Implementation of digital governance to enhance oversight in local municipalities

Abstract

Introduction:

Digital governance is increasingly promoted as a response to persistent accountability and oversight deficits in South African municipalities, yet empirical evidence on its effectiveness remains fragmented. This study addresses this gap.

Methods:

Through a PRISMA-guided systematic review examining three questions: which digital governance interventions are implemented and with what effects, through which institutional mediators these interventions shape oversight outcomes, and under what conditions digital tools enhance accountability. The review synthesizes evidence from 20 peer-reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2025 using thematic analysis across metropolitan, local, and rural contexts.

Results:

The findings reveal a central paradox. Although municipalities have deployed diverse digital interventions, including revenue management systems, real-time dashboards, and open data platforms, oversight outcomes vary sharply across institutional contexts rather than by technological sophistication. Metropolitan municipalities demonstrate measurable gains in financial transparency and oversight efficiency, whereas rural and under-resourced municipalities face persistent barriers associated with infrastructure deficits, capacity constraints, and weak enforcement.

Discussion:

The review establishes that digital governance primarily magnifies existing institutional conditions rather than serving as an autonomous driver of reform. The study advances a shift from treating technology as a solution to treating it as an enabler and provides evidence-based insights to strengthen the institutional ecosystems underpinning accountable municipal governance.

Introduction

The efficacy of local government in South Africa is a matter of persistent national concern, with municipalities recurrently failing to meet their constitutional mandates for accountability, sound financial management, and effective service delivery. These systemic shortcomings, evidenced by a consistent pattern of adverse audit outcomes and widespread service delivery protests, point to a profound deficit in the mechanisms of municipal oversight (Moji et al., 2022). The inability of municipal councils and their oversight committees to adequately monitor performance and enforce discipline has precipitated a critical erosion of public trust and contributed to a state of persistent dysfunction across the local government sphere (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023). At the same time South Africa presents a compelling analytical setting because it combines far reaching decentralization with strong national policy direction and measurable national progress in digital government capacity even as local oversight performance remains uneven across metropolitan secondary and rural municipalities (UNDESA, 2024; Auditor-General South Africa, 2024). Recent global assessments place South Africa in the very high tier of the United Nations E Government Development Index and in the top third for e participation while Auditor General reporting continues to note the scarcity of clean audits and persistent material irregularities at municipal level which is a juxtaposition that sharpens the oversight problem interrogated here (UNDESA, 2024; Auditor-General South Africa, 2024).

In response to this governance crisis, digital governance, defined as the strategic application of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to reform government operations and stakeholder interactions, has been advanced as a potent intervention. Theoretically, the deployment of digital tools offers a pathway to strengthen oversight by enhancing transparency through open data portals, improving accountability via real-time performance monitoring, and expanding public participation through interactive civic platforms (Nel-Sanders and Malomane, 2022). By providing timely and accessible information, such technologies can empower a wider range of actors to scrutinize municipal functions, thereby creating new pressures for accountability. For conceptual clarity this review treats digital governance as the oversight focused dimension of the broader digital government agenda namely the use of data platforms and rules to enable scrutiny enforceability and answerability in municipal decision making and resource use (OECD, 2020). In practical terms this encompasses instruments such as open budget dashboards online registers of contracts digital complaint and escalation systems and shared national platforms that local governments can adopt without duplicating development effort including Municipal Money identity and payments services and central e procurement modules (National Treasury, Republic of South Africa, 2016; World Bank, 2022).

This technological promise is supported by a robust national policy architecture. Successive strategic frameworks, including the National e-Government Strategy (2017), have established a clear mandate for ICT-driven innovation in governance. However, a significant disjuncture exists between this policy intent and its practical implementation. Recent analysis confirms that the primary obstacle is not a deficit of enabling legislation but rather a pervasive lack of administrative and political will to execute these digital mandates effectively (Mathane et al., 2024). This implementation gap signals a critical area of friction in South Africa’s modernization agenda, where the potential of digital tools remains largely unrealized. A further source of friction is pronounced sub national heterogeneity in infrastructure skills and fiscal headroom that shapes the feasibility of digital oversight with metros better positioned to integrate data flows and dashboards while smaller municipalities struggle to secure reliable connectivity interoperability and information security (UNDESA, 2024; Auditor-General South Africa, 2024). In short national capability has advanced but local capability and incentives remain the decisive bottleneck for oversight gains (World Bank, 2022).

While there is a growing body of research documenting various municipal e-governance initiatives, the empirical evidence regarding their direct impact on oversight and accountability remains fragmented and lacks systematic synthesis. Case studies present a conflicting narrative of isolated successes in metropolitan centres contrasted with widespread failures in less-resourced municipalities, often attributed to infrastructural deficits or low public uptake due to a lack of trust (Netshirando et al., 2024; Zindi, 2024). A comprehensive, evidence-based understanding of the determinative factors that shape these divergent outcomes is therefore urgently required. Moreover, risks of digital exclusion among rural low income and lower literacy groups alongside emerging vulnerabilities in cybersecurity and data protection may erode trust if not addressed in tandem with rollout which underscores the need to evaluate digital oversight not only for efficiency but also for equity and integrity (UNDESA, 2024; Auditor-General South Africa, 2024; OECD, 2020).

This article addresses this gap by presenting a systematic literature review of peer reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2025. Adhering to the PRISMA methodology this review synthesizes the available empirical evidence to identify the types of digital governance interventions being implemented to enhance oversight in South African municipalities to analyse their effects on accountability and service delivery outcomes and to determine the critical barriers and facilitators that mediate their success. Accordingly the review is guided by three research questions:

• What digital interventions and shared platforms are being implemented to strengthen municipal oversight and with what reported effects?

• Through which institutional mediators including leadership capacity infrastructure incentives and citizen participation do these interventions translate into oversight outcomes?

• Under what conditions of policy design and implementation support do digital tools improve accountability rather than reproduce existing weaknesses?

The unique contribution of this study is to foreground oversight as the organising lens by connecting digital tools to council committees audit processes and citizen scrutiny and by situating local findings within national progress metrics and platform strategies thereby moving beyond service delivery digitization to governing with data in the municipal sphere (UNDESA, 2024; National Treasury, Republic of South Africa, 2016; OECD, 2020).

Methods and materials

Research design: systematic review

This study employed a systematic review design to synthesize empirical evidence on digital governance implementation in South African local municipalities. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 reporting guidelines to ensure a transparent, structured, and replicable synthesis (Page et al., 2021). The methodology utilized thematic synthesis to identify patterns across heterogeneous contexts, moving beyond simple description to generate evidence-based insights (Long et al., 2020).

