1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND FORMULATION OF THE OBJECTIVES
1.1 EFFICIENCY
Various sources were explored in an attempt to capture the meaning of efficiency in the context of municipal decision-making. At the same time, in the interests of clarity, the distinction between efficiency and effectiveness was also addressed. The following meanings of these tenns have been selected with the intention of detennining an acceptable basis on which to conduct further research.
Efficiency
Effective
Being able to produce satisfactory results with an economy of effort and minimum of waste.1
The quality of doing something well with no waste of time or money.2
The measurement of inputs, or resources, required to produce, or achieve, a unit of output.3
Having the power to produce, or producing a desired effect.4
Producing the result that is wanted or intended. Producing a successful result.s
In examining the distinction between efficiency and effectiveness,itcan be claimed that an organisation
may be efficient, according to the ratio of inputs to outputs, but if the outcome of its activity is a failure to realise its goals, then it is not effective. Inthe new models of public management, it is claimed, by some, that there is too much concern for efficiency at the expense of effectiveness.6 Thus even if democracy has costs in terms of efficiency, the final outcome might be qualitatively better, and therefore more effective. It is critical to note that this thesis remains agnostic on the question, and in the conclusion the relationship between democracy and efficacy in post-apartheid local governance is identified as a subject for further study. Part of the reason for doing this is that it is far more difficult to assess the effectiveness of an agency or one of its programmes than it is its economy or efficiency. The chief reason is that effectiveness is essentially a qualitative judgement whereas efficiency and economy involve quantitative assessments.?
Efficiency, on the other hand, can be operationalised in quantitative terms, as this study does.
To be efficient, therefore, it is necessary to be productive with minimum waste of effort. Richard Wolff expresses a similar view when he refers to a quantitative measure of all the positive and negative effects of an economic act, event or institution is undertaken to determine whether, on balance, the positives (benefit added up) outweighs the negatives (costs added up). If so, it is judged to be efficient and should be undertaken; if not the reverse holds. He, however, points out that there is no single standard ofefficiency in that society always displays different alternative understandings of and solutions to society's problems.8
As the research is to focus on the impact of democratisation on the efficiency of municipal decision-making, it became obvious that it would be necessary to select a variable that could easily be measured during field work. Although some of the above defmitions refer to other inputs such as effort, in respect of decision- making it seems that 'time' is often a useful way of measuring effort. For example, sometimes referred to as the law of time and numbers, decision-making at full council meetings with a large number ofparticipants is likely to be more time consuming and therefore less efficient than decision-making performed by an executive committee comprising ten members. Further, assuming that two identical issues follow two identical decision-making processes in two municipalities, the one which takes more time (measured in meetings, days etc) will be less efficient. Conversely, in those processes where the time in days is set out in law, the time taken in meetings will be a good comparative indicator of efficiency. Simply put, the less time local government decision-making takes, the more efficient it is. Time is also a measurable indicator and, on
this basis the level of efficiency in decision-making will be measured in accordance with the time taken to reach decisions. This refers specifically to the time factor and has nothing to do with the quality of the decisions taken.
Kieron Walsh makes the point that it is more difficult to measure efficiency, however defined, in the public sector than in the market based manufacturing sector.9 Not only are there significant difficulties of moral hazard and adverse selection, but the very basis of evaluation, not simply the ordering ofpreferences, may be disputed by people holding opposed political views. 10Indealing with decision-making, he observes that any system of local administration, if it is to be allocatively efficient, requires a means of ensuring that preferences and needs are known and responded to.11 The means ofdetermining these needs and preferences might involve voting in a variety offorms, but there are also other mechanisms such as surveys, citizen polls and so on that might not be seen as being inherently democratic.12 He maintains that the pursuit ofallocative efficiency would suggest the use of multiple and overlapping methods of involvement and of determining what people need and want, while recognising the need for deliberation, debate and judgement in political decision-making.13 Furthermore an efficient democratic system is likely to be differentiated, with a mixture of participative and representative approaches operating at a number of different levels.14 Allocative efficiency is enhanced by participation in clarifying the differentiation of views and preferences and allocatively efficient decisions are likely to require the operation of democracy at various levels and in different forms are claims made by the author in re-affirming the notion that efficiency in decision-making will be enhanced through greater participation by persons who are likely to be affected by the decisions taken.IS
Itis tempting to claim that Walsh's argument is in direct opposition to the central theme of this thesis which is based on the premise that greater democratic involvement in the decision-making process will result in a cost to efficiency. This, however, is a nuance, because quite clearly, Walsh, in dealing with allocative efficiency is concerned with the quality of decisions insofar as they are judged in terms of intended preferences and needs, and these are always normatively informed, usually contested and even contradictory.
Consequently, Walsh is referring to the efficacy or effectiveness ofthe decision-making system rather than efficiency which, on the stipulated definition, is measured in terms of the time taken to make a decision.
Indeed, on his account Walsh cannot distinguish allocative efficiency from effectiveness. While this research is aimed at showing that the more democratic the decision-making system becomes, the greater the cost to efficiency, recognition must be given to the concept expounded by Walsh that decisions may be enhanced by greater public participation. In the context of this thesis, this has more to do with the quality of the decisions taken rather than with efficiency.