Stakeholder model for community economic development in alleviating poverty in municipalities in South Africa

• Author: Emeka Austin Ndaguba,Barry Hanyane
• Published date: 01 February 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1858
• Date: 01 February 2019

ACADEMIC PAPER

Stakeholder model for community economic development in

alleviating poverty in municipalities in South Africa

Emeka Austin Ndaguba

1,2

|Barry Hanyane

1

1

School of governance and public

management, North‐West University,

Potchefstroom, South Africa

2

University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa

Correspondence

Emeka Austin Ndaguba, School of Governance

and Public Management, North‐West

University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Email: emeka@ndaguba.net

Governments globally have several responsibilities to its citizen, and one of these

responsibilities is the improvement in the living standard and to stimulate social well‐

being and sustainability in communities. A meta‐review of over a 100 article was con-

ducted of both the qualitative and quantitative method related to the antecedents to

business models, community economic development, and poverty alleviation. The basis

for the paper is the proposition of the stakeholder model for implementing Community

Economic Development in municipalities for alleviating poverty in South Africa.

1|INTRODUCTION

Governments globally have several responsibilities (protection of life

and property, security, regulation of market prices, among others) to

its citizen, and the improvement in the living standard of its citizens is

its utmost. This is done governed by the implementation of policies

and strategies that engenders social development and well‐being and

social welfare and sustainability. In order to achieve this goal, succes-

sive governments in developing nations, more specifically in sub‐

Saharan Africa and particularly South Africa, have adopted and used

several strategies as Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP; Welch,

2005)and Poverty Reduction Growth Facility (Welch, 2005) of the Pol-

icy Framework Papers with Poverty Strategy Papers (Bretton Wood

Project, 2001; Hanlon & Pettifor, 2000) in the region. This has resulted

in the adoption and implementation of such policies in South Africa as

Growth Employment and Redistribution and privatisation of healthcare

and the energy sector (Dagdeviren, 2003), accelerated economic

growth Black Economic Empowerment (World Bank, 2017), building

human capacity and fostering resilience (World Bank, 2017), and pri-

vate sector intervention (Independent Evaluation Group, 2012) to men-

tion but a few in the improvement of the living standard of its citizens.

At the wake of the millennial, the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) were proposed as a panacea for the backwardness of

developing countries, especially for the sub‐Saharan African region

to catch‐up with other developed nations. Several countries in the

region saw the strategy as a means through which development could

eventually reach the region; hence, most countries in the region were

among the 189 signatories to the MDGs in September 2000 in

Washington, D.C. (Ndaguba, Ndaguba, & Okeke, 2016).

However, at the end of the 15 year circle (2000‐2015) for evalu-

ating the strategies implemented for tackling poverty in the globe.

One may argue that these strategies (the MDGs, SAP, and the

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)) had not produced

predictable outcomes, as halving global poverty by 2015 or reducing

sub‐Saharan Africa share of poverty to 25% by 2000. This is probably

because poverty in South Africa (the most developed country in

sub‐Saharan African countries) and the wider sub‐Saharan African

region is still on the rise (Ndaguba & Hanyane, 2018; StatsSA,

2017; Ndaguba & Ijeoma, 2016; Beegle, Christiaensen, Dabalen, &

Gaddis, 2016).

Proliferation of studies exists demonstrating varying methodolo-

gies for reducing poverty, which is at variance with the propositions

of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and neoliberal

suggestions for the development and alienation of poverty. These

strategies may include but not limited to road transport infrastructural

investment (Hlotywa & Ndaguba, 2017; Gachassin, Najman, &

Raballand, 2010; Braithwaite, 2003), agriculture (Christiaensen &

Demery, 2007; Christiaensen, Demery, & Kühl, 2006), social enter-

prise (World Bank, 2017), empowerment (World Bank, 2017, p. 35),

land governance (Urban Land Mark, 2013), gender equity and women

empowerment (Diop, 2015; Tanbunan, n.d.), and community‐based

approaches (Foster, 2005, p. 19; Bonnel, 2004, p. 24; Torjman, 1998).

------------------------------------------------------- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided

the original work is properly cited.

© 2018 The Authors Journal of Public Affairs Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Received: 29 July 2018 Accepted: 2 August 2018

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1858

J Public Affairs. 2019;19:e1858.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1858

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of11