Justification for using the PRISMA framework

The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement, which represents the current international standard for transparent reporting of systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021). This framework reflects recent advances in systematic review methodology, including enhanced guidance on search strategies, risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis approaches (McKenzie et al., 2021). The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1) provides visual representation of the study selection process, documenting records identified, screened, excluded, and included, with reasons clearly specified. This standardized approach is particularly valuable in public administration and governance research, where evidence synthesis methodologies are still developing and transparency is essential for establishing credibility.

Figure 1

Data sources

The review incorporated three categories of sources to ensure comprehensive coverage and methodological triangulation. Peer-reviewed academic literature constituted the primary evidence base, accessed via Web of Science (n = 85), Scopus (n = 70), Sabinet African Journals (n = 65), Google Scholar (n = 80), and Other Sources (n = 20). These databases were selected for their comprehensive coverage of interdisciplinary scholarship relevant to digital governance, public administration, and South African municipal studies. Policy and legislative documents from National Treasury, the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), and the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) provided essential contextual information on regulatory frameworks. Institutional reports from the Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA), the Open Government Partnership, and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) were consulted to triangulate scholarly findings with practitioner perspectives and performance data. This multi-source approach enabled the review to capture both theoretical insights and implementation realities, thereby strengthening the ecological validity of findings.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To maintain methodological rigor, this review prioritized empirical studies focusing on South African municipal government across metropolitan, local, and district entities. Selected works examined digital governance, electronic government systems, or information and communication technology applications with a demonstrable link to accountability, transparency, and oversight mechanisms. The analysis included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research, alongside systematic evidence syntheses, published in English academic journals or conference proceedings between January 2015 and December 2025. This timeframe aligns with the adoption of key digital policies, while the language restriction reflects resource constraints and the prevalence of English in local scholarship. Conversely, the selection process excluded research that was restricted to national or provincial levels without disaggregated municipal data. Purely conceptual papers and opinion pieces lacking empirical evidence were rejected. Similarly, studies discussing digital interventions devoid of connections to oversight or governance processes were omitted. Grey literature, such as unpublished dissertations and news articles, was excluded, although consulted for contextual background. These strict parameters ensured the review concentrated on empirically grounded evidence regarding the implementation and effects of digital governance on municipal oversight (Table 1).

Search strategy and keywords

The search strategy employed structured Boolean logic to maximize both sensitivity and specificity. The core search string combined four conceptual domains: (“digital governance” OR “e-government” OR “ICT” OR “digital technology” OR “smart city” OR “e-participation”) AND (“local government” OR “municipality” OR “municipalities”) AND (“oversight” OR “accountability” OR “transparency” OR “monitoring” OR “public accounts”) AND (“South Africa”). Truncation symbols () were applied where appropriate to capture variant word forms (e.g., “municipal” to include “municipality” and “municipalities”). Database-specific syntax adaptations accommodated differences in field codes and proximity operators (detailed search strings in Supplementary Appendix A). Supplementary techniques included backward citation tracking and forward citation searching to ensure comprehensive retrieval (Belur et al., 2021). The search strategy was pilot-tested and refined iteratively to optimize recall and precision.

Screening and selection criteria

The screening and selection process followed a multi-stage procedure aligned with PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Figure 1). First, the initial identification and deduplication involved database searches (July 1–September 15, 2025; updated December 17, 2025) yielding approximately 320 records. These were imported into EndNote, and duplicate records were systematically removed using automated tools and manual verification, resulting in 250 unique records. Second, the title and abstract screening involved two independent reviewers screening titles and abstracts against predefined inclusion criteria, with each record coded as “include,” “exclude,” or “uncertain.” Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, with a third reviewer consulted when consensus could not be reached. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ = 0.78, indicating substantial agreement) (McHugh, 2012; Belur et al., 2021), resulting in 50 articles advanced to full-text review.

Third, the full-text assessment entailed both reviewers independently assessing the 50 full-text articles against all inclusion and exclusion criteria, with explicit documentation of exclusion reasons. Cohen’s kappa for full-text screening was κ = 0.82, again indicating substantial agreement (Cohen, 1960; Cole, 2024). Thirty articles were excluded due to: lack of municipal-level focus (n = 11), absence of digital governance elements (n = 9), insufficient oversight/accountability linkage (n = 6), or non-empirical design (n = 4). Fourth, the final verification phase saw the remaining 20 studies undergo eligibility verification, including quality appraisal (described in risk of bias assessment below), resulting in all 20 studies being included in the qualitative synthesis. This sample size represents an appropriate balance between analytical depth and comprehensive coverage for thematic synthesis (Thomas and Harden, 2008). While smaller than some quantitative meta-analyses, this number is consistent with established practice in qualitative evidence synthesis, where saturation of themes rather than numerical thresholds guides adequacy (Long et al., 2020; McMahon et al., 2022).

Data extraction

A standardized data extraction form was developed a priori, piloted on five randomly selected studies, and refined to ensure construct clarity and operational consistency (Page et al., 2021). The form captured: (1) bibliographic information [author(s), year, title]; (2) study design and sample characteristics; (3) digital governance focus (technology type and application); and (4) key findings related to oversight outcomes and their alignment with the review’s research questions. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers for all 20 studies, with extracted data cross-checked and discrepancies adjudicated through discussion (Long et al., 2020; Hong et al., 2018). Extracted data were organized in a structured evidence matrix facilitating chronological and thematic analysis. Table 2 presents the summary characteristics of included studies, organized to show the evolution of digital governance research in South African municipalities and how findings address the review’s research questions.

Risk of bias assessment

The methodological quality and potential risk of bias of the included studies were appraised using design-appropriate, validated tools, with each study independently assessed by two reviewers, achieving substantial inter-rater agreement (Page et al., 2021; McHugh, 2012). Qualitative studies were evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Research Checklist, which assesses clarity of research aims, methodological appropriateness, rigor of research design, recruitment strategy, data collection procedures, reflexivity, ethical considerations, and analytical rigor (Long et al., 2020; CASP, 2024). Quantitative studies were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist, focusing on sampling adequacy, measurement validity, control of confounding variables, and the appropriateness of statistical analyses (Aromataris and Munn, 2020). Mixed-methods studies were assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018, which evaluates the methodological quality of qualitative and quantitative components as well as the coherence of their integration (Hong et al., 2018; Pluye et al., 2018).

Potential risks of bias, including selection bias, measurement bias, reporting bias, and publication bias, were identified and interpreted within the quality appraisal process, rather than through a separate risk-of-bias instrument. Consistent with best practice in qualitative-dominant systematic reviews, no studies were excluded solely on the basis of quality scores; instead, appraisal outcomes informed the level of confidence assigned to synthesized findings and were incorporated into sensitivity considerations (McMahon et al., 2022). Overall, the evidence base was characterized by predominantly moderate-to-high quality studies, with a small number exhibiting methodological limitations warranting interpretive caution. Full quality appraisal results are presented in Supplementary Appendix B (Table 3).

