Abstract
During the tenure of the second democratically elected president, Thabo Mbeki, the South African government tried to deal with the problem of uncoordinated government activities by creating a mechanism known as the Cluster System. The aim of this paper is to examine the Cluster System and posit it as an innovative method for improving coordination and performance across agencies, as well as highlighting its contribution to improving ‘what works’ in South African governance. It is informed by an exploratory and desktop research methodology which sought to determine how the Cluster System has faired since the Mbeki era. Its findings point to a mixed performance of the Cluster System. The paper contributes to ongoing efforts to identify ‘what works’ in governance beyond dominant narratives of dysfunction.
Introduction
This article explores the Cluster System as a mechanism for coordinating government activities and attempts to locate it within the South African public service's ambit of interagency coordination and performance. It positions the Cluster System as a story worth mentioning within the broader literature on public sector performance in the Global South. The author seeks to uplift examples of positive state capacity, using the case of the Cluster System of South Africa, and argues that even though it does not actually signify ‘what works’ it at least prods and enjoins bureaucrats to work in a coordinated manner. In this way, the government's performance begins to be enhanced. It is important to note that coordination between government agencies remains a perennial and indispensable subject in public administration, leading to continuous discourse. Despite being regarded as crucial to the successful implementation of policies or programmes, coordination is not without its intricacies (Syarien and Samarah, 2023). In addition, government performance is not something that is easily established or tracked. Scholars such as Virani and van der Wal (2023:54) assert that public organisations face the challenge of developing performance-oriented interventions embedded in the distinct institutional contexts that shape and steer performance such that they can exploit the performance potential inherent in the service-oriented missions and welfare objectives of public organisations, while factoring in the constraints arising from their unique governance environments that may curtail their effectiveness.
This paper addresses itself to what is referred to as the Cluster System in South Africa and endeavours to highlight its interagency coordination and performance capabilities, in the way it prods and enjoins bureaucrats to work in a coordinated manner, despite encountering several hurdles in the last 2 decades. Part of the rationale for writing this paper stems from the need to contribute to the burgeoning literature on positive aspects of public sector performance in the Global South and in Africa (Mackay, 1998; Matsiliza, 2024; McDonnell, 2017). The paper takes a leaf from Mimba et al. (2007) who observe that in recent years, public sector performance measurement (PSPM) has attracted much attention in the literature. However, almost all papers that have been published in academic journals focus on the public sector in European or North American countries, Australia or New Zealand. Consequently, relatively little is known about PSPM in the developing world or Global South. In addition, literature focusing on public sector performance in the Global South seems to be inclined to report more on negative and not positive aspects of the public sector.
In discussing public sector performance in South Africa, a country which is located in the Global South, the article's intention is not only to posit a perspective of ‘what seems to work in the public sector’ in this country and region, but to bring to light the experiences and perspectives of the Global South from the mainstream literature in this field (Eiró and Lotta, 2023). In addition, in examining the Cluster System, the paper draws from this question which was posed by Douglas et al. (2021:441): ‘Why is it that particular public policies, programmes, organisations, networks, or partnerships manage to do much better than others to produce widely valued societal outcomes, and how might knowledge of this be used to advance institutional learning from positives?’ In attempting to answer the foregoing question, the paper takes critical cognisance of the fact that the Cluster System represents the desire to coordinate public sector activities to improve government performance in South Africa. In focussing on the Cluster System, the article seeks to highlight how it helps to enhance public sector effectiveness in the country. Arguably, the Cluster System falls within the realm of the state's activities which can be likened to what Muthien (2014:127) refers to as ‘pockets of excellence in terms of institutions, people and departments’ (Roll, 2014). In this light, the paper is making a case for the Cluster System for what seems to be working in South Africa's public service, even though it is not without challenges.
