Editorial

Adaptive governance for resilient local service delivery

Ogochukwu I. Nzewi

Copyright: © 2025. The Author. 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/).

Adaptive governance is governance that anticipates, responds to and learns from change and uncertainty, while building capacity to deal with future challenges through iterative, participatory and flexible processes (Cosens et al. 2017:3). Next year (2026), South Africa’s local government elections (LGEs) are slated to take place between 02 November 2026 and the end of January 2027. The 2026 LGE, the seventh since 1994, comes amid structural stresses on municipalities that highlight coalition fragility and potential electoral volatility (ACCORD 2025). Hung councils (Tladi 2025), growing demand for stable coalitions (Pholoma et al. 2024) and the erosion of traditional support in metropolitan municipalities (Gauteng City-Region Observatory [GCRO] 2021) underscore mounting uncertainty and complexity in local government. The cross-section of authors in this edition of JOLGRI collectively point to the need for municipalities to build resilience through adaptive and agile frameworks for effective service delivery and sustainability – an approach increasingly recognised worldwide as critical to public sector efficiency and responsiveness (OECD 2020; United Nations 2021).

Within this context, the theme of effective service delivery and adaptive governance dominates the JOLGRI 2025 publications. The articles presented are those articles published at the time of writing this editorial.

In ‘Stakeholder engagement framework to improve public housing delivery: A Stellenbosch case study’, Xegwana, Twum-Darko and Tengeh address South Africa’s persistent post-apartheid housing challenge. Drawing on qualitative insights from multiple stakeholders, the article identifies weaknesses in participation, communication and political cohesion. It proposes a stakeholder engagement framework that embeds proactive feedback and collaboration across project lifecycles. In the present coalition climate, where fragmented authority undermines stability, the framework offers practical value for enhancing service delivery, accountability and community trust.

On water services, Mokone and Gumede’s ‘Towards an approach for enhancing water security: The case of South Africa’ and Seema, Molepo and Maleka’s ‘Water service delivery challenges in Modimolle-Mookgophong Local Municipality, Limpopo, South Africa’, show that resilience depends not only on infrastructure repair but also on adaptive, multidimensional frameworks. Mokone and Gumede develop a localised model for water security across economic, social, technical, environmental and institutional dimensions, while Seema et al. reveal the fragility of Modimolle-Mookgophong Municipality, where deteriorating pipes, illegal connections and operational shortfalls have reduced capacity to 70%. Together, these studies demonstrate that without institutional support and agile planning, local systems remain vulnerable.

Disaster risk management (DRM) is addressed in Agyemang’s ‘Legal and Policy Perspectives on Public Participation and Disaster Risk Management in South African Cities’ and Nobambela and Yekani’s ‘Complexity and Effectiveness in Disaster Risk Management within Local Municipalities’. Agyemang shows that although the Constitution (1996), the Disaster Management Act (2002) and the 2023 National Framework mandate public participation, implementation is a challenge. Nobambela and Yekani illustrate this gap through King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality, which focuses on internal monitoring but neglects stakeholder engagement and resource support. Together, these studies underscore that robust participation is the cornerstone of DRM and that, heading into 2026, citizens remain the most important stakeholders in local disaster risk responses and governance.

Ntanda and Carolissen’s ‘Technology’s dual role in smart cities and social equality: A systematic literature’ synthesises global and South African research to show how smart technologies (Internet of Things [IoT], artificial intelligence [AI], digital platforms) both enhance efficiency and risk deepening inequality. Their Smart City Equity Framework (SCEF) advocates for municipalities to view technology as a socio-economic as well as technical intervention, requiring deliberate strategies to bridge the digital divide. Similarly, Khumalo and Moloi’s ‘Barriers to digital transformation in Gauteng’s municipal health clinics’ shows how technology collides with the realities of weak infrastructure, constrained budgets, staff resistance and skills shortages. Echoing Ntanda and Carolissen, the authors argue that technology’s transformative potential in service delivery will only be realised if backed by investment in infrastructure, training and organisational change.

Structural and procedural constraints are examined by Khomo, Farisani and Mashau in ‘The gap between public finance legislation and local economic development in South Africa’ and Ajam in ‘Supply chain management administrative burdens: A case study of five South African municipalities’. Both reveal how compliance-heavy systems constrain municipal agility. While Khomo et al. critique rigid financial legislation that sidelines immediacy in developmental responsiveness, Ajam shows how procurement rules delay projects and escalate costs. Together, they argue for reforms that balance accountability with flexibility, enabling municipalities to deliver more developmental outcomes.

Matlala and Setwaba’s ‘Use of evaluation evidence in municipal decisions: The case of Tshwane’s indigent programme’ highlights the underutilisation of data in managing performance in social policy. Despite routine collection, evidence rarely informs decisions because of political interference, weak institutions and limited technical capacity. In a global context shaped by the strategic contest over big data ownership, access and use (Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier 2013), their recommendations to institutionalise evaluation culture, build knowledge systems and strengthen political commitment are vital for adaptive governance.

Finally, adaptive governance in South African local government can be understood as governance that anticipates, responds to and learns from uncertainty in municipal service delivery, while building institutional and community capacity to confront future challenges. The 2025 JOLGRI contributions highlight the urgency of adaptive governance, especially within the backdrop of growing fragmentation of politics represented in coalition governments. Whether in housing, water, disaster management, finance, technology or social policy, articles in this edition join the growing body of work on how municipalities and the public sector in general must balance structural accountability with flexibility, embrace inclusive participation and embed evaluation and innovation into their operational fabric. As the journal continues to grow, we hope to begin to include global perspectives through international submissions. The aim is to build a platform for comparative discourse and provide research case studies with lessons for international practice in local government innovation. As South Africa heads into the 2026 elections under conditions of coalition fragility and citizen distrust, these studies collectively underscore that the resilience of local government rests on agility, evidence use and centring the people as the ultimate stakeholders in governance.

References