Quality appraisal rationale and thresholds

The methodological quality of the 20 included studies was assessed using design-appropriate, validated appraisal tools to establish the level of confidence in the synthesized findings. Qualitative studies were evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, with a high-quality rating assigned to studies meeting at least 8 of the 10 appraisal criteria, thereby ensuring analytical rigor, reflexivity, and clarity of findings. Quantitative studies were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist, where a minimum score of 7 out of 9 was required for a high-quality rating, with particular emphasis on measurement validity and control of confounding variables. Mixed-methods studies were assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018 and were classified as high quality only where a clear rationale for methodological integration and coherence between qualitative and quantitative components was demonstrated. Studies scoring below 60% were categorized as low quality and, although retained to ensure thematic breadth, were accorded reduced analytical weight in the synthesis and formulation of final policy implications.

Synthesis of the studies

The 20 included studies employed diverse methodological approaches, reflecting the multifaceted nature of digital governance research. Qualitative studies (approximately 75%) utilized interviews, focus groups, case studies, and documentary analysis to explore stakeholder experiences, implementation processes, and contextual factors, providing rich insights into institutional and organizational dynamics. Quantitative studies (approximately 15%) employed surveys, structural equation modelling, and administrative data analysis to examine associations between technological readiness, user adoption, and oversight effectiveness, contributing measurable indicators and statistical relationships. Mixed-methods studies (approximately 10%) integrated qualitative and quantitative components through sequential or concurrent designs, providing triangulated evidence that combines depth with breadth (Hong et al., 2018). This distribution reflects a field valuing both interpretive depth and empirical measurement. The predominance of case study research is appropriate given the context-dependent nature of municipal governance and the early stage of digital transformation in South African local government. However, this also signals a need for more longitudinal and quasi-experimental designs to establish causal inferences regarding the impact of digital interventions on oversight outcomes.

Key variables and outcomes

Analysis of the included studies identified five recurring thematic domains that explain barriers and facilitators to effective digital oversight in South African municipalities. These variables consistently highlight a mismatch between technological potential and implementation realities, shaped by institutional capacity, infrastructure constraints, leadership dynamics, and citizen engagement patterns. The key findings across the 20 studies cluster around these five domains, which align with the review’s research questions as shown in Table 4 below. These variables represent the critical independent, mediating, and dependent factors determining whether digital governance interventions translate into meaningful improvements in municipal oversight and accountability.

Consistencies and divergencies across studies

Analysis across the 20 studies revealed both convergent patterns and context-dependent variations in digital governance implementation and oversight outcomes. Four consistencies emerged regardless of municipality type, technological sophistication, or methodological approach. First, every study documented a persistent implementation gap in which national digital governance policies and local regulatory frameworks exist but remain weakly enforced, rendering mandates largely symbolic in the absence of political will and effective consequence management (Moji et al., 2022; Ncamphalala and Vyas-Doorgapersad, 2022; Mawela et al., 2017). Second, leadership commitment and organizational culture consistently outweighed technological factors as determinants of implementation success, with studies across metropolitan and rural contexts identifying executive sponsorship, change management capacity, and resistance to transparency as more decisive than system sophistication (Mawela et al., 2016; Masinde and Mkhonto, 2019; Nzimakwe, 2021; Govender and Reddy, 2019). Third, infrastructural disparities between metropolitan and rural municipalities universally created a “digital divide” in oversight capacity, with connectivity deficits, unreliable power supply, and legacy hardware limiting rural municipalities’ ability to adopt even basic digital oversight tools (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023; Mofokeng et al., 2025; van der Hoogen et al., 2024). Fourth, citizen uptake of digital participation platforms was consistently constrained by trust deficits, privacy concerns, and affordability barriers, with studies showing that e-participation often replicates rather than reduces existing socio-economic inequalities (Netshirando et al., 2024; Mawela et al., 2017; Matlala, 2024).

Critical divergences emerged along geographic and conceptual lines. Studies conducted in metropolitan municipalities (eThekwini, Cape Town, Tshwane) reported measurable improvements in financial transparency, audit quality, and real-time monitoring following digital interventions, with some documenting efficiency gains such as reduced oversight turnaround times and improved anomaly detection (Govender and Reddy, 2019; Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023; Zisengwe, 2024). In stark contrast, research in smaller or rural municipalities (Blouberg, Eastern Cape districts) documented persistent implementation failures and minimal oversight gains despite similar technological investments, attributing stagnation to infrastructure constraints, skills shortages, and weak administrative systems (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023; Mapaya et al., 2024; Moji et al., 2022). This urban–rural divergence suggests that existing administrative capacity, fiscal resources, and political will critically mediate the relationship between digital tools and governance outcomes, with technology amplifying rather than compensating for institutional capability differences. Furthermore, a conceptual divergence emerged regarding technological determinism: while some studies emphasized technological readiness as the primary predictor of oversight effectiveness (van der Hoogen et al., 2024), others cautioned that technology adoption without corresponding institutional reforms merely “digitizes dysfunction,” reproducing existing accountability deficits in digital form (Moji et al., 2022; Ncamphalala and Vyas-Doorgapersad, 2022). These divergences underscore that context matters profoundly, and that effective digital oversight requires alignment of technology with institutional capacity, political commitment, and citizen engagement rather than technological deployment alone.

Strength of evidence

The overall strength of evidence is moderate to high, with most peer-reviewed studies employing robust methodological approaches including validated instruments such as UTAUT2 and PLS-SEM frameworks, design-appropriate quality appraisal tools, and triangulation across officials, councillors, and citizens (van der Hoogen et al., 2024; Netshirando et al., 2024; Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023). However, several limitations constrain generalizability. First, geographic concentration is evident, with metropolitan municipalities (eThekwini, Cape Town, Tshwane, Ekurhuleni) dominating the evidence base while smaller rural and district municipalities remain significantly under-represented, limiting insights into contexts where governance challenges are most acute (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023; Mapaya et al., 2024). Second, the predominance of cross-sectional designs prevents assessment of sustainability and long-term impact, as few studies tracked digital governance implementation over time (Mawela et al., 2016, 2017). Third, reliance on peer-reviewed literature may have excluded unpublished government evaluations, AGSA audit reports, or NGO implementation studies that document implementation failures not appearing in academic journals. Fourth, heavy reliance on self-reported measures rather than objective performance indicators (audit outcomes, service delivery metrics) introduces potential measurement bias (Netshirando et al., 2024; Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023). Despite these gaps, the methodological diversity spanning qualitative case studies, quantitative surveys, mixed methods designs, and systematic reviews, combined with the consistency of findings across 20 studies regarding the critical roles of leadership, infrastructure, and institutional capacity, strengthens confidence in the synthesized conclusions and their applicability to South African municipal contexts.

