Challenges to Nonprofit Organization Participation in Social and Development Policy Planning in South Africa

1 Introduction

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) have become an integral part of the social policy systems in the different contexts in which they operate. In South Africa, the government relies significantly on NPOs in delivering services (Patel 2012) in various policy fields to address socio–economic problems in communities. The services NPOs provide in various policy fields form part of South Africa’s framework for achieving its long-term development goals. In policy statements and documents at the national, provincial, and municipal levels of government, organizations in the South African NPO sector are recognized as stakeholders and essential partners and in the policy development process. However, at the level of practice, questions remain about NPOs’ participation in planning for the social policies to which they so significantly contribute.

The policy governance process involves two main aspects, namely: policy formulation/planning and policy implementation (World Bank 1994, xiv). Much literature on NPOs focuses on the vital role NPOs play in the delivery of services and implementation of social policy (Almog-Bar 2017; Frumkin 2002; Levy and Ketels 2021; Okuyama, Ishida, and Yamauchi 2010; Salamon 1995; Salamon and Toepler 2015; Smith and Lipsky 1993; Struyk 2002; Tshiyoyo 2019). Somewhat less attention has been given to service-providing NPOs’ participation in the formulation or planning of the social policies and social programs to which they contribute. Involving NPOs in the participatory process for policy formulation provides more opportunities for nonprofits to effectively contribute to policies (Brock 2020). It can also provide opportunities to align government and NPOs’ objectives for effective service delivery.

Therefore, the question this article seeks to address is whether NPOs adequately participate in the policy planning process in South Africa. The study focuses on government–initiated engagement with stakeholders within government-created spaces that are akin to Goulet’s (1989) state promoted arenas or Cornwall’s (2002) institutionalized or formalized invited spaces, for planning purposes. The participation of NPOs in policy planning is analysed through the lenses of stakeholder analysis and the concept of participation as a good governance practice in planning.

This article adds to research on the nonprofit sector by identifying barriers that NPOs face in the participatory process of policy planning and gives additional attention to the role of NPOs in social policy formulation within a body of literature that highlights NPOs as social policy implementers. The article contributes to the broader research on government–NPO relationships, showing some constraints to the expressive/advocacy function of nonprofits and their consultation with government (Mosley 2020; Toepler et al. 2020).

2 Nonprofit Organizations in the Policy Context

Even though NPOs are viewed as private organizations, their role in delivering services places them in the broader public and social policy space. In many countries, the origins of NPOs have been traced to efforts from individuals and groups within religious and/or secular settings to provide aid and mutual assistance to meet the needs of people within communities (Anheier 2014; Shier and Graham 2014). Ample literature on NPOs in the social and development policy context focuses on their role as a mechanism for service delivery and social policy implementation (Bar-Nir and Gal 2011; Cairns, Harris, and Hutchison 2007; Göçmen 2013; Salamon 1994; Tshiyoyo 2019), whether as faith–based or secular organizations. This role has increased as governments embrace neoliberal policies and decentralize or devolve the provision of services to the private and nonprofit sector (Bar-Nir and Gal 2011; Jiwani 2000; Struyk 2002) through different kinds of partnership arrangements (Casey et al. 2010; Krasnopolskaya, Skokova, and Pape 2015; Salamon and Toepler 2015; Zimmer 1999, 2015) and service contracting (Struyk 2002; Zhu, Zhao, and Tao 2021).

NPOs also play a role in the policy context by engaging in advocacy and drawing attention to the inequalities and social problems (Kendall and Knapp 1993). In South Africa, De Wet (2010) indicates that in addition to service provision, NPOs act as watchdogs over government and public sector administrators. They also promote good governance (Mafunisa 2004). Thus, Mafunisa (2004) argues that the effectiveness of governmental institutions in addressing development problems such as poverty, crime, disease, and high rates of illiteracy will only be possible if NPOs are allowed to participate in the policy-making processes.

Lest these problems seem unique to the global South, it is important to keep in mind that barriers to policy advocacy are common among service providing organizations in the global North as well, noted by researchers in Europe (Verschuere and De Corte 2015) and North America (Brock 2020; Flanigan 2011; Jiwani 2000; Nicholson-Crotty 2007). While acknowledging the importance of NPOs in service delivery and policy implementation, this article examines the role of NPOs in the formulation of the policies that NPOs contribute to implementing.

3 Stakeholder Analysis

The concept of stakeholder has a variety of definitions. Freeman (1984, 53) defines a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s purpose”. Stakeholders are also defined as individuals, groups, and other organizations who have an interest in the actions of an organization and the ability to influence it, with a potential to threaten the organization and potential to cooperate with it (Savage et al. 1991). Although traditionally stakeholders have been analysed through the prism of their economic function to the firm, stakeholder claims can be examined through other societal compositions that are not economic or market-oriented (Crane and Ruebottom 2011). From a policy formulation and practice perspective, Grimble and Wellard (1997) define stakeholders as any group of people, organized or not, of any size or aggregation, who have a common interest in a particular issue or system at any societal level or position. This can be from the global, national, or regional level down to the micro household and intrahousehold level. These groups include public, private, and civil society organizations that exist and interface with communities (Lyon, Hunter-Jones, and Warnaby 2017).

In each of the descriptions, we can conceptualize NPOs and their constituencies as stakeholders, thinking of the ‘firm’ or ‘organization’ as represented by the state. The utility of analysing NPOs as stakeholders is rooted in how NPOs’ services affect social policy objectives in the contexts in which they operate. Understanding of the kind of stakeholders that exist facilitates stakeholder salience, which is how, why, and the extent to which the stakeholder is prioritized and given attention (Mitchell, Agle, and Wood 1997). If NPOs are treated as stakeholders as described in South Africa’s development planning policy documents, we should expect to see ample participation and consideration of NPOs in policy formulation.

4 Participation and Development Planning in South Africa

There is hardly a precise definition of the term ‘participation’ (Goulet 1989). However, as an element of good governance in the broader development governance process (others being transparency, strong institutional capacity of the public sector, public sector accountability and the rule of law) (World Bank 1994, xiv), the World Bank defines participation as having “influence on development decisions, not simply involvement in the implementation…” (World Bank 1992, 27). Participation increases the voice of stakeholders, citizens and users in the design and implementation of projects and programmes (World Bank 1992). The World Bank definition is central to the conceptualization of participation in this article.

Participation in the planning process is conceived of as an alternative to and a reconfiguration of traditional top–down development management systems (Brett 2003; Cornwall 2002). It is also a moral incentive that allows citizens to negotiate and gain entry into the arenas of decision-making (Goulet 1989). Cornwall (2002) conceptualizes participation as a spatial practice that occurs in diverse and multiple arenas in which a wide array of actors is active, noting that (1) spaces for participation are created, (2) they are shaped, in terms of who initiates, constitutes, facilitates, and chooses the methods for participation and (3) the actors who make and shape the spaces determine who occupies those spaces. He makes a distinction between institutionalized/formalized spaces and non–formalized spaces. The institutionalized spaces, also referred to as invited spaces, are forums where the authorities and the people meet. These kinds of space are, essentially, part of the governance machinery. The non–formalized spaces are chosen and occupied by citizens, groups, and associations, and are autonomous from the state. Thus, they are referred to as ‘claimed spaces’ (Gaventa 2004, 35) or ‘invented spaces’ (Kersting 2013, 271). This article is concerned with the invited formalized spaces created by the state.

In South Africa, participation is a mandated process for policy planning. The participatory process is lauded as one of the hallmarks of planning in South Africa. It involves the creation of forums and formal mechanisms to secure consultative and participatory processes to gain inputs from different stakeholders. These include citizens, government representatives, the social sector (including organizations in the non–profit sector), and the private/business sector to discuss and analyse developmental challenges and set priorities (Republic of South Africa 2018, n.d). The participatory process, therefore, provide avenues for government to interact and engage with citizens and relevant stakeholders in a dialogical process.

From the National Development Plan (NDP) to provincial development plans, down to the integrated development plans (IDP) of municipalities, engagement and consultation with diverse groups and stakeholders are projected as a vital process in planning. However, it is important to note that participation is legislated only at the municipality level, as outlined in the Municipal Systems Act. The Act outlines the procedures and process for community participation for the formulation of the IDP. It defines “community” as comprising of the residents of the municipality, ratepayers and civic organizations and non–governmental, private sector or labour organizations or bodies which are involved in affairs within the municipality (Republic of South Africa 2000). In terms of mechanisms, processes, and procedures to facilitate participation, the Act stipulates that the municipality must encourage and create conditions for the community to participate. For example, community participation must take place through political structures (such as the ward and IDP Representative Forum at the municipality level) and the municipality must communicate information about the time, date, and venue for public or consultative meetings with members of the community and community organizations.

