Reform Local Government by Multiplying It, Not Merging It
South Africa needs more municipalities, not less.
Recently, South Africa's Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) remarked that, in light of the widespread dysfunction plaguing municipalities, the country should consider reforms that include merging some municipalities. The rationale seems solid. Fewer municipalities will allegedly be easier to manage, and cost savings will follow from scale. But this logic, however intuitively appealing, is deeply flawed. South Africa's local government crisis stems not from too many municipalities, but from too few and a lack of accountability. If anything, we should be arguing for more municipalities that are smaller, closer to the people, and have greater fiscal autonomy.
We need a radical shift in the way we think about governance. The solution to weak local government is not centralisation through amalgamation, but decentralisation through proliferation. And this is not clinging to a libertarian pipedream, the evidence around the world is there.
The Case for Smaller more Numerous Municipalities
Let us start with a simple comparative analysis. South Africa has 257 municipalities for a population of around 60 million people and a land area of 1.22 million square kilometres. That is approximately 1 municipality per 233 000 people and 1 per 4,750 km².
Compare that to:
Italy: 7 918 municipalities for 59 million people (~1 per 7,500 people and 1 per 38 km²)
Argentina: 2 218 municipalities for 46 million people (~1 per 20,400 people and 1 per 1,234 km²)
Ukraine: 1 469 municipalities for around 38 million people (~1 per 25,800 people and 1 per 460 km²)
The countries closest to South Africa in geography (land area) and demography (population) have significantly more local governments per capita and per square kilometre.
Moreover, Japan has 1718 municipalities (792 cities, 743 towns, and 183 villages) and 23 special wards of Tokyo, all of which are the lowest level of government. Japan has twice the population size of South Africa but has five times as many municipalities. Public governance in Germany comprises three levels, the federation, the 16 federal states (Länder) and some 11 000 municipalities, which include cities, towns and other entities. So a country with one and a half times the population of South Africa has more than 40 times the number of municipalities. Italy has a municipality for nearly every village and town.
In these countries services are administered closer to the ground, and accountability has a shorter feedback loop. Citizens there have a far more direct connection to their local representatives.
In South Africa, vast rural municipalities try to serve areas the size of small European countries. Residents in far-flung villages are effectively disenfranchised by geography.
Bigger Isn't Better
The theory behind amalgamation is that larger municipalities benefit from economies of scale. But empirical evidence shows otherwise. Studies from around the world indicate that large municipalities become bureaucratic, unresponsive, and prone to administrative inefficiencies. The further government moves from the governed, the worse it performs.
A consolidated municipality may look neater on a spreadsheet, but in practice it becomes less representative, less accountable, and less adaptable to local needs. Mergers do not eliminate dysfunction, they simply obscure it.
Moreover, many of the current amalgamated municipalities in South Africa were born out of apartheid-era consolidations or the rushed restructuring of the early 2000s. They were never sized with functionality in mind, but with political or ideological motivations. And now that design is now failing.
Fiscal Autonomy: The Real Missing Ingredient
Moreover, the lack of accountability isn’t the only issue in local government governance in South Africa. The conversation we should be having should not only be about how many municipalities we have, but how they are empowered and funded. South Africa's local governments still rely on intergovernmental transfers from national government, Even though municipalites have their own-revenue generation it is largely limited to property rates and service charges which are often unaffordable in poor areas and become increasingly more difficult as the economy grinds to a halt. It is a doom loop that throttles municipal initiative and traps communities in perpetual dependency. Breakdowns in basic services erode residents’ willingness to pay, shrinking the rates base even further; shrinking revenues then force councils to cut maintenance and defer upgrades, which in turn accelerates infrastructure decay and drives out businesses that might otherwise have widened the tax net.
By contrast, countries like Italy and even Ukraine grant significant fiscal powers to local governments. In Italy, municipalities receive a portion of personal income tax, local business taxes, and property taxes. In Ukraine, decentralisation reforms saw municipalities retain around 60% of PIT collected locally, giving them a stake in economic activity.
In Germany municipalities enjoy the constitutional right to self-government and can raise revenue through local business taxes (Gewerbesteuer), shares of income tax, and property taxes. The fiscal federalism in Germany ensures a significant portion of tax revenue remains at the local level, enhancing autonomy and incentivising economic development.
In Switzerland, one of the most decentralised democracies in the world, municipalities raise a substantial portion of their own budgets through local income taxes, wealth taxes, and service fees. Swiss municipalities also compete (often fiercely) for residents by setting their own tax rates, creating strong incentives for efficiency and responsiveness.
In contrast, most South African municipalities are essentially delivery agents for national government, not autonomous centres of governance. They are neither close enough to the people to respond effectively, nor fiscally equipped to act independently. And while some municipalities are functional they become victims of their own success, as they perform well amidst failing local governments around them, people flock to them and in balancing their books, and upgrading infrastructure, the equitable-share formula rewards that competence by clawing back grants, saddling them with unfunded national mandates, and forcing them to cross-subsidise and plug the holes left by national government without the funding from national government.
Smaller municipalities would mean greater democratic intimacy. They also create more opportunities for leadership, greater competition, and a better chance for innovation. They allow for community-level experimentation with policy, service delivery, and revenue models, like which is seen in for example the canton system of Switzerland, where even alpine villages set their own tax rates and tailor public services to the needs of a few thousand citizens. The comparative evidence is unambiguous. Successful democracies and functioning states invest in numerous, empowered, and localised governments, trusting that a dense lattice of accountable local authorities will out-perform any lumbering, over-centralised behemoth.
Multiply, Don't Merge
The recent calls for reform in local government should be seized as an opportunity to reimagine local governance. That starts with an inversion of the current trend: rather than merge dysfunctional municipalities, we should break them up. Rather than centralise power we should devolve it to towns, villages, and suburbs. South Africa requires a principled reconfiguration guided by a commitment to subsidiarity, the principle that decisions should be made at the lowest effective level.
Yes, this reform would require careful legal, fiscal, and administrative design. But so did our democratic Constitution. And like the Constitution, it would be an investment in accountability, resilience, and long-term democratic health.
So the COGTA Minister is right about one thing: local government is in crisis, which is already a refreshing concession from the new minister of arguably one of the most important cabinet positions. But the remedy is not fewer municipalities. It is better ones. And better municipalities will not come from size, but from proximity, power, and purpose.
More articles:
If you found this piece worthwhile, feel free to share it with someone who might appreciate it.
To get future essays delivered directly to your inbox, you can subscribe here:
I welcome thoughtful conversation—feel free to reach out on LinkedIn or follow along on Twitter.
An edited version of this article was published on BusinessLive. If you'd like to support my writing please subscribe and consider a pledge.
This cover image was created using ChatGPT.