Theses and Dissertations
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Theses and Dissertations by Author "Chakwizira, J."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Embargo A private sector-inclusive governance framework for local economic development in rural areas of Limpopo Province in South Africa(2025-09-05) Jeleni, Albert; Francis, J.; Kilonzo. B.; Chakwizira, J.Local Economic Development (LED) remains globally recognized as a critical instrument for building inclusive and globally competitive local economies by stimulating job creation, diversifying local economies, and broadening municipal revenue bases. The concept of LED was born out of the realisation that while economic development intent and principles (that of constructing and realising a sustainable future) are universal, the outcomes are bounded by national policies and priorities and are determined by specific local societal, environmental, and business characteristics and interactions, which, if not balanced properly, can distort/contradict economic development intent and principles, leading to inefficient economic development. LED therefore seeks to address these distortions by aligning universal principles with localised realities, while maintaining adherence to free-market economic principles and ensuring that local development interventions do not unduly disrupt market dynamics. Its effectiveness hinges on capturing grassroots knowledge—honouring local expertise and traditions—and innovating on these insights to realign local economic outcomes and maximise wellbeing in line with national imperatives and global agendas. However, in South Africa, particularly in the rural context of the Limpopo Province, LED implementation continues to face significant challenges. These are primarily rooted in systemic governance shortcomings, the exclusion of private sector participation, and the enduring legacy of state-centric approaches that have perpetuated poverty, high unemployment, and spatial inequalities stemming from apartheid-era development patterns. Rural Limpopo reflects these conditions acutely, with unemployment exceeding 45%, inequality exceeding Gini coefficient of 0.59, poverty levels surpassing 67%, less than 8% of municipalities received clean audits, and municipalities being heavily reliant on subsidies & bailouts, further exacerbated by inadequate infrastructure and weak institutional capacity. To counter these challenges, South Africa has consistently looked to Local Economic Development (LED) as a solution and has recently developed an innovation-driven National Framework for LED 2018–2028. The 2018–2028 LED Framework is robust in principle, anchored on forward-looking pillars designed to spur innovation, inclusivity, and institutional resilience at the municipal level. Yet, in practice, few municipalities have successfully implemented it, particularly the enabling pillars. This disconnect stems from weak institutional capacity, poor integration into municipal planning, and the low prioritisation of LED by local governments. Crucially, there has also been significant under-inclusion of the private sector, despite its vital role in driving innovation, investment, and job creation. Without active collaboration with private businesses—especially SMMEs—municipalities struggle to leverage innovation-driven strategies effectively, leaving the framework’s transformative potential largely untapped. Moreover, failure to implement the LED framework hinders the localisation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), weakening multi-stakeholder partnerships—including government, civil society, and the private sector—that are essential for achieving the SDGs. To investigate these challenges, this study employed a mixed-methods research approach, integrating quantitative surveys and qualitative focus group discussions conducted across all five districts of Limpopo Province to develop a private sector-inclusive governance framework. The research identified three critical governance failures that inhibit LED outcomes: (i) persistent ambiguity regarding the roles and responsibilities of key ecosystem actors—government, private sector, and civil society; (ii) misalignment between national strategic frameworks and local operational realities; and (iii) epistemic disparities that result in the underutilisation of private sector expertise, capital, and entrepreneurial capacity. These governance failures are further compounded by a fundamental conceptual ambiguity surrounding LED itself. Within the South African context, LED is frequently conflated with adjacent paradigms such as socio-economic development, socio-political development, social entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship development. This lack of definitional clarity contributes to fragmented interventions, duplication of efforts, and missed opportunities for integrated and inclusive local development. As a result, LED implementation remains inconsistent, often disconnected from territorial needs, and inadequately aligned with the potential contributions of the private sector. To redress these deficiencies, the study developed a Private Sector-Inclusive Governance Framework for LED, structured around three interrelated platforms. The first platform—the Multi-Stakeholder Platform ("WHO")—formalizes the roles of stakeholders, institutionalizes collaboration within economic principles, and establishes shared decision-making structures. The second platform—allows setting of objectives and the respective Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Capacity Platform ("WHY")—anchors LED processes in objective-based continuous learning, performance tracking, and adaptive management, aligning with the six pillars of the South Africa’s National LED Framework (2018–2028) and the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The third platform—the Standardization and Implementation Platform ("HOW")— allows for the selection of appropriate LED elements, it applies a project management-oriented approach to guide LED operationalization, including value chain optimization across all sectors and industries. Crucially, the framework asserts that the actors (government, private sector and civil society) must operate within the principles of a free-market economy, wherein