Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
28 June 2023 | Story Dr Maréve Biljohn | Photo Supplied
Dr Maréve Biljohn
Dr Maréve Biljohn is Head of the Department of Public Administration and Management at the University of the Free State (UFS).


Opinion article by Dr Maréve Biljohn, Head of the Department of Public Administration and Management, University of the Free State (UFS).


Africa Public Service Day was commemorated on 23 June under the theme ‘The African Continental Free Trade Area will require a fit-for-purpose African Public Administration to succeed’. This theme highlights a “fit-for-purpose” public administration, which is of significance for South Africa’s local government sphere given the dismal service-delivery decline in some municipalities. Considering this, a reflection on the state of local governance and service delivery is prudent.


A fit-for-purpose public administration should be anchored in (i) an effective management praxis of systems and processes, as well as (ii) professional and resource capacity that fulfils local government’s mandate of contributing to transformative change in society. Universally this praxis of systems and processes is underpinned by activities of policymaking, organising, human resourcing, financing, work procedures, and control of the functions, structures, and capacities of the public sector. The effective management praxis of public administration systems and processes globally should be underscored by public service traits that are a composite of being professional, qualified, highly skilled, agile, responsive, goal-directed, innovative, and relevant. In South Africa, Section 195 of the Constitution provides the basic guiding principles and values governing the execution of the public administration praxis across the three government spheres.

The public administration praxis in South African municipalities is in distress given the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment in which it functions. Research shows that this distress is attributed to some municipalities’ inability to execute basic functions and service delivery, poor infrastructure planning and maintenance, financial and revenue-generation challenges, corruption, service-delivery protests, and staff turbulence. Partly, this distress is also symptomatic of challenges emanating from factors within internal and external municipal environments. Inherent to municipalities’ VUCA internal environment, these challenges relate to issues of governance, financial management, service delivery, and labour relations. Their recurring nature has also resulted in them being the focus of South African local government reforms over the past 25 years, including the 2009 Local Government Turnaround Strategy, as well as the 2013 Back-to-Basics campaign. Thus, from the 2022 Auditor-General of South Africa report regarding the Municipal Finance Management Act, it is clear that even the last reform has not yielded the desired impact and outcomes. In this regard, service-delivery challenges remain the Achilles heel of South Africa’s local government landscape. 

Institutionally, a lack of or poor service delivery is evident from factors such as insufficient revenue generation, the non-achievement of service-delivery priorities, and not addressing community needs through municipal integrated development plans. Over the past decade, we have seen these factors expose inefficiencies in the South African municipal praxis of systems and processes that underpin the execution of public administration. These inefficiencies are evidenced in the lack of responsiveness of some municipalities to deliver sustainable services and facilitate community participation through their service-delivery system. Consequently, from a service-delivery perspective, the quality and quantity of service outputs delivered to citizens and service recipients in its external environment are either compromised, inferior, or non-existent. From a community participation perspective, research suggests that a lack of community engagement by some South African municipalities affects their responsiveness to the service-delivery needs of citizens. Examples of this are where community engagement is merely embarked on for legislative compliance purposes, but not necessarily prioritised as part of the formal (policies, plans, strategies) and informal (culture) institutions of the organisation. Hence, community priorities are received but not included in municipalities' formal plans. Another example is where community priorities were planned for, but could not be achieved because of a lack of revenue or funding. Lastly, a lack of responsiveness has been reported as part of the contributory reasons for the service-delivery protests that have been at the doorstep of municipalities over the past two decades.

A closer look

The state of local governance and service delivery in some South African municipalities paints a bleak picture. From this picture, it is apparent that the resilience of municipal service-delivery systems – whose functioning should be underpinned by effective public administration management – is under threat. It is also clear that such an effective management praxis of systems and processes underscoring a fit-for-purpose public administration operates at a deficit. This deficit, which is often the result of internal deficiencies, creates grave consequences for the optimal functioning of the municipal service-delivery system. While these systems are institutionally embedded and operated, their optimal functioning is not exclusively institutionally bound. Instead, their optimal functioning is equally grounded in citizen-centred local governance that informs the outputs of the service-delivery system, and through their participation keeps this system accountable. 

While this is the ideal, it is not always the case, and highlights that South African citizens should play a more constructive role in the local governance of municipal service delivery, to ensure its sustainability. Fortunately, we are seeing a social compact emerge where citizens are becoming more organised in challenging the status quo of local governance in municipalities, to preserve the citizen-centred foundations of our democracy. Similarly, we are seeing a citizenry and organised groups that are taking the initiative to collaborate with the public sector in general to address some of the societal challenges that confront our country. These collaborations and the challenging of the status quo are often grounded in principles of transformative social innovation that consider innovative approaches and solutions to address societal challenges. Apart from challenging the status quo, distributing social and economic resources to achieve social justice during service delivery is inherent to transformation. Innovation can occur through the introduction of a new service, product, or technology but its social aspects are underpinned by collaborations, networks, and partnerships that are formed to identify and implement such innovations.

Broader societal capacity and resources needed 

Transformative social innovation’s usefulness as an approach to finding alternative municipal service-delivery solutions reminds us of the citizen-centredness on which the South African local government legislative framework positions our governance and service-delivery systems. Notably, such citizen-centredness relies on society’s broader capacity for social action, citizen agency, and participation. It promotes a more prominent role for citizens to co-create new knowledge and innovative solutions to address municipal challenges. Society’s broader capacity for social action and citizen agency will also be instrumental in shaping the future responsiveness of South African municipalities amidst the recurring challenges cited. Conversely, it is the same societal capacity and citizen agency that should continuously challenge South African municipalities to rethink how fit-for-purpose their public administration is for implementing responsive service-delivery systems.

In conclusion, given the ailing state of service delivery in some South African municipalities, and the concomitant resource and capacity challenges, the reality is that broader societal capacity and resources are needed to restore service delivery. Hence, the local governance of service delivery will require a mix of new modes, constellations, and approaches that upscale citizen agency through the values of sound public governance. This might necessitate public administration and management reforms that reassess the current size and shape of municipalities, with an eye on remaining responsive amidst growing populations, increasing citizen demands, as well as socioeconomic and global challenges.  

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept