced by local government.

Issues and trends

Recent studies show that governance is shifting towards hybrid approaches that combine high-level principles with enforceable requirements, such as listing rules and internal control obligations. The focus is moving from merely ticking boxes to achieving demonstrable outcomes and providing high-quality explanations, a stance supported by the UK Corporate Governance Code and King IV (FRC, 2024; IoDSA, 2016). Globally, the OECD and G20 principles highlight sustainability, resilience and stewardship as key goals of modern governance (OECD, 2023). However, in South Africa, ongoing gaps in public participation, oversight and consequence management continue to undermine service delivery, pointing to the need for stronger leadership, accountability and citizen involvement (Bester, 2024; Matloga et al., 2024; Mudzusi et al., 2024).

Implications of governance outcomes to basic service delivery

This section examines how governance outcomes impact the delivery of basic municipal services, including water, sanitation, refuse removal and electricity. Governance outcomes emphasise how leadership decisions, accountability mechanisms and institutional processes produce tangible benefits for communities. According to the King IV Report, governing bodies are responsible for achieving four key outcomes: ethical culture, good performance, effective control and legitimacy with stakeholders (IoDSA, 2016). These outcomes connect governance principles to the daily experiences of communities and are crucial in assessing whether municipalities, such as local government, meet their constitutional obligations to provide reliable and sustainable services.

Synthesis of the key themes

This section brings together everything covered thus far with an objective of highlighting several benefits as well as costs and disadvantages of weak governance and strong governance in local government contexts.

Positive governance outcomes

When governance is effective, municipalities achieve better performance, increased accountability and improved stakeholder relationships. King IV emphasises that governing bodies should not only comply with governance principles but also demonstrate how this results in real outcomes such as ethical conduct, sustainable performance and increased legitimacy (IoDSA, 2016).

Public confidence: Transparent governance processes build trust between municipalities and communities. When residents see that resources are managed properly, they are more willing to cooperate by paying for services and participating in planning initiatives. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2023) reports that transparency and clear reporting improve citizen satisfaction worldwide, while Ndevu and Muller (2020) find that municipalities with clean audits have higher revenue collection.

Legitimacy with stakeholders: Legitimacy arises from fair, transparent and inclusive decision-making. Stakeholders, including communities, businesses, and civil society, are more likely to support municipal projects when decisions are communicated clearly and inclusively (IoDSA, 2016).

Good performance: Strong governance improves both efficiency and quality in service delivery. Olaniyan (2023) found that municipalities with stronger governance structures manage resources effectively, leading to a reliable water supply, consistent waste collection and stable electricity services. Bester (2024) identifies governance and leadership as the foundation of his five-pillars framework, arguing that without ethical leadership and clear accountability, the other pillars – financial management, infrastructure management, service delivery and community engagement – cannot operate effectively.

Professionalisation of local government: Merit-based appointments and clear role definitions reduce political interference and enhance service delivery capacity. Bester (2024) argues that municipalities with skilled staff are more capable of planning and executing projects effectively.

Community involvement and participation: Meaningful public participation ensures that services meet community needs, reducing conflict and increasing satisfaction. Matloga et al. (2024) found that when communities are actively involved in decisions about basic services, implementation runs more smoothly and illegal practices such as dumping decline.

Financial stability and sustainability: Positive governance outcomes enhance revenue collection and decrease irregular spending, fostering financial stability that guarantees ongoing service delivery (Gcabashe & Pillay 2025).

Costs and disadvantages of weak governance

When governance outcomes are poor, municipalities face significant risks. These shortcomings directly impact service delivery and diminish public trust:

Corruption and misuse of resources: Corruption weakens local governments by diverting funds meant for essential services into personal gain, leading to stalled projects, deteriorating infrastructure and poorly maintained assets such as water pipes, sewer systems and electrical networks. This reduces service quality and increases public mistrust (Mudzusi et al., 2024).

Public mistrust: Communities lose trust in municipal leadership when services break down or decisions are not transparent. This often results in protests, vandalism and non-payment for services (Matloga et al., 2024).

Decrease in revenue collection: A loss of public confidence in municipal governance and leadership discourages residents from paying for services, creating cash-flow problems. links poor governance to financial instability and service delivery collapse (Amusa, 2024).

Political interference: Weak separation of powers between political leaders and municipal administrators results in decisions influenced by political interests rather than focusing on service delivery priorities (Bester, 2024).

Health and environmental risks: Niyobuhungiro et al. (2025) emphasise the vulnerability of informal settlements caused by inadequate waste collection and sanitation services. Similarly, in Virginia, repeated sewer spillages and poor refuse management have resulted in illegal dumping and increasing health risks, highlighting systemic weaknesses in local government’s governance structures.