In practice, however, participation in development planning in South Africa looks quite different from what is described by law. Buccus et al. (2008), for example found that planners and government do not pay sufficient attention to existing institutional frameworks and mechanisms for engagement and community participation in development planning. This view is also shared by Williams (2005), who notes that community participation is not driven by the legislated IDP process. Consequently, the extent to which stakeholders are given the opportunity to effectively participate in decision–making processes are unsatisfactory (Murombo 2008). Also, Piper and Nadvi (2010) note that state–created spaces for engagement in communities in South Africa are often dominated by political parties and their attendant party politics. As such, organizations in the non–profit sector, especially those involved in service delivery, tend to disengage from the state.

Given the juxtaposition between the legislative context of participatory planning in South Africa and the social and political climate in local communities, this article seeks to address whether NPOs adequately participate and the challenges to their participation in the policy planning process in South Africa. The mechanisms and procedures present in South Africa’s national, provincial, and municipal planning process match well with three main categories of participatory processes discussed in the extant literature, which include mechanisms to secure stakeholders/participants, spaces or forums for participation, and mechanisms for conducting the participatory process. These categories allowed for an analysis of participatory planning for development in South Africa.

5 Method: Sampling and Data Collection

This study used a qualitative approach to explore whether NPOs adequately participate in policy planning processes in South Africa. In South Africa, NPO is a legal form under which “a trust or other associations of persons established for a public purpose” (NPO Act, Section 1) can register, as we limited the analysis to these legally registered organizations. Qualitative data were collected from respondents at the national level in Tshwane (which is the capital of South Africa), the Western Cape Province, the Eastern Cape Province, and five municipalities within the two provinces. The respondents were sampled purposively and through the snowball sampling method. The respondents include NPO leaders (including officials from NPO coalition groups) and relevant policy actors (designated as key informants [KIs] from national departments in Tshwane (National Planning Commission and the Department of Social Development), provincial departments, and municipality IDP office involved in policy planning).

The main purpose of sampling respondents from Tshwane is because it is the capital and the seat of the national government. The Eastern Cape Province represents the east of the country and the Western Cape the west (and southern part). It is important to note, however, that provincial planning is guided by a provincial planning framework and municipality planning by the IDP. So, procedurally, planning within each sphere of government is mostly uniform but the plans are tailored to reflect the specific contextual conditions of the provincial or local needs a specific province or municipality. Collecting data in the different sites was not for the purpose of recruiting a representative sample or for generalization, but to gain insights from the participatory process in different contexts. This also provided the opportunity to explore if in practice there are possible divergences in NPOs participation in the different research sites.

Semi–structured interviews were conducted with 73 respondents comprising thirty–eight policy officials and thirty–five NPO leaders between 2018 and 2019. Of the thirty–eight KIs, four were from the national level, 10 from the provincial level, and 16 from the municipality level. The interviews lasted between 29 min and 1 h 20 min and were audio-recorded. The respondents were asked questions about the procedures and mechanisms for engagement between government and NPOs, and the involvement of NPOs in the planning process. This included information such as the respondents’ knowledge of participatory meetings, how information about the consultative process is disseminated, if and how invitations to meetings are made, who is invited to meetings (actors) and where the consultations occur (spaces), how participatory processes are organized, and issues that are discussed.

Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved, meaning additional data did not make an additional significant contribution to the development of codes or categories (Glaser and Strauss 1967). This does not indicate that a researcher has learned everything that could be known in a substantive area, but that gathering additional data no longer provides new ideas or sparks new insights (Charmaz 2006). The interview data were supplemented with information from government documents and field notes taken from three IDP Representative Forums. Three IDP Representative Forums were attended, twice in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM) (2018 and 2019) and once in Amathole District Municipality. The meetings lasted for an average of 2 h 30 min on each occasion. The forums were at the instance of the mayor of the respective municipalities, and the participants comprised mostly of municipality officials, councilors, and representatives from different wards in the municipality. In the 2019 forum at the NMBM, one participant introduced himself as an executive of a coalition of NPOs but was attending the meeting as a community member from a ward with a persisting problem of burst water pipes. No other participant identified as an NPO leader or employee in all three meetings. The document analysis and field notes were used to validate the qualitative interview data.

6 Findings

The findings suggest that deficient institutional arrangements for participation and other underlying contextual issues work in concert to hinder NPOs from participating in policy planning, as indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Barriers to NPOs participation in policy planning.

As Figure 1 illustrates, even though a policy framework for participation exists, the reality on the ground in South Africa makes policy participation by NPOs quite challenging.

7 Deficient Institutional Arrangements

Deficient institutional arrangements refer to the inadequacies in institutional frameworks that deter NPOs from sufficiently participating in policy planning.