the state plays an enabling rather than interventionist role. Accordingly, local governments are encouraged to institutionalise mechanisms that promote inclusive Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), leverage Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, and invest in Public Goods Services (PGS) to stimulate sustainable economic growth. The framework reconceptualises LED governance not as a substitute for market processes but as a catalyst. Free-market principles—fair competition, limited distortion, and entrepreneurial innovation—are foundational to the proposed model. The framework mandates the use of market diagnostics and cost-benefit analysis to determine the most efficient delivery mechanism—prioritising private sector-driven hybrid approach where viable, and public provision only where market failure exists. Wherefore, municipalities are repositioned as enablers of competitive innovative ecosystems, investing in public goods and unlocking market participation through regulatory clarity, digital access, and transparent procurement. This approach discourages the state from running parallel or competing programmes that undermine private sector participation, and instead calls for a governance model that incentivises market-based solutions and fosters long-term enterprise development. The proposed framework allows stakeholders to systematically select development objectives (the WHY) from multiple typologies (including innovation-driven, infrastructure-led, social cohesion, and sustainability objectives), choose the leadership style (the WHO) from among state-led, private sector-led, private sector-driven hybrid, state-driven hybrid, and civil society-driven hybrid models, and implement LED through specific elements (the HOW) such as anchors, intermediaries, infrastructure, governance networks, and citizen engagement Empirical findings demonstrate that only 35% of rural municipalities currently engage private sector actors meaningfully in LED governance, despite the private sector’s essential role in mobilizing financial resources, driving innovation, and facilitating scalable development. This study proposes an innovation-driven, private sector-driven hybrid approach, and knowledge-based governance framework for Local Economic Development (LED) in rural Limpopo, South Africa. Engaging 366 respondents—including 47.5% from the private sector and over 70% with post-school qualifications—it revealed that despite 92.4% awareness of municipal institutions, only 37.9% participated in LED processes, underscoring the limited leadership role of local businesses. A review of 27 global LED frameworks showed universal emphasis on sustainability and equity, but fewer than 50% integrate innovation and adaptive governance elements. The study further illuminates recurring local impediments included corruption (14.8%), funding shortages (11%), and skills gaps (12.3%). Sectors like mining and agriculture exhibited strong value-chain comprehension, whereas digital integration and advanced manufacturing capabilities remain weak. Despite 60.8% of respondents recognizing corporate support for SMMEs, only 24.1% reported tangible engagement, indicating missed opportunities for public–private synergy. These findings carry significant implications for Limpopo and broader South African LED strategies. An innovation-driven LED model would leverage private sector dynamism and foster knowledge-based value chains, aligning with Limpopo’s development objectives to become more industrialised, labour-absorbing, and globally integrated. To unlock this potential, LED policy must embed mechanisms for strengthened collaborative governance, streamlined funding, targeted capacity-building, and proactive private sector participation. Such a transformation could drive inclusive growth, reduce rural inequalities, and align with national priorities articulated in South Africa’s LED Framework and Limpopo Development Plan. The proposed framework conceptualises LED as a multi-objective optimisation problem, where local maxima are identified, filtered through Pareto dominance, and integrated into a global Pareto front—thus transforming local successes into globally relevant solutions. Accordingly, it incorporates a mathematical modelling component designed to operationalise this optimisation process and guide decision-making. Essentially, the framework proposes that LED strategy design should be systematic and iterative—a process optimization exercise that begins by selecting desired outcomes (e.g., innovation, jobs, sustainability) in the “WHY” Platform. From there, leadership style (state-led, private-led, community-led, or hybrid) is chosen in the “WHO” platform, and lastly the enabling elements (anchors, intermediaries, infrastructure, networks) are chosen in the “HOW” platform, considering local capacity and realities. Importantly, the approach remains adaptive, acknowledging that desired elements may not always be present, necessitating either phased development or immediate pragmatic choices. The framework offers a cohesive blueprint for South African municipalities to effectively implement the national innovation-driven LED Framework 2018-2028. South Africa having chosen innovation to drive LED, this proposed governance framework allows a logical selection of the innovation-driven, private sector-driven hybrid, and knowledge-based approach, positing that a sustainable Local Economic Development (LED) governance process must recognise the interdependent triad of innovation, private sector leadership, and knowledge intensity to be succesful. Innovation, as a driver of LED, requires an enabling environment that fosters private sector leadership, which, in turn, presupposes a knowledge-based economic governance architecture. This ensures LED is not aspirational but practically executable, grounded in clear mechanisms, data-informed strategies, and cross-sector collaboration. Moreover, the proposed governance framework offers a replicable pathway for translating policy into practice, unlocking LED’s full transformative potential, which is locally grounded, but globally relevant. Wherefore, from the policy perspective this study provides a comprehensive blueprint to transform South Africa’s rural LED by addressing critical shortcomings in the