Limitations of the methodology

Systematic reviews strengthen methodological rigor through transparent protocols and comprehensive evidence mapping, yet this study has inherent constraints. Firstly, the temporal boundary of 2015–2025, though justified to capture contemporary post-reform digital governance initiatives, potentially overlooks earlier scholarship that established foundational concepts in South African e-government discourse. Secondly, language restrictions on English-language publications may omit relevant contributions from other non-English sources. Thirdly, geographic concentration on South African municipalities, while enabling contextual specificity, constrains applicability of findings to other African settings with divergent institutional arrangements and technological infrastructure. Fourth, dependence on peer-reviewed sources may skew the evidence base toward statistically significant results, inadvertently marginalizing unsuccessful implementation experiences captured in practitioner reports, audit findings, or internal government assessments. By nature, systematic reviews trade granular contextual detail for panoramic synthesis, meaning that nuanced municipal-specific implementation challenges and localized adaptive strategies receive less attention than aggregate patterns (Thomas and Harden, 2008; Long et al., 2020; Page et al., 2021). These constraints highlight the imperative for continued empirical investigation, especially longitudinal tracking of digital initiatives and experimental designs capable of isolating causal mechanisms linking technological interventions to accountability improvements in diverse municipal settings.

Findings

This section presents the findings from thematic synthesis of 20 studies examining digital governance in South African municipalities, organized around five key domains that collectively address the three research questions.

Policy frameworks and the governance environment

A central theme emerging from the systematic review is the significant disjuncture between South Africa’s progressive policy architecture for digital governance and its inconsistent execution at the municipal level. The literature concurs that a robust legal and strategic foundation exists; national instruments such as the National ICT Policy and the Municipal Structures Act provide a clear mandate for digital transformation (Mofokeng et al., 2025; Nzimakwe, 2021). However, this enabling framework is consistently undermined by a critical implementation deficit. This gap is attributed to a shortfall in political and administrative will to execute digital mandates effectively. This inertia manifests as weak enforcement, where oversight bodies like municipal councils fail to utilize their statutory powers to ensure compliance, thereby rendering key provisions of legislation like the Municipal Finance Management Act largely symbolic (Moji et al., 2022). Evidence indicates that national digital governance capacity has advanced, yet benefits have not systematically translated into municipal oversight because administrative incentives and capacity remain uneven across municipalities.

Despite this overarching challenge, the evidence indicates that policy can yield tangible oversight benefits when buttressed by institutional commitment. The successful launch of National Treasury’s Municipal Money portal, facilitated by South Africa’s Open Government Partnership commitments, serves as a prime example of how open-data policy can empower civic oversight of municipal finances (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023). Similarly, the standard-setting role of the State Information Technology Agency in providing interoperability and security guidelines has been shown to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of digital monitoring systems (Govender and Reddy, 2019). Beyond Municipal Money, the national digital ecosystem includes identity verification services, e-tax filing, electronic public procurement, payment platforms and a service-bus architecture provided by SITA; these centralized platforms are intended to support all spheres of government and could, in principle, reduce duplication and improve compliance if they were fully integrated into municipal workflows. However, empirical studies reveal that local uptake of these shared tools remains patchy, reflecting disparities in capability and leadership across municipalities.

Nevertheless, the dynamism of the digital landscape presents a further challenge to the governance environment. Research highlights that existing municipal ICT master plans are often outpaced by technological advancements, such as the rise of artificial intelligence in data analytics (Netshirando et al., 2024). This underscores that effective digital governance requires not only rigorous initial implementation but also continuous policy revision and adaptive support from key provincial and national entities to remain relevant and effective. Review evidence underscores that policy alone does not close the gap; successful oversight improvements require a sequence of alignment, from national mandates and standards to local infrastructure and skills to enforcement and citizen demand, otherwise digital governance remains aspirational.

Digital infrastructure and access

The reviewed literature establishes that the viability of digital oversight is fundamentally predicated on the availability of robust and accessible digital infrastructure. A predominant theme is the profound infrastructural disparity between urban and rural municipalities, which perpetuates a significant governance divide. While metropolitan centres may approach high levels of internet penetration, many local and district municipalities are severely hampered by limited broadband connectivity, unreliable power supply, and legacy ICT hardware (Mofokeng et al., 2025). This infrastructural deficit has direct consequences for governance, eroding the potential of e-participation and leaving municipalities reliant on manual, siloed record-keeping systems. Such fragmentation actively impedes oversight by preventing access to the real-time, integrated expenditure data necessary for effective council scrutiny (Nel-Sanders and Malomane, 2022). National programmes aim to achieve universal broadband access, yet roll-out has been uneven, and many small and rural municipalities still lack stable connectivity and reliable power; these deficits directly limit their ability to adopt smart meters, dashboards and other oversight tools.

Conversely, the evidence demonstrates that targeted infrastructural investment yields tangible returns for accountability. The implementation of smart metering and electronic payment systems in Buffalo City, for example, generated verifiable granular data that enhanced transparency for both officials and citizens, thereby mitigating opportunities for fraud (Zisengwe, 2024). This underscores that modern infrastructure can generate the data streams that effective oversight requires to transition from manual record-keeping to real-time monitoring (van der Hoogen et al., 2024; Zisengwe, 2024). However, the literature also cautions that infrastructure modernization must be co-extensive with the implementation of robust cybersecurity protocols. As municipalities pilot smart city technologies, they face heightened risks of data breaches, making safeguards such as encryption, access controls, and regular security audits essential for maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of digital oversight systems (Cornelius and Jansen van Rensburg, 2024).

Synthesizing these findings, the studies converge on a clear conclusion: achieving universal and equitable digital oversight necessitates foundational national investment in ubiquitous broadband modernized administrative systems and a stable energy grid, without which such initiatives will remain confined to a few well-resourced metropolitan enclaves (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023; Mofokeng et al., 2025). These investments must also include cybersecurity and privacy safeguards to sustain public trust, as without them, data breaches can undermine transparency and deter officials and citizens from engaging with digital platforms (Cornelius and Jansen van Rensburg, 2024; Netshirando et al., 2024). Ultimately, the viability of digital oversight is predicated on the availability of secure, accessible digital infrastructures that ensure data remain tamper-proof and credible for oversight bodies (Cornelius and Jansen van Rensburg, 2024; Zindi, 2024).

