The perils of polycentric governance of infectious disease in South Africa
Abstract
In much of the developing world, a model of polycentric governance has become increasingly prevalent for the control of health and infectious disease - one in which a panoply of governance actors work concurrently on the same development projects, within the same localities. And yet, the question of whether polycentrism helps or hinders disease control/mitigation, or service provision more generally, has not been sufficiently studied. This article details findings from an exploratory case study of the polycentric governance of infectious disease in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Combining analyses of an original survey of local councilors, structured interviews with relevant actors in four municipalities, and a national survey of South African citizens, the study finds a high degree of polycentric governance, and highlights associated accountability gaps and a series of constraints on effective service delivery. It concludes by identifying promising directions for future research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The dispersion of responsibilities in a polycentric governance system can make it challenging to hold decision makers accountable for their performance.
“Additionally, the dispersion of responsibilities in a polycentric governance system can make it challenging to hold decision makers accountable for their performance (Huitema et al., 2009; Lieberman, 2011).”
From Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons (2019) · cites this paper as Lieberman, 2011
Governance actors had strong incentives to shirk responsibilities because they could rely upon other actors who were assigned the same responsibilities, and they were not likely to be blamed or held accountable for inaction.
“Governance actors had strong incentives to shirk responsibilities because they could rely upon other actors who were assigned the same responsibilities, and they were not likely to be blamed or held accountable for inaction.”
From Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons (2019) · cites this paper as Lieberman, 2011
In polycentric governance of infectious disease control in the Eastern Cape of South Africa, it was difficult for citizens to hold governance actors accountable because multiple actors were responsible for performing the same or similar tasks, resulting in confusion over whom to blame or punish.
“Lieberman (2011) examined polycentric governance of infectious disease control in the Eastern Cape of South Africa and found that it was difficult for citizens to hold governance actors accountable because multiple actors were responsible for performing the same or similar tasks, resulting in confusion over whom to blame or punish.”
From Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons (2019) · cites this paper as Lieberman, 2011
Polycentric approaches can undermine effective service provision.
“although other studies come to the opposite conclusion, finding that polycentric approaches can undermine effective service provision (e.g., Lieberman, 2011).”
From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Lieberman, 2011
Empirical support for polycentricity is limited and conflicting.
“However, this theoretical development of polycentricity has limited and conflicting empirical support.”
From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Lieberman, 2011
Effective coordination is not automatic in polycentric systems, and poor coordination can undermine trust and reduce legitimacy.
“Effective coordination is not automatic in polycentric systems (Lieberman, 2011;Pahl-Wostl, 2009), and poor coordination can undermine trust and reduce legitimacy.”
From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Lieberman, 2011
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 34 · Cited by 118
- Authors
- Lieberman, E. S.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lieberman, Evan S.
- ORCID
- Lieberman, Evan S.
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 676-684
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967471898
- Cited by
- 118
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 5.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in South Africa
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › African Studies and Ethnography
- Keywords
- polycentric governance, infectious disease control, health care delivery, accountability gap, local government, municipalities, Eastern Cape, South Africa, citizen perceptions, health governance
- MeSH terms
- Communicable Disease Control, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Health Policy, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Politics, Social Responsibility, South Africa, Health Care Surveys, Organizational Case Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
