Amidst the global discourse on the provision of low-income housing, there has been a growth in studies to assess the governance issues related to the sustainability of housing delivery. Despite housing policy and legislative frameworks existing in developing countries, several governance issues have limited the sustainability of housing delivery mechanisms. Therefore, this study aims to unpack housing delivery approaches through the lens of governance. Adopting an exploratory approach, this study seeks to understand strategic and operational approaches used by government institutions to promote collaborative strategies in the planning and delivery of housing projects. Empirical data is used to understand mechanisms, processes and systems involved in the planning and delivery of low-income housing projects, using the Gauteng City Region as an area of study. The findings reveal there is that there is a limited understanding of the concept of governance within public sector institutions. Additionally, the institutional arrangements of the three spheres of government (national, provincial and local) have an impact in the delivery processes of low-income housing projects. A shift is important in the understanding and application of governance principles in housing policy and programme implementation to realise the value of governance. This study concludes with implications for policy and academics highlighting the role of stakeholder participation, transparency, and accountability.
The success of river chief system is spurring more types of chiefs in Chinese cities. This trend of chiefdomization can be viewed as a case of institutional borrowing: institutions in one field borrowing power from those in another field. In an authoritarian country, institutional borrowing often takes the form of imposing bureaucracy on natural resources and public goods, a change from open institutions to public institutions. It is argued that conditions for successful change include a collective “bad” being produced and severe mismatch between its consumer and producer. Several characteristics of the city make the institutional change difficult: people's high mobility, little mismatch between consumer and producer, difficulty in controlling open access as well as no physical collective good being produced. The case of chiefdomization in China illustrates the above analyses. Despite all the problems of chiefdomization, the trend may continue as long as bureaucracy remains a powerful institution in the country.