Leadership, capacity, and organizational culture

The reviewed literature consistently identifies human and organizational dynamics as the most critical variables determining the success of digital oversight initiatives. The evidence reveals a significant capacity deficit at the user level, where numerous municipal councilors feel ill-prepared to effectively interpret and act upon data from digital dashboards, leading to the underutilization of available systems (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023). This skills gap is often compounded by a resistant organizational culture, which can manifest as passive non-compliance, such as the failure of departments to upload mandated data due to a lack of managerial enforcement (Ncamphalala and Vyas-Doorgapersad, 2022) or as active sabotage with officials deliberately withholding system access to protect established gatekeeping roles (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023). Evidence underscores that digital literacy barriers are especially acute in smaller municipalities where a significant proportion of councilors report struggling to navigate reporting platforms, which reduces the oversight impact of digital investments (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023; Mashau and Kroeze, 2023).

Central to overcoming these challenges is the role of leadership because the literature positions leadership commitment and strategic budgeting as more decisive predictors of successful digitization than technological sophistication itself (Masinde and Mkhonto, 2019). Where transformative leadership is present, the results are palpable: for example, the appointment of a Chief Digital Officer in Durban, which is credited with accelerating platform adoption and navigating the complexities of the COVID-19 period through focused change-management strategies (Mawela et al., 2017). Such initiatives, when combined with clear performance expectations, effectively mitigate resistance and help normalize a culture of data-driven decision-making. Emerging leadership development programmes from SALGA and provincial COGTAs have begun to address these gaps by providing councilors and municipal managers with targeted training in analytics and oversight, although coverage remains limited by uncertain funding and institutional inertia (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023; Nzimakwe, 2021).

Consequently, the studies converge on a clear consensus: converting raw data from digital systems into actionable oversight intelligence requires a deliberate investment in human capital. This includes structured, ongoing training for both councilors and administrative officials, as well as the creation of specialist roles, such as municipal data analysts, to bridge the gap between technological output and strategic governance. Ultimately, the evidence indicates that technology is merely a tool whose potential is only unlocked within an organizational ecosystem that actively cultivates leadership, builds capacity, and manages the cultural shift toward digital accountability. Political economy factors also shape outcomes, as patronage networks and factionalism can impede oversight reforms when data transparency threatens entrenched interests, underscoring the need for credible sanctioning mechanisms to accompany digital initiatives (Moji et al., 2022; Mashau and Kroeze, 2023).

Citizen engagement and E-participation: oversight by the people

One of the promises of digital governance is the potential to empower citizens as active participants in oversight. A significant theme within the literature is the capacity of digital platforms to democratize oversight by enabling citizens to directly monitor municipal functions and fiscal management. Tools designed for transparency, such as the National Treasury’s Municipal Money portal, have been shown to catalyze public debate on fiscal performance by translating complex data into accessible formats (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023). This empowerment, however, is not unconditional, as evidence indicates considerable citizen hesitancy: a majority of residents still prefer traditional face-to-face interactions due to concerns about data privacy, connectivity costs, and a lack of digital skills (Netshirando et al., 2024). Evidence indicates that significant potential for online civic engagement exists at the national level. Yet, uptake remains concentrated among more affluent urban users. Persistent digital divides mean that rural and low-income communities rarely access the portals designed for their participation (Mofokeng et al., 2025).

The success of e-participation platforms is therefore critically contingent on institutional responsiveness. The literature suggests that the legitimacy of digital feedback channels, such as SMS hotlines or mobile applications, is directly tied to the establishment of reliable and timely feedback loops from the municipality. Without them, these tools quickly fall into disuse (Mawela et al., 2017). Conversely, where municipalities actively lower barriers to participation, as demonstrated by Cape Town’s virtual budget hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic, which engaged citizens previously excluded by geographic or financial constraints, the potential for inclusive oversight is substantially enhanced. Ultimately, effective e-participation alters the dynamics of accountability, shifting oversight from a periodic formal exercise to a mechanism of continuous public scrutiny. When municipalities are perceived as responsive to digitally submitted complaints and queries, studies document a corresponding increase in citizen satisfaction and trust (Matlala, 2024). The overarching conclusion from the reviewed evidence is that technology deployment alone is insufficient. To be effective and equitable, digital engagement must be part of a broader strategy that includes targeted digital literacy initiatives and a multichannel approach, ensuring that the move toward e-governance does not inadvertently disenfranchise rural, low-income, or less digitally proficient communities (Netshirando et al., 2024). This implies complementing online portals with USSD, WhatsApp, or radio-based channels, and investing in digital literacy programmes, so that marginalized groups can participate meaningfully in oversight (Chigova and Hofisi, 2024; Netshirando et al., 2024).

Service delivery and oversight outcomes

The reviewed literature provides compelling evidence that well-implemented digital governance systems can yield significant and measurable improvements in municipal efficiency, financial probity, and service delivery monitoring. Digitized financial processes, for instance, have been shown to enhance fiscal oversight. The adoption of real-time revenue dashboards allows finance committees to identify and address anomalies swiftly (Govender and Reddy, 2019). The implementation of the Municipal Standard Chart of Accounts has been associated with more transparent financial statements and fewer adverse audit findings (Moji et al., 2022). This enhancement extends to service operations, where sensor-based technologies, such as the Internet of Things, have enabled municipalities to access high-resolution data on utility performance, facilitating rapid corrective action on issues such as water leaks (van der Hoogen et al., 2024). Evidence indicates that the integration of open data into e-tender portals and digital supply chain management is beginning to expose procurement anomalies and reduce opportunities for irregular expenditure, but such gains are uneven and often limited to metropolitan areas (Zisengwe, 2024).

However, the evidence cautions strongly against technological determinism highlighting that these positive outcomes are highly conditional. Several studies document instances where municipalities adopt sophisticated digital dashboards that fail to improve performance because they are not supported by adequate underlying infrastructure or sufficient human resources (Chigova and Hofisi, 2024). Furthermore, the sheer volume of data generated by new systems can overwhelm the analytical capacity of oversight committees, rendering the information inert unless it is effectively distilled into strategic key performance indicators. Ultimately, the sustainability of any gains in oversight hinges on the fragile nature of public trust. While emerging technologies like blockchain may offer a future of immutable transparency, the literature warns that any perceived retreat from openness by a municipality can cause more damage to institutional credibility than if transparency initiatives had never been introduced (Zindi, 2024).

Therefore, the overarching conclusion from the evidence is that digital tools can sharpen oversight. However, their long-term benefit is contingent upon a consistent institutional commitment to full disclosure, robust follow-through on the data generated and a willingness to address the core operational deficits that technology can only reveal, not resolve. Moreover, evidence from multiple municipalities indicates that digital systems yield improvements in oversight only when embedded within a broader ecosystem of consequence management, strong council oversight mechanisms, enforcement, and citizen activism. Absent these conditions, the systems risk becoming decorative rather than functional. The reviewed literature points to a consistent set of interacting factors that determine the success or failure of digital oversight initiatives. These principal barriers, which often prevent the translation of policy into practice, are consistently matched in the literature by corresponding facilitators that enable progress. The key dynamics identified across the evidence base are summarized in Table 5.