Infrastructure decay: The Auditor-General South Africa (2024) reports that neglected infrastructure maintenance accelerates the deterioration of municipal assets, leading to recurring failures in water supply, sanitation systems and electricity networks. Bester (2024) further emphasises that effective infrastructure management is a key pillar for sustainable service delivery.

Service delivery protests and social unrest: Persistent failures in basic services such as water, sanitation, electricity and waste collection cause frustration and anger within communities. When these issues remain unresolved, they often lead to service delivery protests and sometimes result in violent destruction of municipal property, which further disrupts essential services and increases repair costs (AGSA, 2024; Bester, 2024; Mamokhere, 2025).

Issues and trends emerging from the literature

Recent studies highlight several trends in governance and service delivery. Internationally, there is a shift from rules-based compliance to outcomes-based governance, where municipalities must demonstrate tangible improvements rather than just following procedures (OECD, 2023). In Africa, political interference and weak oversight restrict the effectiveness of governance reforms (Mudzusi et al., 2024). In South Africa, there is an increasing focus on professionalisation and accountability, although gaps persist in public participation and consequence management (Bester, 2024; Matloga et al., 2024).

Research on South African municipalities indicates that weak governance frequently leads to repeated failures in water and sanitation services, such as sewer spillages and prolonged water supply disruptions (Mudzusi et al., 2024). Poor planning and a lack of accountability are associated with waste management issues, including uncollected rubbish and widespread illegal dumping (Niyobuhungiro et al., 2025). Moreover, financial mismanagement, such as accumulating debt to national utilities like Eskom, has been identified as a major threat to the stability of municipal electricity supply (AGSA, 2024). These patterns, extensively documented in the literature, help explain how governance outcomes impact service delivery challenges in municipalities like local government.

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework, derived from the theoretical framework and the literature synthesis illustrates how governance outcomes influence basic service delivery in South African municipalities (AGSA, 2024; Bester, 2024). It distinguishes between good governance outcomes that enable improved service delivery and weak governance outcomes that generate costs and undermine service provision (Amusa, 2024; Matloga et al., 2024). Guided by institutional theory, the framework recognises that effective service delivery depends on the implementation and enforcement of governance practices rather than their formal existence.

Conceptualisation of good governance in municipalities

In this study, good governance in municipalities is conceptualised as a set of positive governance outcomes that enhance the municipality’s ability to fulfil its mandate to provide sustainable and reliable basic services. Good governance is characterised by six interrelated key dimensions listed:

1. Public confidence is the extent to which communities trust municipal leadership and institutions to manage public resources responsibly and deliver services effectively. Higher levels of public confidence encourage cooperation between municipalities and residents, including willingness to pay for services and to participate in basic service-related decision-making.

2. Legitimacy with stakeholders refers to the acceptance of municipal authority by communities, businesses and civil society, achieved through transparent, inclusive and accountable governance processes. When legitimacy is strong, municipal decisions about basic service priorities are more likely to be supported, reducing resistance and conflict during implementation.

3. Good performance reflects the municipality’s capacity to convert plans, budgets and resources into reliable service outputs. This includes efficient execution, timely maintenance and consistent service delivery across water, sanitation, refuse removal and electricity.

4. Professionalisation of local government is marked by the presence of skilled personnel, merit-based appointments, role clarity and a stable administration. Professionalisation strengthens institutional capacity, limits political interference in operational matters, and enhances the quality and continuity of service delivery.

5. Community involvement is the extent to which communities are meaningfully engaged in planning, monitoring and evaluating municipal services. Active involvement improves alignment between community needs and service interventions, leading to more responsive and acceptable service outcomes.

6. Financial sustainability refers to the municipality’s ability to generate and manage revenue responsibly, control expenditure and maintain financial stability over time. Financial sustainability enables ongoing investment in operations, maintenance and infrastructure renewal, which is essential for sustained service delivery.

Collectively, these dimensions reinforce one another and contribute to improved service delivery to local communities, as evidenced by better service reliability, responsiveness and citizen satisfaction. The conceptual relationship between good governance and basic service delivery, as reflected in key governance indicators, is illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: The conceptual relationship between good governance and basic service delivery.

Conceptualisation of weak governance in municipalities

The conceptual framework also recognises that where governance outcomes are weak, municipalities experience a distinct set of negative consequences that undermine service delivery. As reflected in the list, weak governance in municipalities is associated with several costs and adverse outcomes:

• Corruption and misuse of resources occur when public funds intended for service provision are diverted or poorly managed. This reduces the resources available for infrastructure maintenance and service operations, leading to a decline in basic service quality.
• Public mistrust of local government arises when communities perceive governance processes as non-transparent, unfair or ineffective. Mistrust weakens cooperation, heightens resistance and often leads to non-payment for services.
• Decrease in revenue collection stems from declining trust and weak financial management. Reduced revenue constrains the municipality’s capacity to fund service operations and maintenance, accelerating service deterioration.
• Political interference occurs when political actors interfere with administrative functions, undermining professional decision-making and accountability. This weakens oversight, disrupts planning and implementation, and compromises the effectiveness of service delivery.
• Health and environmental risks rise when basic services such as sanitation and refuse removal are poorly managed. Inadequate waste management, sewer spills and service backlogs expose communities to health hazards and environmental damage.
• Infrastructure decay results from insufficient maintenance, poor planning and weak financial governance. Ageing, poorly maintained infrastructure increases the frequency and duration of service interruptions.
• Service delivery protests and social unrest are visible expressions of community frustration with persistent service failures. Protests further disrupt municipal operations, damage infrastructure and deepen the cycle of governance failure and the deterioration of basic services.