Following Moynihan et al. (2011), the Cluster System is viewed as a performance regime which includes not only practices for measuring and managing performance but also those that also hinge on its embeddedness in the governance environment. Martin et al. (2015:129) alert us to the fact that approaches to performance assessment have been described as ‘performance regimes’, but there has been little analysis of what is meant by this concept and whether it has any real value. Nevertheless, these authors conclude that the concept is valuable and helps to frame comparative and longitudinal analyses of approaches to performance assessment and draw attention to the ways in which public service performance regimes operate at different levels as well as how they change over time and what drives their development. Therefore, to ensure that public service delivery is as efficient and economical as possible, all government institutions strive to formulate strategic plans, allocate resources to the implementation of those plans, and monitor and report the results (Martin et al., 2015). This paper is discussed in four parts. The first section unpacks the concepts used in the paper and highlights its methodology as well as its theoretical framework. This section also broadly scopes the terrain of the Global South in the light of coordination of the public sector. The second part of the paper contextualises the discussion and grounds it in South Africa by examining public sector performance and government coordination endeavours in the country. A brief historical backdrop is proffered as a way of shedding some light on the evolution of both the country and its public sector. The third part of the paper pays particular attention to the Cluster System and unpacks it. Here, the paper postulates this system as an interagency coordination mechanism. The last section of the paper ties up the arguments and concludes it.
Conceptual framework
The main concept that undergirds this paper is the ‘cluster’. According to the National Treasury of South Africa (2010), a ‘cluster’ is a group of departments which fall within a broadly defined sector of the economy as created under the system of cluster management established by the Presidency. A specific department may fall under more than one cluster (National Treasury, 2010). The second concept is coordination. Coordination is a multidimensional concept in the public administration scholarship, and it lacks a common definition. For purposes of this paper, it encapsulates three perspectives, namely, vertical, horizontal and hybrid. Vertical coordination illustrates the coordination by a system or authority in a multi-level context (different levels of government) or at one level by one agency or member, while horizontal coordination displays the coordination between organisations at the same administrative and hierarchical level. Lastly, hybrid coordination is often used to increase the response capacity for emergent situations such as crisis management (Zyzak and Farsund, 2025). Scholars such as Peters (2021) point out that although public sector governance depends upon specialised organisations, there is also a need to create greater coordination and integration. Improving coordination can overcome problems of duplication, waste and turf-fighting. However, the former author concedes that producing coordination is not easy but there are several mechanisms available to would-be coordinators to make governments more coherent.
Lance et al. (2009) agree that government agencies are increasingly obliged to ‘join up’, for example, to establish common web portals (one-stop shops) and common databases, to make their information systems accessible, interoperable, and cost-effective. The notion of ‘joined up’ government is closely related to initiatives aimed at coordination in the public sector for effective and efficient service delivery. Mulgan (2005) informs us that the idea of ‘joined up’ government was first used by Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (UK) and has become a significant aspect of modern government of this country. It changed and influenced how structures are organised in the UK; how targets are set, how budgets are allocated and how the daily work of local agencies and professions are performed. The main reason for the interest in the concept of joined up government is that some of the problems of governments do not neatly fit into departmental boundaries of good government. It is quite interesting to note that the proponents of joined up government in the UK and South Africa were heads of states of both countries. Another concept that is mostly implied in this article is cooperative governance. This refers to a form of government that espouses political flexibility, negotiation, compromise and less reliance on the rigid distribution of powers between the three spheres of government. It also requires a synthesis and coordination of the functions and endeavours of the three arenas of government working together for the common good of the nation (Tau, 2015).
Several strands can be gleaned from the foregoing concept. For instance, Agranoff and McGuire (2003:4) speak of collaborative management. This is a concept that describes the process of facilitating and operating multiorganisational arrangements to solve problems that cannot be solved, or solved easily, by single organisations. However, the term ‘collaboration’ should not be confused with ‘cooperation’. The latter refers to working jointly with others to some end, as does the former, but the more accepted definition of cooperation means that those working jointly seek to be helpful as opposed to being hostile. For clarity, these distinctions are taken into critical consideration in this paper: cooperation (information sharing), coordination (alignment of activities) and collaboration (joint problem solving and resource sharing) (Agranoff and McGuire, 2003). Another key term used in this paper is government performance. This means the results of government work. Its use is to evaluate government accountability, decision-making, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and achievement of goals (Barus and Djamhuri, 2024). Nevertheless, Bjurstrøm (2019) is of the view that performance management has increased the focus on agency autonomy and concludes that agencies with high autonomy coordinate less with other agencies than agencies with low autonomy do.
