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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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).

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).

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).

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).

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.