National Framework for Local Economic Development (LED) 2018–2028. First, it identifies the need to reposition the private sector as lead co‑creators—rather than peripheral participants—by formally embedding business chambers and forums into Integrated Development Plan (IDP) processes and making private sector consultation and leadership mandatory. Second, it introduces a practical governance framework aligned with the DST’s Innovation‑for‑LED (ILED) initiative and which must be piloted through the District Development Model (DDM). This model incorporates multi‑stakeholder platforms, standardized project tools, and performance monitoring systems, offering municipalities a scalable structure to boost coherence and accountability. Implementation hinges on building institutional capacity in rural municipalities. The study recommends targeted training programs for LED officials covering stakeholder engagement, value‑chain facilitation, project management, and digital monitoring tools. It further proposes institutionalizing public‑private dialogue (PPD) platforms co‑chaired by private sector actors and universities, guided by clear protocols on frequency, scope, and follow‑up. These platforms would serve as engines for knowledge management and innovation. On the fiscal front, the study advocates for performance‑linked grants and competitive LED innovation funds to incentivize municipalities to achieve measurable private sector participation, such as procurement localization rates, co‑infrastructure investments, and job creation via PPPs and CSIs. It also underscores the role of development partners and civil society in supporting framework adoption, recommending targeted piloting in Limpopo districts with international donor and institutional technical assistance. Institutional realignment is another key finding: responsibility for LED must shift from CoGTA and CoGHSTA to an economic development ministry—either via reinstating the Department of Economic Development or a reassignment to DTIC. At provincial level, LED oversight should align with Economic Development, Tourism, and Environment departments, with formal coordination mechanisms to link provincial, municipal, and national policy. Further, the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) and its agency Small Enterprise and development Agnecy (SEDFA) currently perform welfare-style interventions—providing equipment and starter goods to micro/informal enterprises—which aligns more with social protection than market-based enterprise development. These micro-targeted supports overlook medium and large firms, which are vital for CSI, PPPs, and value chain integration critical to local economic development. Consequently, DSBD and SEDFA’s current mandate is misaligned with the NFLED’s private-sector growth objectives. Their national coordination role would be better housed under a re‑established Economic Development department or within DTIC, which has stronger linkages to industrial strategy and larger enterprises essential for transformative LED. Finally, the study links LED reform to the SDGs—particularly Goals 8, 9, and 17—by embedding SDG‑aligned indicators into municipal LED metrics and enhancing transparency, innovation, and data‑driven decision‑making. This positioned framework supports inclusive, private‑sector-driven hybrid growth, transforming LED from a bureaucratic process into a dynamic engine of rural transformation.Item Open Access Towards a refined Integrated Development Planning process in Mbombela Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province(2023-05-19) Mulaudzi, Dovhani Johannes; Francis, J.; Zuwarimwe, J.; Chakwizira, J.Integrated development planning seeks to shift from rigid, complex, and autocratic approaches to a more democratic, strategic and integrated form where grassroots communities have a say in their own development. South Africa’s post-1994 government has been enforcing integrated development planning to promote democracy and the delivery of services to grassroots communities. There is a growing concern that the integrated development planning in its current form has not achieved these intended outcomes despite it being purported to be a product of a phased inclusive participatory process. This study sought to develop a refined integrated development planning process using the case of Mbombela Local Municipality in Mpumalanga province. The specific objectives were to: (1) to determine the preferred criteria for assessing each phase of integrated development planning process; (2) to determine the extent to which key stakeholders play their designated roles in formulating the IDP; (3) to analyse the major weaknesses of each phase of the process; (4) to critique the legal framework governing the integrated development planning in South Africa. A sequential exploratory mixed methods design was applied where quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 265 participants and 7 key informants from the Mbombela Local Municipality, Ehlanzeni District Municipality and the Mpumalanga Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs. These were selected because of the role they play in the integrated development planning. The study established that the current integrated development planning is not effective in responding to the needs of the communities because, it lack stakeholders participation, by-in and ownership. Key stakeholders were not involved in all the phases of the process and there was misalignment between the integrated development planning projects and the community needs. Community participation, leadership, impact, compact and monitoring were suggested as the major criteria for assessing quality of the integrated development planning. The study established that the legislation have sufficiently laid a framework for the integrated development planning. However, it did not clarify the extent at which the communities must be involved in the process. The study recommends a new refined integrated development planning process which highlights that inclusive stakeholder participation should be compulsory in all the phases. Project and integration stages should be integrated to constitute one phase and key planning elements such as digital participation, ward-based budgeting, integrated service delivery, integrated