Methodology
This paper is informed by an exploratory research perspective that is augmented by a desktop review approach. Exploratory research is conducted when not enough is known about a phenomenon and a problem has not been clearly defined. Although this research approach generates ideas or hypotheses for later quantitative research, exploratory research is used to gain an in-depth understanding of human behaviour, experience, attitudes, intentions and motivations, based on observation and interpretation, to find out the way people think and feel (Mbaka and Isiramen, 2021). On the other hand, desktop research (also known as secondary research) involves the use of existing sources of information to gather data and insights on a topic of interest. It relies on information that has already been collected and published by others, such as academic articles, government reports, market research studies or existing project documentation. It is often used to gather background information, support primary research or inform decision-making processes (Queensland Government, 2023).
In addition, the desktop research had relied upon the following inclusion criteria:
clearly defining the research objectives and the specific information that the author needed to gather; identifying the most credible and reliable sources for the data that was needed by the author; understanding how the collected data would be utilised; assessing the potential limitations and biases of the data sources, which included considering the publication date; geographic coverage, and the methodology used in data collection; and determining the scope and depth of the desk research (SIS International Research and Strategy Consulting, n.d.).
To analyse the data that were gathered via the desktop research, a qualitative content analysis approach was employed. Bengtsson (2016) reminds us that in all data analysis, regardless of whether it is within a positivist or naturalistic research tradition, the purpose is to organise and elicit meaning from the data collected and draw realistic conclusions. Thus, in qualitative content analysis, data are presented in words and themes, which makes it possible to draw some interpretation of the results. Thus, qualitative content analysis is defined as a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns. Conventional content analysis which was used by this author is generally used with a study design whose aim is to describe a phenomenon (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005), which in this case is the Cluster System. This type of design is usually appropriate when existing theory or research literature on a phenomenon is limited. To this end, the researcher immersed himself in the data to allow new insights to emerge. Data analysis started with reading all data repeatedly to achieve immersion and obtain a sense of the whole as one would read a novel (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Then, data were read word by word to derive codes by first highlighting the exact words from the text that appeared to capture key thoughts or concepts. Next, the researcher approached the text by making notes of his first impressions, thoughts and initial analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). As this process continued, labels for codes emerged that were reflective of more than one key thought. These came directly from the text and then become the initial coding scheme. Codes were sorted into categories based on how different codes were related and linked. These emergent categories were used to organise and group codes into meaningful clusters (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005).
Theoretical framework
This paper was guided by the network theory perspective. Networks in public services have been promoted as alternatives to the limitations of hierarchical-administrative systems. They ideally include a plurality of actors, sharing information in an open dialogue and developing partnerships. The networks are supposed to display a greater learning capacity and translate shared knowledge into desired service change (van Gestel, 2023). This theory was regarded as best suited to analyse the Cluster System and it was also helpful in unpacking public performance in both South Africa and the Global South. However, it is important to note that the network theory approach is not infallible. For instance, McGuire and Agranoff (2011) point out that networks often find reasonable solution approaches, but then run into operational, performance, or legal barriers that prevent the next action step. Furthermore, networks face challenges in converting solutions into policy energy, assessing internal effectiveness, surmounting the inevitable process blockages, mission drift and so on (McGuire and Agranoff, 2011). In addition, despite their popularity, networks have been subject to critical reflections. A repeated criticism is that network literature tends to be frequently normative in tone about positive effects and lacks systematic support from empirical research (Hu et al., 2016; van Gestel, 2023; Xiao et al., 2024). Despite these shortcomings, the author was guided by this theory when he analysed the coordination of the public sector and related issues in South Africa and the Global South.
To appreciate the essence of the Cluster System and the evolution of South Africa's public service, it is important to contextualise it in the terrain of the Global South and efforts by countries in this sphere to enhance the performance of their public services.