These interacting factors explain the divergent outcomes observed across the municipal landscape. Metropolitan municipalities with robust infrastructure, greater access to resources, and committed leadership are often able to leverage these facilitators to convert digital tools into tangible oversight gains. Conversely, resource-poor municipalities frequently confront multiple, simultaneous barriers, creating a challenging environment where even well-intentioned digital initiatives struggle to achieve meaningful impact.

Discussion

This systematic review reveals a central paradox in digital governance implementation in South African municipalities: the primary impediments to enhancing oversight are not legislative or technological but are instead deeply embedded in the institutional and structural fabric of local government. The study argues that this paradox exposes a form of governance stagnation in which formal compliance with digital reform agendas masks deeper failures of institutional execution. The findings demonstrate that, while an enabling policy architecture exists, its potential is consistently undermined by an implementation gap driven by deficits in political will, institutional capacity, and foundational infrastructure (Nzimakwe, 2021; Moji et al., 2022). The study establishes that policy proliferation has not translated into implementation coherence. This disconnect is most visible at municipal level. Capacity and incentives remain uneven across metropolitan, local, and rural municipalities.

Digital interventions and their effects on oversight (RQ1)

The synthesis of 20 studies shows that South African municipalities have adopted a wide range of digital interventions. These include revenue management systems, real-time dashboards, open data platforms, and IoT-enabled sensors. Oversight outcomes, however, vary sharply across contexts. The evidence suggests that technology functions less as a driver of reform than as a magnifier of existing institutional strengths and weaknesses. Where interventions are supported by institutional ownership and enforcement, measurable gains emerge. These include a 28 percent improvement in financial oversight turnaround times in well-resourced metros (Govender and Reddy, 2019), earlier tabling of oversight findings by dashboard-equipped councilors (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023), and enhanced fiscal transparency through civic tech partnerships (Zisengwe, 2024). The evidence cautions against technological determinism. Digital feedback mechanisms often remain detached from formal oversight processes. Only 26 percent of SMS based complaints reach oversight committees (Mawela et al., 2017). In Ekurhuleni, fewer than half of municipal units upload compliance data on time despite strong ICT policies (Ncamphalala and Vyas-Doorgapersad, 2022). The evidence demonstrates that, in such settings, digitalization reproduces symbolic compliance rather than substantive accountability. Technology digitizes dysfunction instead of correcting it.

Institutional mediators of digital oversight outcomes (RQ2)

The principal finding demonstrates that digital transformation is fundamentally a political and organizational challenge rather than a technical one, with leadership commitment, organizational culture, and infrastructural capacity emerging as the critical mediators determining whether digital tools translate into improved oversight. The study advances the argument that digital oversight failures are best understood as failures of institutional mediation rather than failures of design. South Africa’s progressive national policies provide clear mandates for transparency, yet this top-down intent dissipates within municipal operational realities marked by what can be termed a “paper tiger” phenomenon: statutory requirements exist but lack enforcement (Moji et al., 2022), councilors remain reluctant to engage with dashboards due to capacity deficits (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023), and officials actively gatekeep system access to protect established power structures (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023). Leadership emerges as the decisive variable, with committed champions such as Durban’s Chief Digital Officer demonstrating how executive sponsorship can catalyse change (Mawela et al., 2017), while leadership vacuums conversely stall even well-funded digital pilots (Mawela et al., 2016). However, leadership and capacity do not operate in isolation; they interact critically with infrastructure, as municipalities with strong leadership but poor connectivity or data literacy still struggle to convert investments into oversight improvements (Mofokeng et al., 2025; van der Hoogen et al., 2024). The evidence further demonstrates that the infrastructural divide between metropolitan centres and rural municipalities constitutes a form of digital structural violence, stifling both state-led monitoring and citizen participation (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023), compounded by trust and privacy concerns that explain 64% of variance in platform uptake (Netshirando et al., 2024) and cybersecurity vulnerabilities that threaten data integrity (Cornelius and Jansen van Rensburg, 2024). Ultimately, technological readiness predicts real-time oversight capacity only when supported by human agency, organizational commitment, and foundational infrastructure, reframing capacity as an ecosystemic rather than individual attribute.

Conditions enabling accountability improvements through digital tools (RQ3)

The synthesis reveals that digital tools improve accountability only under specific, converging conditions involving policy enforcement, institutional responsiveness, inclusive citizen engagement, and sustained resource commitment. The evidence indicates that accountability gains are contingent rather than automatic outcomes of digitalization. Strong policy frameworks exist nationally, yet oversight gains materialize only when mandates are backed by political will and consequence management rather than remaining aspirational (Moji et al., 2022; Ncamphalala and Vyas-Doorgapersad, 2022), as demonstrated by Municipal Money’s success where open-data policy coupled with institutional commitment empowers civic oversight, contrasted with patchy local uptake reflecting capability disparities (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023). Critically, the effectiveness of e-participation depends on institutional responsiveness: digital feedback channels lose legitimacy without demonstrable evidence that citizen input influences decisions, sustaining engagement only when municipalities establish reliable feedback loops and publish resolution metrics (Mawela et al., 2017; Matlala, 2024). Participation remains skewed toward affluent urban users, necessitating multichannel approaches incorporating USSD and WhatsApp to prevent digital exclusion of rural and low-income communities (Chigova and Hofisi, 2024; Netshirando et al., 2024). Long-term sustainability hinges on consistent institutional commitment to full disclosure and willingness to address operational deficits that technology reveals but cannot resolve, as budget and expertise shortfalls hamper oversight even when digital systems are available (Mapaya et al., 2024), and any perceived retreat from openness inflicts greater credibility damage than never implementing transparency initiatives (Zindi, 2024). These findings establish that effective digital oversight requires a deliberate shift from technology-as-solution to technology-as-enabler, explaining why metropolitan municipalities with robust resources convert digital tools into tangible gains while resource-poor municipalities struggle despite well-intentioned initiatives (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023; Mofokeng et al., 2025; Mapaya et al., 2024).

Implications for policy and practice

South African municipal digital oversight fails not from policy absence but from weak institutional execution, requiring a fundamental shift from policy expansion to enforceable practice. This section presents relevant strategic imperatives, distinguishing between policy-level interventions requiring national and provincial action, and practice-level interventions requiring municipal implementation.