Together, these dimensions end in poor service delivery to local communities, characterised by unreliable services, frequent disruptions, declining service quality and heightened social instability. Figure 2 illustrates how negative governance indicators contribute to poor basic service delivery outcomes.

FIGURE 2: How negative governance indicators contribute to poor basic service delivery outcomes.

Conceptual relationships between governance outcomes and service delivery

The conceptual framework shows governance outcomes across a range of conditions. Positive outcomes lead to sustainable, accountable and efficient services, whereas weak outcomes increase costs, undermine service delivery and erode trust. Improved services strengthen confidence and financial stability, whereas declining services deepen mistrust, financial pressures, infrastructure decay and social unrest.

Positioning of the framework within the study

This framework offers a structured basis for analysing governance practices and their impact on service delivery in South African municipalities. The framework forms the basis for the study’s conclusions, recommendations and governance interventions to enhance local service delivery. It will be used by other researchers to replicate the study in other contexts.

Limitations

The following are the limitations of the study:

Firstly, the study uses a conceptual approach based on an SLR and does not incorporate original empirical data. Consequently, its findings are derived from existing literature and lack validation through direct observation or field evidence within municipalities.

Secondly, the secondary data presents limitations due to the availability, quality and potential biases of the sources chosen. Despite efforts to include reputable and relevant academic databases, the study is limited by the scope of published literature and might overlook relevant unpublished or context-specific insights.

Thirdly, the search strategy focused on specific key constructs related to governance and service delivery in local government. Although these terms suited the study, they might have restricted the inclusion of other interdisciplinary perspectives, possibly leaving out relevant studies that interpret governance and service delivery in different ways.

Fourthly, this study specifically examines South African local government. While it includes international and African literature to reinforce its theoretical basis, the conceptual framework might require adjustments to suit different governance settings.

Fifthly, the study does not empirically evaluate the proposed conceptual framework. Instead, it infers the links between governance outcomes and service delivery based on a literature review, rather than confirming them through statistical or qualitative validation in real-world settings.

Finally, the study covers a specific period (2004–2025), and governance dynamics might change over time. Therefore, the findings are a synthesis of knowledge within this timeframe and might not fully include emerging developments outside the review scope.

Although there are limitations, the study offers a well-structured and theoretically sound framework that helps explain the connection between governance and basic service delivery in South African municipalities.

Conclusion

It was found that corruption and misuse of resources, public mistrust, decrease in revenue collection, political interference, health and environmental risks, infrastructure decay, service delivery protests and social unrest are costs and consequences of weak governance in the South African municipalities, resulting in adverse impact to service delivery. A further finding is that public confidence, legitimacy with stakeholders, good performance, professionalisation of local government, community involvement and participation as well as financial stability and sustainability are the outcomes of good governance. Based on the aforesaid findings, the following conceptual framework was developed.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Ntebaleng J. Makoae’s master’s thesis titled ‘Optimising Matjhabeng local municipality’s governance to improve basic service delivery to communities in Virginia, Free State Province’, submitted to the Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences, University of the Free State in 2025. The thesis is currently unpublished and not publicly available. The thesis was supervised by Moses M. Gasela. The thesis was reworked, revised and adapted into a journal article for publication. The author confirms that the content has not been previously published or disseminated and complies with ethical standards for original publication.

Ntebaleng J. Makoae expresses her sincere appreciation to her supervisor, Dr Moses Gasela, for his guidance, encouragement and constructive feedback throughout her Master’s studies at the University of the Free State. His support was instrumental in the development of this work. She also acknowledges the University of the Free State Business School for providing the opportunity to pursue this degree, as well as her colleagues for their encouragement and support. She further appreciates the support and understanding of her family during this period. Appreciation is also extended to her three-year-old grandson, Letlotlo.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

CRediT authorship contribution

Ntebaleng J. Makoae: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft. Moses M. Gasela: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

Funding information

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical considerations

Approval to conduct the theoretical study was obtained from the General Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. no.: UFS-HSD2025/2288). All the secondary sources of information, such as conceptual papers, books, journal articles, the internet and articles which were used in the investigation are publicly available.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References