Public sector performance in the Global South
According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2024) the global push to professionalise the public sector stems from the need for effective public service that meets the expectations of citizens, advances national development and supports democratic governance. The UNDP (2024) further argues that in recent years, governments worldwide have implemented strategies to enhance public service professionalism, with benefits that include improved efficiency, increased public trust and stronger institutional capacity. In Africa, attempts to reform public sectors have been gaining momentum in the last 3 decades. Therkildsen (2001) points out that in direct contrast to the immediate post-independence period, where reforms aimed at shaping a public administration that could spearhead national development, the reforms of the last 30 years aimed to reduce the costs of running bureaucracies and refocus the activities of the public sector, to change the way it works, and to promote the role of the market and non-governmental actors both in service provision and in the economy at large. Arguably, public sector performances hinge a lot on the abilities of government departments and ministries to coordinate their work. Despite this, there seems to be a dearth of information in the Global South that speaks directly to the issue of coordination in the public sector. Nevertheless, the case of countries from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) serves as a vital lesson for countries in the Global South as they seek to improve the performance of their respective governments. For instance, LAC governments have been major players in the global trend towards strengthening Centre of Government institutions because they recognised that many of their development challenges (such as citizen security or poverty reduction) required multisectoral approaches which in turn need greater degrees of coordination. In addition, they acknowledged that restoring the public's trust in public administrations and governments meant fulfilling public policy promises made in campaigns by the politicians who won the elections. Finally, they also recognise that enhancing the government's capacity for delivery is the key to tackle the problem of eroding trust in government (Lafuente and González, 2018).
Therefore, public sector reforms in the Global South are diverse and not uniform because they are necessitated by different rationales. Indeed, the World Bank (2018) is right to point out that public sector performance is not merely a concern of high-income countries such as those found in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); it is being pursued diligently and successfully across a variety of country contexts, including in low-income and post-conflict environments. For example, public administration reforms in LAC made it possible to meet societal challenges after undertaking reforms centred on what is referred to as delivery units (DUs). It was reported that in Chile, the crime victimisation rate fell from 33.6% in 2009 to 24.8% in 2013, while in Colombia, cell phone theft fell by 12% in just 1 year. Over a period of 4 years (2011 to 2015), Pernambuco, Brazil, moved up from 16th place among 27 states to first place on the standardised high school achievement test, and from 11th place to first place in terms of lowest high school dropout rates. Such achievements were made in complex and multisectoral public policy areas that usually require the intervention of different sectors, institutions and levels of government. Hence, the need for government coordination (Lafuente and González, 2018). The key issue here is what governments can achieve for the public good if their interventions are well-targeted and effective as well as coordinated. Sarr (2015) observes that how the public sector achieves results matters because its size and economic significance make it a major contributor to growth and social welfare. However, this cannot transpire if governments’ activities are not coordinated.
In Africa, the reasons behind the implementation of reforms vary, although Therkildsen (2001) alludes to pressures from economic crises and structural adjustment, donor imposition and domestic demands for change as key drivers. Okeke-Uzodike and Chitakunye (2014) seem to echo the foregoing points and assert that the main factors leading to public sector reforms can be traced back to the following criteria, namely the redefinition of the role of the state, the introduction of new measures to enhance public management performance and, lastly, the emphasis of governments to adhere to the principles of good corporate governance through increased transparency, openness, accountability and increased citizen participation. After evaluating three selected transitional countries in sub-Saharan Africa, namely, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa, van der Westhuizen (2005: 142) claimed that public sector reform and effective service delivery were closely related. The said author observed that public sector reform programmes in the three transitional countries were basically similar to the evolution of reform programmes elsewhere, especially in the Global South. Nevertheless, the issue of coordination does not stand out distinctly in the reviewed literature pertaining to the Global South and specifically Africa. It is worth noting that government coordination is the main interest of this article as it is a critical ingredient needed to enhance overall government performance. Therefore, the World Bank (2018) observes that as the responsibilities of government have grown in volume and complexity over the past decades, policy and programme coordination have become ever more challenging. The stakes have also never been higher. On the one hand, government ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) have expanded in size and mandate to serve a growing population that demands more and better services: a phenomenon that applies to both rich and poor countries alike. Lafuente and González (2018) note that to achieve a good balance between different levels of government, and service providers, OECD countries strengthened their ‘Centre of Government’ to ensure that the various implementing agencies maintained consistency across their policies, through prioritising government goals, identifying how each agency contributed towards these objectives, and monitoring the delivery of these goals. All Centre of Government models feature a horizontal and integrated collaborative approach to service delivery, across all relevant agencies and at all levels of government.