Policy implications

National Treasury and COGTA should implement conditional grant frameworks tying municipal allocations to demonstrated digital oversight performance. Evidence shows fewer than 50% of municipal units upload compliance data despite strong ICT policies (Ncamphalala and Vyas-Doorgapersad, 2022), while only 26% of digital complaints reach oversight committees (Mawela et al., 2017). The framework should require quarterly dashboard utilization reporting, publication of remedial actions from digital alerts, and graduated funding adjustments for persistent non-compliance, phased over 3 years beginning with metropolitan municipalities before extending to smaller municipalities with technical support (Moji et al., 2022). Provincial governments must prioritize broadband and power roll-out in rural municipalities, recognizing connectivity deficits as digital structural violence systematically excluding institutions and citizens from oversight. Small municipalities identify broadband and power as top constraints (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023), while data costs deter 64% of potential users (Netshirando et al., 2024). Programmes should prioritize last-mile connectivity for administrative buildings, subsidize zero-rated platform access, and mandate cybersecurity standards addressing documented vulnerabilities (Cornelius and Jansen van Rensburg, 2024). SITA and National Treasury should mandate that all municipal digital systems embed audit trails, exception alerts, and public-facing summaries as default features. Standards should specify automated anomaly escalation to oversight committees, citizen-accessible dashboards, and interoperability requirements, beginning with financial systems before extending to supply chain and service delivery platforms (Govender and Reddy, 2019; Zisengwe, 2024).

Practice implications

Municipalities must normalize continuous professional development in data literacy, establishing mandatory quarterly training for MPAC members, creating municipal data analyst positions, and implementing performance agreements requiring councilors to reference digital reports in deliberations. Leadership vacuums stall well-funded pilots (Mawela et al., 2016), while councilors’ inability to interpret dashboards causes underutilization (Fourie and Van der Waldt, 2023), necessitating change-management strategies overcoming gatekeeping cultures (Mashau and Kroeze, 2023). Municipalities must shift from token consultation to structured co-design with formal responsiveness protocols. Digital channels lose legitimacy without demonstrable impact on decisions (Mawela et al., 2017; Matlala, 2024), requiring Service Level Agreements specifying response times, quarterly reports on resolution outcomes, and multichannel access (USSD, WhatsApp) preventing rural exclusion (Chigova and Hofisi, 2024; Netshirando et al., 2024). Finally, municipalities must establish baseline metrics before implementing digital systems, conduct biannual evaluations measuring impact, and implement sunset clauses for initiatives failing to demonstrate gains after 18 months. Technology functions as a magnifier of existing strengths rather than automatic reform driver (Ncamphalala and Vyas-Doorgapersad, 2022), requiring evidence-based assessment consolidating the shift from technology-as-solution to technology-as-enabler within accountable governance ecosystems (Zisengwe, 2024).

Limitations of the study

Several limitations shape the evidence base synthesized in this review. The literature is heavily skewed toward well-resourced metropolitan municipalities, particularly eThekwini, Cape Town, and Tshwane, while rural and district municipalities remain underrepresented, limiting contextual generalizability. Methodologically, the dominance of cross-sectional designs restricts insight into the sustainability and long-term institutional effects of digital oversight initiatives. Most studies prioritize implementation processes and short-term outputs rather than enduring accountability outcomes. Rural contexts, where infrastructural constraints are most acute, receive insufficient analytical attention. The focus on English language publications may exclude relevant regional scholarship. Finally, reliance on peer-reviewed sources likely underrepresents implementation failures documented in audits and internal municipal reports.

Future research

Future research should address the structural and methodological gaps identified in the current evidence base. Greater empirical attention is required on rural and under-resourced municipalities to capture how digital oversight operates under conditions of infrastructural scarcity and institutional fragility. Longitudinal and comparative study designs are needed to assess sustainability, organizational learning, and long-term accountability outcomes rather than short-term implementation effects. Quasi-experimental designs capable of establishing causal relationships between specific digital interventions and sustained improvements in oversight would strengthen the evidence base beyond predominantly descriptive case studies. Future work should also integrate grey literature, including audit reports and internal municipal evaluations, to mitigate publication bias toward successful cases. Finally, research should adopt more inclusive linguistic and regional scopes to generate comparative insights across African governance contexts facing similar digital transformation challenges, while examining how political economy factors, including patronage networks and elite resistance, mediate the relationship between digital transparency tools and actual accountability outcomes.

Conclusion

This systematic review examined three questions about digital governance in South African municipalities: what digital interventions are implemented with what effects (RQ1), through which institutional mediators do interventions translate into oversight outcomes (RQ2), and under what conditions do digital tools improve accountability (RQ3). Synthesizing evidence from 20 studies spanning 2015 to 2025, this review establishes that while diverse digital interventions have been deployed ranging from revenue management systems and real time dashboards to open data platforms and IoT enabled sensors their effects on oversight outcomes vary dramatically by institutional context rather than technological sophistication. This is the first systematic synthesis to demonstrate conclusively that digital governance effectiveness in South African municipalities is fundamentally determined by institutional mediation rather than technical design, revealing patterns invisible in individual case studies.

The central finding is that technology functions as a magnifier of existing institutional strengths and weaknesses rather than as an autonomous driver of governance reform. Where digital interventions are embedded within ecosystems characterized by committed leadership, enforcement mechanisms, foundational infrastructure, and institutional responsiveness, measurable oversight gains emerge including improved financial transparency, accelerated anomaly detection, and enhanced citizen engagement. However, such successes remain isolated exceptions. More commonly, digital tools are introduced into environments marked by leadership vacuums, capacity deficits, infrastructure scarcity, and resistant organizational cultures, resulting in what this review terms the digitization of dysfunction: sophisticated systems reproduce symbolic compliance rather than generating substantive accountability. This pattern explains why metropolitan municipalities with robust resources convert digital investments into tangible gains while resource poor municipalities struggle despite well intentioned initiatives, underscoring that digital oversight failures reflect institutional mediation failures rather than technological inadequacy.

The evidence converges on a paradigm shift from technology as solution to technology as enabler within accountable governance ecosystems. Realizing digital oversight potential requires alignment of multiple enabling conditions: conditional funding mechanisms linking performance to resources, accelerated infrastructure investment dismantling digital structural violence, oversight ready by design standards embedded in procurement, institutionalized data literacy development, formal citizen responsiveness protocols, and continuous monitoring frameworks preventing symbolic adoption. While this synthesis is limited by geographic concentration in metropolitan contexts, cross sectional designs preventing longitudinal tracking, and potential publication bias toward successful implementations, these constraints underscore the imperative for future research employing quasi experimental designs, examining rural and under resourced municipalities, and investigating how political economy factors mediate relationships between digital transparency tools and sustained accountability outcomes.

Ultimately, this review establishes that effective digital oversight in South African municipalities requires not technological deployment alone but transformation of the institutional ecosystems within which technologies operate. By demonstrating that oversight improvements are contingent on convergence of infrastructure, leadership, capacity, policy enforcement, and citizen engagement rather than automatic outcomes of digitization, this synthesis provides a foundation for research and practice that recognizes digital governance as fundamentally an organizational and political challenge requiring systemic institutional reform alongside technological innovation.