8 Underlying Contextual Issues

Underlying contextual issues are issues that are outside of the institutional framework for participation in policy planning but within the context in which NPOs operate, which also constrain them from participating adequately in policy planning. These include partisan politics and an unorganized NPO sector.

9 Discussion and Conclusion

This study aimed to examine the challenges to NPOs participation in the development planning process in South Africa. The findings suggest that NPOs do not participate adequately in the policy planning process due to challenges of deficient institutional arrangements relating to how NPOs are invited, the exclusionary nature of spaces for participation, inequitable methods of participation and a lack of adequate information about NPOs. Other factors that present challenges to the participation of NPOs include underlying contextual issues such as partisan politics and the unorganized nature of the sectors. This suggests that even though NPOs are intrinsically linked to the public and/or social policy of the contexts in which they operate due to their service provision, they do not participate adequately in influencing the policies they implement. Rather, they are mostly considered as service providers and policy implementers. The asymmetric focus on NPOs as gap fillers, service deliverers and policy implementers paints only half the portrait of their relevance in the policy process.

NPOs typically derive their vision for addressing societal needs from their own perspective. Bringing NPOs into the dialogical and participatory process for planning can provide opportunities for alignment between NPOs’ objectives and government’s plans for addressing social problems within communities. There is, therefore, a need to bring NPOs into the participatory process of planning. In other contexts, Salamon et al. (1999) also identified the need for the state to make room at the table for NPOs in public spaces for policy formulation. As the findings suggest, in South Africa, the deficiencies in the institutional frameworks for participation create challenges to NPOs participation. While these processes are less well defined at the national and provincial levels, participatory procedures that incorporate NPOs at the municipality level are poorly implemented. This lack of an organized procedure for the participation of NPOs indicates the presence of an institutional void in the planning process in South Africa (see Nwauche and Claeyé 2019).

This article further argues that the participation of NPOs in planning will be more effective at the local level and can be used as a scaffold to build up to the provincial and national level. According to the wall–to–wall municipal system in South Africa, every geographical space in the country is within a municipality. The implication is that every NPO operates within a municipal space, whether the organization is big or small, local, or international, funded by government, led by community leaders or by those from outside the community. Given that the NPO database is held by the Department of Social Development, which is responsible for the registration of NPOs, this also means that NPOs can be more easily accessible to policy planners in municipal spaces. Policy planners can generate information on this stakeholder group and understand their salience and the nature and scope of their services to engage them in the planning process. At the operational level, it can also address inequitable methods of participation.

Furthermore, the contextual hindrances to NPOs’ participation, as identified in this article, are a reminder that spaces for participation are not neutral (Cornwall 2004). As such, the nature or character of the entry points for engagement can influence people’s decision to participate. Thus, the infusion of partisan politics into spaces for participation in South Africa dampens the interest of NPOs in joining the participatory process and consequently causes them to withdraw from the entry points of engagements. This translates to missed opportunities for participating in the policy planning process.

Secondly, the contextual hindrances suggest that the behaviour of actors within a context can influence their relevance and relationship with the state and policy actors. Therefore, the lack of coordination and collective engagement with policy actors that results from an unorganized sector constrain adequate participation of NPOs in planning. Also, the perception of NPO leaders of themselves in relation to the context in which they operate presents challenges to their participation. Nonprofit organization leaders who are not from the community in which they provide services tend to view themselves as outsiders. As such they are less willing to engage with the institutional bodies and participate within the local context than NPO leaders who are from the community. This is also a function of and further exacerbates the lack of collective engagement of NPOs with policy actors. The barriers to NPOs’ participation in policy planning, thus, suggest that the role of NPOs in the policy context is not being fully harnessed. As their services affect the achievement of the country’s social policy, it calls into question the true meaning of NPOs as stakeholders in the policy process in South Africa.

To create pathways and make space for NPOs in the policy planning process, there is a need to address the issues that hinder NPOs. First, it is necessary to develop and effectively implement policy procedures that will enhance NPOs’ participation in policy planning. Also, it is crucial to minimize the infusion of partisan politics into spaces for participation for NPOs, for example by paying attention to the configuration of actors that are allowed into the spaces and the types of discourse permitted in the space. The proper management of such spaces can promote productive participation. Furthermore, while the authors recognize that NPO leaders are diverse in their ideology about engagement with the state and that some organizations are more willing and able to engage than others, the sector needs to find ways of organizing within collectives and coalition groups. This is because, for practical reasons, government cannot engage with every organization individually. It would be more practical to gain attention as groups. The issues addressed in this article can be relevant in other contexts outside of South Africa, especially in an era that emphasizes intersectoral relationships and cooperation between state and non–state actors for effective policy governance.