In this regard, LAC customised the OECD's Centre of Government model to their own local contexts and situations. Centre of Government development in the LAC region had its own unique features. The main goal was to ensure that the government's highest priorities were achieved through strengthening Centre of Government's typical functions, such as coordination, monitoring, and performance management. This was accomplished through the creation of DUs (Lafuente and González, 2018). DUs are small teams that report to the president or prime minister and focus on enabling the achievement of top government priorities. Originally, the DU model was created in the UK in 2001 under Prime Minister Tony Blair and has since been adapted in more than 30 countries (Lafuente and González, 2018). In Africa, the following examples can be cited:
in Senegal, a President's DU was established in 2014; in Sierra Leone, a President's Delivery Team was created in 2015; in South Africa, in the Western Cape, a Delivery Support Unit was established in 2014; and in Uganda, a Prime Minister's DU was created in 2016 (Lafuente and González, 2018).
Taking into critical account the foregoing issues, it can be stated that public sector performance in the Global South varies and is context specific. However, overgeneralised notions of bad governance in the developing world abound which mainly stem from widely held beliefs that the state in developing countries is weak. The public sector, in particular, is often regarded as corrupt and dysfunctional. Arguably, the Cluster System that is under examination in this paper enjoins public servants to think and work in a coordinated manner and, thus, contributes towards the public sector's better performance. The next section delves into South Africa's public sector whilst using the country's history as a backdrop.
Public sector performance and government coordination in South Africa
The colonial state in South Africa was created by the Dutch settlers from the Netherlands, after they established permanent settlements in 1652. This colonisation and state building was followed up by the British, first in 1795 after they overrun the Dutch, and then in 1806 when they consolidated their power. In 1948, the apartheid state which was overseen by the descendants of the Dutch (referred to as Afrikaners) cemented its structures through what it termed ‘separate development’. It was pro-white and made sure that the interests of people of European descent were prioritised above those of other races and were protected at all costs. According to van der Berg (1997), during this period, South Africa had a segregated welfare state which was established to protect whites against various contingencies. To impose such a state on the indigenous peoples, the government bureaucracy relied upon various tools of violence. To this end, three segments of the state bureaucracy played a particularly prominent and pernicious role in implementing apartheid and preserving white minority rule: the security agencies, including the police and defence forces; the Bantu Administration and Development Department, and the homeland or Bantustan administrations (Fernandez, 2020). Due to the foregoing, the apartheid government bureaucracy was not performance-oriented or coordinated but focused on entrenching racial discrimination rules aimed at ensuring white supremacy in the labour market, political system, education and all spheres of life in society (Leite and Chipkin, 2024). This resulted in the enlargement of the public service and parastatal sectors with the aim of providing employment opportunities for Afrikaners, including the adoption of affirmative action policies to ensure the dominance of the Afrikaners (Leite and Chipkin, 2024).
According to Leite and Chipkin (2024), despite the expansion in the size and scope of the state, there was no concurrent modernisation and professionalisation. Instead, as the state grew, its capacities and the skills of its personnel deteriorated. By the time apartheid reached its peak in 1960, the state's responsibilities increasingly fell to a workforce that was less qualified and competent. The Presidency (2014) seems to echo the foregoing authors’ views and notes that before 1994, the frameworks governing the public service were highly centralised and regulated, resulting in a bureaucratic, unresponsive and risk-averse public service. In addition, the apartheid state provided space for abuse of power and corruption. Most government departments were designed to enforce apartheid norms and standards regarding service delivery. The Presidency (2014) further reports that the apartheid state epitomised a fragmented, opaque, unaccountable and racially divided governance system consisting of the homeland administrations (sometimes referred to as ‘Bantustans’ or ‘self-governing territories’), national and provincial administrations, as well as separate administrations for certain racial groups. The homeland administrations were poorly organised and resourced, largely without local government, and the services they provided were determined by the minority apartheid state (The Presidency, 2014). The municipalities that were well capacitated were mostly in the urban areas and served the needs of the white population. In addition, government departments were predicated on the ‘separate development’ of the races and ethnic groups. For example, the Department of Education had 19 departments which were split along race and ethnicity lines instead of one national department as is presently the case. Similarly, the Department of Welfare had 14 departments (The Presidency, 2014).
After 1994, the fragmented and disparate state structures were amalgamated into a unitary, non-racial and democratic system. It is this history of colonialism and apartheid or so-called separate development which bequeathed democratic South Africa an inchoate, top heavy and uncoordinated government bureaucratic structure. That is why when South Africa became a democratic country in 1994, it inherited the colonial-apartheid state bureaucracy apparatus which was almost intact, with most of the functionaries of the former political regime still implementing government policies and enforcing legislation. Due to this situation, South Africa's public administration needed to be transformed immediately to serve all South Africans in a just and equitable manner. The African National Congress (ANC) government that was headed by Nelson Mandela embarked upon the arduous task of transforming the state and governance systems which were created for the sole purpose of entrenching and perpetuating white minority rule and economic privilege. Thus, in 1995, the White Paper on the Transformation of the Public Service was finalised and it sought to transform the public sector into a coherent, representative, competent and democratic instrument for implementing government policies and meeting the needs of all South Africans (Ministry for the Public Service and Administration, 1995). Subsequently, the White Paper on Transforming Public Service Delivery was completed in 1997. Its purpose was to provide a policy framework and a practical implementation strategy for the transformation of public service delivery. Among other objectives, this White Paper was geared towards improving the delivery of public services to all South Africans (Ministry for the Public Service and Administration, 1997).
Transforming the public service in post-apartheid South Africa was not only focused on improving performance, coordination of activities, efficient allocation of resources and so forth, it was also about redressing past injustices and creating a new social order that was informed by citizens’ equal access to state resources. Thus, Melaletsa et al. (2023) observe that the public service in South Africa witnessed an unprecedented process of radical transformation and change in its core mandate and delivery focus in the post-apartheid era. After 1994, South Africa followed a three-tier governance system which meant that there had to be among other things, coordination between these spheres of government which were placed within the framework of cooperative governance. In terms of section 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108), government is constituted as national, provincial and local spheres that are distinctive, interdependent and interrelated. The system of intergovernmental relations and cooperative government in South Africa is enshrined within the Constitution and embodies the best ideals of democracy (Tau, 2015).
It has been argued by academics and the public that one of the key challenges that South Africa has faced in the democratic dispensation is the non-implementation of policies despite having performance management systems in place (Seopetsa, 2020). However, Taing (2019) seems to disagree with this broad characterisation of the policy implementation shortfall and suggests that it borders on a disproportionate focus on turning national policy into practice. Therefore, this viewpoint misses how local actors’ perspectives and practices can shape policy. According to this author, there is a need to understand, accept and address the interplay between policy-making and implementation. This can contribute to a more constructive means of effective service delivery in South Africa. Nokele (2022) discovered in his research that in South Africa, there has been a particular emphasis on the delivery of services with the capacity and capabilities of national, provincial and local government to advance service delivery. However, challenges have been encountered in the implementation processes. Nevertheless, Schwella (2001) asserts that service delivery in South Africa takes place in a highly complex and challenging context. The former is still defined by the vestiges of colonialism and apartheid such as high levels of structural poverty, inequality and unemployment. The legacy of apartheid still manifests in skewed delivery of services and distribution of resources towards the previously advantaged segments of society.
Thus, this context is also politically charged and heavily contested by different interest groups, including political parties. Furthermore, post-apartheid South Africa is characterised by frequent public and mostly violent service delivery protests. For example, on average, between 2007 and 2013, there were over 11 protests daily. Research shows that protests almost doubled in the 20 years after 1997. Service delivery protests over basic services such as housing, electricity, refuse removal, water and sanitation are prominent features in the socio-political and economic landscape of post-apartheid South Africa (Chiwarawara, 2025). Therefore, to deliver services in such an environment, policies for service delivery must be applicable and functional, and the institutions and people involved should be performance oriented (Chiwarawara, 2025). Schwella (2001) further notes that service delivery policies in South Africa are in accordance with international standards. However, performance evaluation shows that actual service delivery is not at the same high level of performance as stated in policies. One avenue which was deemed necessary to address challenges related to policy implementation was effective government coordination (Schwella, 2001). Hence, it is important for this paper to ascertain how lack of coordination was addressed by the new government after the fall of apartheid.
The Cluster System as a coordinating mechanism
The Cluster System was established in South Africa in 1999 by the South African government to foster an integrated approach to governance aimed at improving government's planning, decision-making and service delivery. Each of the Cabinet clusters is chaired by specific Coordinating Ministers. For instance, the Economic Sectors, Investment, Employment and Infrastructure Development cluster is cochaired by the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and the Minister of Tourism. The main objective of the Cluster System is to ensure proper coordination of all government programmes at national and provincial levels. Its functions are to:
ensure alignment of government-wide priorities; facilitate and monitor the implementation of priority programmes (Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation [DPME], 2022); provide a consultative platform on cross-cutting priorities and matters being taken to Cabinet (Government of South Africa, 2026).
The clusters function at different levels, namely ministerial, directors-general and communication stage (Government of South Africa, 2026). Furthermore, the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) (2019) asserts that clusters are groupings of government departments with cross-cutting programmes. They foster an integrated approach to governance that is aimed at improving government planning, decision-making and service delivery. The main objective of clusters is to ensure proper coordination of all government programmes at national and provincial levels. In addition, the clusters of the Forum of South African Directors General (Fosad) mirror the ministerial clusters. The Fosad clusters provide technical support to the ministerial clusters. The Director General (DG) in the Presidency is the chairperson of Fosad (GCIS, 2019). The government clusters have over the years been reconfigured and reconstituted to suit the governance imperatives of particular political administrations. Presently, there are five clusters that straddle 67 government ministries, namely:
Economic Sectors, Investment, Employment and Infrastructure Development; Social Protection, Community and Human Development; Governance, State Capacity and Institutional Development; Justice, Crime Prevention and Security; International Co-operation, Trade and Security.
The Cluster System emerged out of the recommendations of the Presidential Review Commission which had a direct effect on efforts to enhance horizontal coordination, particularly in the Office of the President. The changes included formalising an embryonic clustering of cabinet ministers into a collection of strategic policy sectors including Social, Economic, Investment and Employment, International Relations, Peace and Security, and Governance and Administration (Naidoo, 2013). In 1996, a Presidential Commission was appointed by the then president, Nelson Mandela, through a Proclamation to review the public service of South Africa. Its report, which was finalised in 1998, focused its recommendations on enhancing the general administrative and policy capacity for coordination in the Office of the President, in which it observed a ‘vacuum at the centre of government’ (Naidoo, 2013). Thereafter, the Cluster System was institutionalised across government structures in 1999. It is important to note that the Cluster System had antecedents. For example, Naidoo (2013) reports that in 1994, the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) office was created to centrally orchestrate and coordinate the work of the country's dramatically transforming public bureaucracy. Two years later, however, it was unceremoniously closed down. This was linked to inter alia, poorly communicated coordinating mandates and the RDP office being administratively overwhelmed by the sheer scope and complexity of institutional transformation.
Suffice it to say, there is not much literature that highlights the efficacy of the Cluster System in South Africa. Despite this deficit, some evidence from an extensive literature review points to clusters responding quite effectively to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and other epidemics. In addition, it can be argued that there were some cluster initiatives that resulted in the improvement of the well-being of South Africans since the inception of the Cluster System. In the following section, some examples are presented to throw some light on the synergistic approach employed by the government to tackle challenges which resulted in better outcomes for the citizens. The examples used in this section are all derived from the work of the Social Cluster which encompasses the following departments: Basic Education; Health; Higher Education; Human Settlements; Social Development; Sports, Arts and Culture; and Water and Sanitation. In the main, the Social Sector Cluster seeks to grow a capable human capital, that is skilled, healthy and protected and to lessen the negative impact of challenges on the most vulnerable by intensifying the provision of basic services that improve the lives of South Africans (Phaahla and Motshekga, 2023). Thus, in addition to tackling the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the Social Cluster was able to work in a coordinated manner in the following areas:
Measles outbreak and immunisation campaign
In 2022, the Department of Health, other Social Cluster departments and various stakeholders collaborated and embarked on a nationwide child immunisation campaign against measles, human papillomavirus (HPV) and other vaccine preventable diseases. The measles outbreak was reported in six of South Africa's nine provinces namely Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Gauteng, Free State, Northwest and the Western Cape. The government leveraged the Cluster System to spearhead the said campaign effectively (Phaahla and Motshekga, 2023).
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted infections
The fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in South Africa is managed through a multi-sectoral approach led by the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC), which brings together various government departments, civil society and the private sector. This collaboration is guided by the National Strategic Plan (NSP) for HIV, TB and STIs, 2023–2028. The government and other partners in SANAC have been leading an annual World TB Commemorative event across the country as part of continued efforts to raise awareness about the epidemic and its burden on the health care system (Phaahla and Motshekga, 2023).
Gender responsive planning
The Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (WYPD) implements economic empowerment programmes for WYPD, to address the challenge of market concentration that excludes the three sectors (WYPD) from equal participation in the economy and monitor government departments on the implementation of Gender Responsive Planning, Budgeting, Monitoring, Evaluation and Auditing Framework (GRPBMEAF). The framework is the main tool that tracks women's empowerment, which is one of the key pillars in the country's National Strategic Plan to manage challenges of gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) (Phaahla and Motshekga, 2023). The foregoing initiatives cannot be spearheaded by one government department and thus the Social Cluster drives them in a coordinated manner.
This paper is premised on the assumption that the Cluster System has influenced government bureaucrats to think in a coordinated manner and eschew a ‘silo’ mentality. However, it is not suggested in this discussion that it is a ‘silver bullet’ or panacea but something that helps to improve the government's coordination efforts which ultimately results in its better performance. The system is not perfect and that is why efforts were made to strengthen it in 2004, when the government introduced its Programme of Action (POA) to monitor implementation of government policies and programmes. The POA was a structured mechanism introduced following the third democratic election to ensure the practical implementation of the ANC's electoral mandate for the ‘second decade of freedom’ (2004–2014). It focused on accelerating service delivery, creating employment, and fighting poverty. The POA was undergirded by 14 priority outcomes which each cluster was responsible for, and reported on, to the wider government collective. For example, the Social Cluster focused on poverty alleviation and enabled vulnerable and poor citizens to access government services such as monthly cash transfers and other social and human development programmes aimed at raising their livelihoods. It can be asserted that the Cluster System is not static and is evolving. The Director-General in the Presidency, Phindile Baleni, seemed to echo the foregoing point when she presented a paper at the Governance State Capabilities and Institutional Development Cluster Retreat on 2 December 2024. In her presentation, she conceded that while this system has been established for some time, government bureaucrats must critically assess its efficacy in facing persistent service delivery challenges and ensuring that the government provided high-quality services to the citizens. She noted that the current government administration (or 7th Administration) has three key priorities: driving inclusive growth and job creation; reducing poverty; and building a capable, ethical and developmental state. She observed that such goals could not be achieved in ‘silos’ as they required a collaborative approach that leveraged the strengths of various sectors and stakeholders (Baleni, 2024).
Lastly, it is worth noting that the Cluster System survived the period between 2009 and 2018, when Jacob Zuma was president. This period was epitomised by what was referred to as ‘state capture’ which was expressed in corrupt activities, brazen undermining of state institutions and the dissolution of key government structures. Such nefarious acts were meant to facilitate the carting away of state resources by corrupt public officials. This was a very difficult time in South Africa's post-apartheid history, and the country is still reeling from this corrosive period. This tumultuous time came under national scrutiny especially in 2016 after a huge scandal erupted with the release of a damaging report on state capture by the then outgoing Public Protector of South Africa, Thuli Madonsela. On her recommendation, a judicial commission was constituted to probe allegations of corruption and ‘state capture’ which was headed by then Chief Justice Raymond Zondo. After 4 years of investigation, the Commission handed over its final report to President Ramaphosa in June 2022. Among other issues, the Commission concluded that state capture was facilitated by a deliberate effort to exploit or weaken key state institutions and public entities, but also including law enforcement institutions and the intelligence services (emphasis added) (The Presidency, 2023).
Conclusion
This paper made the case for the Cluster System in the South African government as a coordinating mechanism. The discussion noted that the Cluster System could be deemed as something that helps the public service to perform better because it fosters a cohesive and coherent approach to the implementation of government policies and programmes and compels public servants to work collaboratively with each other. By tackling challenges in a coordinated manner, the government is less wasteful and implements policies efficiently. Crucially, this is one mechanism that was not diluted or dismantled during the state capture era when there was rampant corruption across the state. It can thus be argued that even though it is not perfect, the Cluster System has helped to enhance government performance and raised the quality of life of the citizens through better service delivery. However, the Cluster System still needs to be strengthened, and more work is required to make it perform optimally. For instance, the South African government (or ideally, a specific unit within the South African government) could consider exploring the LAC experiences (discussed above) of using DUs to improve the implementation of the Cluster System.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.