Dispelling the myths of service delivery in South Africa

Effective public services delivery, such as in health and education is central to reducing poverty in post-apartheid South Africa, where over a third of households survive on less than 1000 Rand (US$150) a month. Services can relieve some of the most severe short-term impacts of poverty, while long-term investments can provide permanent improvements.

Research from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, considers to what extent recent changes in governmentpolicy have improved service delivery for poor people.  A number of changes in public servicesdelivery have taken place. The research focuses on four areas:decentralisation, community ownership, outsourcing to private providers and theuse of user fees in alleviating poverty.

The research finds that in many cases the new policieswere badly designed and poorly implemented. Based on a survey of more than 100case studies, it reports that these initiatives have provided mixed results:

• Decentralisationmay have worsened the quality of services in some cases: reliance onlower level bureaucrats who were poor in management and financial skills particularlyin poorer provinces was responsible for this.
• Participatoryprogrammes can contribute towards the above trend: for example, CommunityPolicing Forums are frequently dominated by elite interest groups, and illiterateand poor people are under-represented in School Governing Boards.
• Lower skills andalso lower levels of motivation amongst poor people meant that CommunityPolicing Forums and School Governing Boards were less effective in poor areas.
• Prompt payment ofbills and community ownership depended on a sense of individual responsibility andliability that community-based models often ignore: for example, the community-basedmodel of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry often failed whencommunities were not cohesive.
• Public-private partnershipsin the water sector did not result in increased prices, job losses or worseservice provision for less profitable customers: for example, private clinicswere more cost-effective than public clinics and had more satisfied customers.
• Abolishing user feesin health and other services is not necessarily the most efficient way toensure better access for poor households.

In some cases the problems could have been avoided ifgovernment were more aware the social and institutional realities. Policy shouldbe cautious and focused on achievable goals, rather than be overambitious andidealistic. The researcher argues that poor policymaking (and not poorimplementation) is responsible when a policy fails because of bad planning thatdoes not take implementation constraints into account.

It is important to note that:

• the suitability of service delivery is context dependent, and a‘one-size-fits-all’ solution should not be used when levels of skills,experience and income vary a lot
• investing in the skills of those responsible for service provisionis necessary as they are a vital for improving the quality of services
• where government is unable to effectively deliver services, theprivate sector could be a good partner
• increased participation and decentralisation may worsen thequality of service delivery to the poor
• community ownership should not be seen as either a necessary or sufficientcondition for effective service delivery in rural communities.

Effective social service delivery is crucial forpoverty alleviation. However, the redistribution of government money to variousservice delivery agencies is not useful if it does not improve social outcomes.