References

• 1

  AromatarisE.MunnZ. (2020). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. North Adelaide, SA: Joanna Briggs Institute. Available at: https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Auditor-General South Africa (2024). Consolidated general report on local government audit outcomes: MFMA 2022-23. Available online at: https://www.agsa.co.za

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BelurJ.TompsonL.ThorntonA.SimonM. (2021). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol. Methods Res.50, 837–865. doi: 10.1177/0049124118799372

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  CASP (2024). CASP qualitative studies checklist. Available online at: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  ChigovaL. E.HofisiC. (2024). Examining e-services and citizen engagement for sustainable local governance: lessons for South Africa in the post-COVID-19 era. E-J. Humanit. Arts Soc. Sci.5, 2437–2451. doi: 10.38159/ehass.202451332

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas.20, 37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  ColeR. (2024). Inter-rater reliability methods in qualitative case study research. Sociol. Methods Res.53, 172–204. doi: 10.1177/00491241231156971

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  CorneliusF. P.Jansen van RensburgS. K. (2024). Emerging south African smart cities: data security and privacy risks and challenges. S. Afr. J. Inf. Manag.26:a1847. doi: 10.4102/sajim.v26i1.1847

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  FourieD. J.Van der WaldtG. (2023). Enhancing municipal councillors' oversight in local, district, and metropolitan municipalities. J. Local Gov. Res. Innov.4:a145. doi: 10.4102/jolgri.v4i0.145

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  GovenderN.ReddyP. S. (2019). Effectiveness of governance towards digitalisation at eThekwini metropolitan municipality in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. Afr. Public Serv. Deliv. Perform. Rev.7:a336. doi: 10.4102/apsdpr.v7i1.336

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  HofisiC.ChigovaL. E. (2023). Rethinking the role of local government in service delivery in South Africa: towards digital transformation. E-J. Humanit. Arts Soc. Sci.4, 64–76. doi: 10.38159/ehass.20234147

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  HongQ. N.FàbreguesS.BartlettG.BoardmanF.CargoM.DagenaisP.et al. (2018). The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ. Inf.34, 285–291. doi: 10.3233/EFI-180221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  LongH. A.FrenchD. P.BrooksJ. M. (2020). Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Res. Methods Med. Health Sci.1, 31–42. doi: 10.1177/2632084320947559

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  MapayaS. W.MukonzaR.ShopolaA. (2024). Promotion of good governance within local government: a case of municipal public accounts committee in South Africa. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci.13, 242–252. doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v13i6.3523

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  MashauN. L.KroezeJ. H. (2023). Challenges that affect smart city implementation in small and rural municipalities. S. Afr. J. Inf. Manag.25:a1703. doi: 10.4102/sajim.v25i1.1703

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  MasindeM.MkhontoM. (2019). “The critical success factors for e-government implementation in South Africa's local government: factoring in apartheid digital divide,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 2nd international conference on information and computer technologies (ICICT 2019) (220–228). IEEE.

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  MathaneM. E.GumboM.MakoniM. (2024). Policy and legislative enabling environment for implementing digital technologies in the local government sector: A case study of South Africa. In REAL CORP 2024: 29th International Conference on Urban Planning and Regional Development. REAL CORP. 39–44. Available at: https://www.corp.at/archive/CORP2024_102.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  MatlalaL. S. (2024). Improving citizen-based monitoring in South Africa: a social media model. Afr. Eval. J.12:a719. doi: 10.4102/aej.v12i1.719

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  MawelaT.OcharaN. M.TwinomurinziH. (2016). “E-government implementation: lessons from South African municipalities,” in Proceedings of the annual conference of the south African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists (SAICSIT '16) (1–10). ACM.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  MawelaT.OcharaN. M.TwinomurinziH. (2017). E-government implementation: a reflection on south African municipalities. S. Afr. Comput. J.29, 147–171. doi: 10.18489/sacj.v29i1.444

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  McHughM. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem. Med.22, 276–282. doi: 10.11613/BM.2012.031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  McMahonK.ClarkI. N.StensæthK.Odell-MillerH.WoschT.BukowskaA.et al. (2022). Exploring shared musical experiences in dementia care: a worked example of a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. Nord. J. Music. Ther.31, 447–472. doi: 10.1177/16094069221127509

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  MofokengS.RamolobeK. S.BogopaD. L. (2025). Assessing the impact of digital technologies on service delivery in local government. J. Local Gov. Res. Innov.6:a234. doi: 10.4102/jolgri.v6i0.234

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  MojiL.NhedeN. T.MasiyaT. (2022). Factors impeding the implementation of oversight mechanisms in south African municipalities. J. Local Gov. Res. Innov.3:a94. doi: 10.4102/jolgri.v3i0.94

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  National Treasury, Republic of South Africa (2016). Municipal money: Open municipal data for South Africa. Available online at: https://municipalmoney.gov.za

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  NcamphalalaM.Vyas-DoorgapersadS. (2022). The role of information and communication technology on the transformation of municipalities into smart cities for improved service delivery. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci.11, 318–330. doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v11i2.1593

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Nel-SandersD.MalomaneA. P. (2022). Challenges and best practices for e-municipalities. Afr. Public Serv. Deliv. Perform. Rev.10:a646. doi: 10.4102/apsdpr.v10i1.646

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  NetshirandoV.MunyokaW.KadyamatimbaA. (2024). Citizen perceptions of digital transformation in local municipalities: the case of South Africa. S. Afr. J. Inf. Manag.26:a1804. doi: 10.4102/sajim.v26i1.1804

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  NzimakweT. I. (2021). Leading digital transformation and innovation in local government institutions in South Africa. Administratio Publica29, 1–23.

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  OECD (2020). Digital government review of Brazil: Towards the digital transformation of the public sector. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  PluyeP.HongQ. N.VedelI. (2018). Toolkit for mixed studies reviews (version 3). Available online at: http://toolkit4mixedstudiesreviews.pbworks.com

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  ThomasJ.HardenA. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol.8:45. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  UNDESA (2024). United Nations E-government survey 2024. Available online at: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2024

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  van der HoogenA.FashoroI.CalitzA. P.LukeL. (2024). A digital transformation framework for smart municipalities. Sustainability16:1320. doi: 10.3390/su16031320

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  World Bank (2022). World development report 2022: Finance for an equitable recovery. London: World Bank Publications.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  ZindiB. (2024). The role of blockchain in enhancing public trust and accountability in south African municipalities. Mank. Q.65, 92–110. doi: 10.46469/mq.2024.65.1.9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  ZisengweM. (2024). Intersections between civic technology (civic tech) and governance in Nigeria and South Africa. Afr. J. Inf. Commun.33, 1–26. doi: 10.23962/ajic.i33.18883

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar