Latest news with #Covid-19SocialReliefofDistress
Daily Maverick
11-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Are social grant numbers increasing (and is that a bad thing)?
Spending on social grants is a powerful way to support economic growth, because almost 100% of every rand spent flows back into local economies in the form of consumer spending, promoting economic activity and livelihoods. Following the release of the 2024 General Household Survey (GHS), we have seen many headlines pointing to an increase in the number of social grant recipients compared with 2019. These claims need to be interrogated and nuanced. It is not necessarily the case that the overall proportion of monthly social grant recipients continues to increase. At the same time, in South Africa's macroeconomic and historical context, it would not be such a bad thing if it did. The number of social grant recipients is often taken as a sort of proxy indicator for the health of the economy — the implication is that social grant numbers going up is bad, because they track the extent of poverty and unemployment in the country. This is often wrapped up with ideas about 'dependency' on social grants, which frame grant recipients as an unproductive drain on taxpayers, and sometimes directly counterpose the number of social grant recipients to the number of income tax payers. But the quantum of social grants is not only an indicator of the extent of poverty and unemployment. It can also be taken as a measure of growth-enhancing public investment, as well as the progressive realisation of constitutional rights. In this article, I unpack the social security findings in the GHS, and what they do and don't tell us about the state of our social safety net and our economy. Have social grant numbers increased, and relative to what? The GHS shows an increase in the proportion of individuals receiving social grants between 2019 and 2024 of 5.2 percentage points, from 34.9% to 40.1%. Much of this increase is attributed to the introduction of the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant during the 2020 lockdowns. It is of course true that there are more social grant recipients today than there were in 2019, as the social protection system has been extended to include working-age adults in extreme poverty who previously had no access to social assistance. But since 2021, access to the SRD grant has decreased, as has access to the Child Support Grant (CSG). It is easy to be misled by how the SRD recipient data is measured and presented in the GHS. For the longer-standing social grants, including the CSG and Old Age Pension (OAP), eligibility is assessed on application, and, once verified, a beneficiary receives the grant on a continuous monthly basis, unless the government becomes aware of a change in their circumstances. For the SRD grant, people's eligibility is reassessed on a month-to-month basis (a highly problematic methodology), and the grant is paid only in the months they are deemed eligible. The GHS questionnaire does not take into account these differences, but simply asks whether respondents receive each grant. This means that people who have received the SRD grant irregularly or only once or twice in the past year may not know how to respond. This could potentially explain what appears to be large discrepancies between the GHS and other sources with respect to SRD grant numbers. The GHS finds that the proportion of individuals aged from 18 to 59 who 'receive' the SRD grant increased year-on-year, from 5.3% in 2020, to 13.9% in 2024. This is difficult to square with official figures from the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa), which show that in March 2022, 10.9 million people received the SRD grant, while in September 2024, recipient numbers stood at 8.3 million — a marked decline. This decline has been driven by decreasing budget allocations to the SRD grant from the National Treasury. We do not know why the GHS data shows an annual increase in the proportion of people receiving the SRD grant since 2020, but we suspect that it does not reflect the true number receiving it on a regular basis. We note that self-reporting is generally less reliable than administrative data. If you look at monthly SRD grant recipient numbers as shown in the graph below, based on data obtained from Sassa, the picture is very different. But the SRD grant is only one component of the social protection system. It's conceivable that an aggregate increase in social grant coverage could have been driven by significant increases in the proportion of children receiving the CSG, or seniors receiving the OAP. However, this is not the case. The proportion of the eligible population (people aged 60+) receiving the OAP has remained relatively stable over the period in question, ranging from 71% to 73%. The proportion of all children covered by the CSG has fallen from a peak of 69.1% in 2021 to 65.5% today — a significant drop. This does not reflect a reduction in the child poverty headcount. Analysis from the Children's Institute at UCT suggests that the proportion of children in poverty (measured at the Upper Bound Poverty Line) has increased since 2019, reaching 70% in 2022. The declining proportion of children receiving the CSG instead reflects the fact that the government has made it harder to access the CSG in recent years. Newborn babies and their caregivers (who make up the bulk of new CSG applicants) were less likely to access the CSG in 2024 than in 2021. This worrying trend dovetails with the introduction of procedural hurdles in the grant system, like onerous requirements for identity verification and additional documentation. Has dependence on social grants increased? So, contrary to headline findings from the GHS, the proportion of people receiving a social grant in South Africa each month has not necessarily increased in the past few years, despite the ongoing extension of the SRD grant. But another focus of reporting on the GHS is the degree of 'reliance' or 'dependence' on social grants as a primary source of income for households. The GHS tracks the main sources of income for households, and in 2024, found salaries to be the main source of income for 54.5% of households (a slight decrease from 54.8% in 2019), while grants were the main source of income for 23.8% (compared with 20.4% in 2019). This does not suggest an out-of-control welfare state. It reflects a dire crisis of structural unemployment, whereby a massive proportion of households do not have access to income derived from work. In approaching this, it is important to bear in mind that social grants are intended to be the primary source of income for their recipients, by virtue of the design of the social grant system. They are explicitly targeted at persons who are unable to access other forms of income (particularly salaries or wages), either because of their life stage (ie childhood, old age), sickness or disability, poverty or unemployment. Moreover, social grants are means-tested, meaning that individuals are ineligible to receive them if they have a meaningful alternative source of income. My organisation, the Institute for Economic Justice, has been a vocal proponent of moving away from means-testing benefits, precisely because it is a practice that can trap people in poverty as it penalises attempts to generate income and build sustainable livelihoods. Some groups, like persons with disabilities or those with full-time caregiving responsibilities, face specific challenges in generating income from employment, and need to rely fully (and appropriately) on social protection to meet their needs. This has a gendered dimension, as households headed by women (disproportionately likely to be caregivers) are much more likely to list grants as their primary source of income. (Far from languishing on benefits, CSG caregivers are doing the critical work of perpetuating the nation). For others, social grants can provide a minimum income floor to cushion against precarity and shocks. Over 80% of unemployed people have been unemployed long-term. The majority of working-age beneficiaries have little hope of securing work in the short term. But where they have the ability to do so, households receiving social grants should be able to access other income streams as well. South Africa's social safety net is full of holes But to address the question of whether social grant recipient numbers are trending too high (which is the subtext of much reporting on the GHS), we need to put them in broader perspective — of poverty and unemployment in South Africa, as well as of international standards for social protection. Even if we accept that the proportion of individuals regularly receiving social grants has increased in the last few years (which as discussed above is likely not the case), the South African social safety net remains woefully inadequate. Aside from the SRD grant, which provides a meagre R370 per month, able-bodied working-age adults have no access to non-contributory social assistance. The proportion of the working-age population that was unemployed (including discouraged work seekers) reached over 43% in the first quarter of 2025. At least 16 million working-age adults are estimated to be in food poverty. Only half of that number receives the SRD grant each month. The percentage of persons who experienced hunger increased from 11.1% in 2019 to 14.3% in 2024. As mentioned above, vulnerable children are also falling through the cracks, as approximately 4.5% of children in poverty are not receiving the CSG. It is often claimed that South Africa spends a high proportion of its GDP on social grants compared with peer countries, usually by those who would seek to limit this area of spending. Yet, according to the International Labour Organization's (ILO) World Social Protection Report 2024-26, South Africa's social protection coverage — at 63.4% of the population — is below average for upper-middle income countries (UMICs), which have an average coverage of 71.2%. Our coverage of non-contributory benefits (ie excluding UIF) is 44%, compared with an average of 51% among UMICs. The ILO, alongside many local and international experts, recommends that countries move towards universal social protection coverage — that is 100% of the population. Many high-income countries are already there. As to the claim that South Africa's social protection expenditure is higher than peers, this is also untrue. As a proportion of GDP, our spending on social protection excluding health is much lower than the UMIC average (5.4%, compared with an average of 8.5%). At the same time, we have much higher levels of income poverty and inequality compared to other UMICs. South Africa is the most unequal country in the world based on the World Bank's Gini Index. Among UMICs, we have by far the highest proportion of people below the international extreme poverty line — at 20.1% (aside from Turkmenistan, which at 43% is an extreme outlier and relies on very old data). Compared with emerging economies, South Africa's wealth distribution is skewed significantly towards the richest 20% — the top 20% owns 68% of the country's wealth, compared with an emerging economy average of 47%. Viewed in light of this shameful status, we should not be using peer countries as a yardstick to test whether South Africa's social protection spending is too high. Instead, we should be asking why we don't redistribute a greater proportion of our wealth through social protection programmes. The relationship between social grants, unemployment and economic growth If poverty is a cliff, we can either view social grants as the fence at the top or the ambulance at the bottom. Having a comprehensive social protection system is not an indication of the failure of growth and employment creation. It is a critical tool in the policy toolbox for fighting economic exclusion and unemployment. Spending on social grants is a powerful way to support economic growth, because almost 100% of every rand spent flows back into local economies in the form of consumer spending, promoting economic activity and livelihoods. In turn, this boosts government revenue as higher spending equals a higher VAT take, creating a virtuous macroeconomic cycle. Social grants also (if designed well) give people a foundation to escape the poverty trap, generating employment and building sustainable livelihoods over time. Receiving the SRD grant has been shown to increase the likelihood of entering into employment by six percentage points in the first year — an astounding finding given the grant's low value. This is because people use their grants to cover the costs of job seeking and accessing work (like data and transport). The SRD grant is also used to start or expand small businesses. However, the positive economic impacts of social grants are undermined by excessively low values, and restrictive means-testing systems which pull the safety net out from under beneficiaries as soon as their income increases slightly above a minimal threshold (in the case of the SRD grant, this threshold is set below the food poverty line). It may seem counterintuitive, but the truth is that if the proportion of households that are covered by adequate social protection does increase — and gaps in the social protection system are plugged — we will see a reduction in the proportion of households reporting social grants as their primary source of income. To achieve this, it is critical that we move away from a punitive approach that treats beneficiaries with suspicion and requires them to jump through administrative hoops and demonstrate utter desperation to access entitlements. Far from creating dependency, adequate, comprehensive and accessible social protection provides a springboard for economic inclusion and growth. To address the crisis of structural unemployment, food insecurity and poverty highlighted by the General Household Survey, South Africa should fill the gaps in the social safety net and expand social protection coverage to 100% of the population. DM Dr Kelle Howson is a senior researcher in labour and social security at the Institute for Economic Justice, in the workers' rights and social security programme. She is also a postdoctoral researcher with the Fairwork project at the Oxford Internet Institute.
Eyewitness News
30-05-2025
- Business
- Eyewitness News
Human rights organisation, COSATU and economists debate future of social grants
South Africa's economy is not creating enough jobs, so what happens to the millions of people who currently rely on social grants? This was the question raised by activists, economists and labour leaders at a panel discussion hosted by the Black Sash in Cape Town on Wednesday. The event was part of the organisation's 70th anniversary celebrations, and looked at the impact of removing social assistance in a country with high youth unemployment, food insecurity and growing inequality. The General Household Survey released by Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) on Tuesday, shows that the proportion of people receiving social grants grew from about 13% in 2003 to 31% in 2019 and surged to 40% in 2024 'due to the introduction of the special Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant'. Rachel Bukasa, Executive Director of Black Sash, said social grants are not a luxury, but a necessary response to high unemployment and poverty. 'Grants are an important stop-gap to the poverty and unemployment that exists. One of the biggest misconceptions when we talk about grants is that we don't want people to work. When we call for grants, it's in the absence of the jobs that the government has promised year after year.' She said while job creation remains the goal, the economy doesn't offer enough work for those who need it. Bukasa dismissed claims that grants breed dependency, saying they are a vital safety net while the government works to improve the job market. COSATU's Tony Ehrenreich agreed with Bukasa. He said the alternative to social support from the state is people falling into hunger and desperation. 'Grants are only a requirement when the market has failed. If the market is perfect there will be no need for grants, but the market is not perfect so we need to take care of people in the interim … It's not a question of jobs or grants. It's both,' Ehrenreich said. StatsSA reported that the official unemployment rate stood at about 33% in the first quarter of 2025. The expanded unemployment rate, which includes discouraged job seekers, is 43%. Ehrenreich said these statistics show the current economic direction is not working. 'We can say the system has failed if we look at the unemployment rate and deepening inequality … Must poor people pay for the failure of the rich and the public policymakers who drive around in their fancy cars? That can't be the response.' But political economist Phumlani Majozi said the current grant system is putting too much pressure on the country's fiscus. 'South Africans agree that the best way to move forward as a society is for people to have jobs … In our budget, the social grant expenditure is massive. 65% of our expenditure goes towards social grants, subsidised housing etc … Fiscally, it's not something that is manageable.' He criticised the lack of government vision. 'Where is the plan from the president and his cabinet to say by a certain year these are the targets … It doesn't seem like Enoch Godongwana has a plan.' Majozi said the system discouraged reform. 'There will be no incentive for government to change and pursue policies to encourage economic growth if our first argument is that we need social grants.' To which Bukasa responded that social security is a right, not a favour. 'Social assistance is protected by the Constitution. So we need to do away with the notion that it's a favour the government is doing … The fact that we have high needs for social protection right now is a reflection of governments inability to deliver on job creation.' This article first appeared on GroundUp. Read the original article here.
eNCA
28-05-2025
- Business
- eNCA
Over 50% of householes benefit from grants
JOHANNESBURG - Dependence on government support has expanded dramatically over the past two decades. The share of individuals receiving social grants climbed from 12.8% in 2003 to 30.9% by 2019, before spiking to 40-point-1-percent last year. This sharp rise is largely attributed to the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress grant. It was introduced as a temporary measure, but has since become a lifeline for millions facing unemployment and rising living costs. According to the latest General Household Survey released by Statistics South Africa, the proportion of households receiving at least one grant increased from 30.8% in 2002 to over 50% last year.
IOL News
28-05-2025
- General
- IOL News
Women-headed households surge in South Africa, Stats SA reveals
Statistics South Africa has revealed that 42.4% of households are headed by women. Image: Yan Krukau / Pexels More than two-fifths (42.4%) of households in South Africa were headed by women in 2024, Statistics South Africa's (Stats SA) general household survey has revealed. This is amid the persistent gender pay gap and the rise in the unemployment rate in the country. According to the latest World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report, South African women are paid between 23% and 35% less than men. According to the survey, the situation was most common in rural areas, particularly in the Eastern Cape (48.8%) and KwaZulu-Natal (46.8%). Women-headed households were least common in Gauteng (37.3%). Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ The household survey, which provides a snapshot of progress achieved in basic government services and identifies persistent service delivery gaps, was released on Tuesday. 'Families and households are profoundly important to the developmental, emotional, and cognitive growth of children, and parents and/or caregivers can play a central role in the development of children,' said Stats SA. The report found that a third (31.4%) of children lived with both parents, while 45.5% lived with only their mothers. More than one-tenth (11.7%) were orphaned, having lost one or both parents. Almost one-fifth (18.8%) of children lived with neither of their biological parents. More than one-quarter (26.9%) of households consisted of a single person, while 39.4% were nuclear households comprising parents and children. The skip generation households, in which grandparents lived with grandchildren, comprised 4.2% of all households. 'The latter was most common in the Eastern Cape (7.7%) and Limpopo (6.9%),' read the report. According to Stats SA, the number of individuals receiving social grants increased from 12.8% in 2003 to 30.9% in 2019. The number surged to 40.1% in 2024 due to the introduction of the special Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD). 'Compared to 2019, a much higher percentage of youth received grants in 2024 after the age of 18 due to the introduction of SRD.' The percentage of households that considered social grants as the main source of income increased steadily from 21.3% in 2009 to 28.8% in 2020, before falling back to 23.8% in 2024. Grants were particularly important as a main source of income for households in the Eastern Cape (38.9%), Northern Cape (34.4%), and Limpopo (33.8%). In terms of medical aid access, approximately three out of 20 South Africans had access to a medical aid scheme in 2024. Coverage slightly declined from 15.9% in 2002 to 15.5% in 2024. The highest coverage rates were in Western Cape (25.4%) and Gauteng (21.3%), while the lowest were in Limpopo (10.0%) and KwaZulu-Natal (10.2%). The survey shows that the percentage of households that lived in formal dwellings increased from 73.5% in 2002 to 84.1% in 2024. Nationally, three-fifths (60.1%) of households owned the dwelling they lived in. A further 25.1% rented their dwellings. Between 2002 and 2024, the percentage of households with access to piped or tap water in their dwellings, off-site or on-site, increased by 3.3 percentage points to 87.7%. Households with access to piped water in their dwellings increased from 40.4% to 46.4%. Access to improved sanitation, flush toilets, and pit toilets with ventilation pipes increased from 61.7% in 2002 to 83.1% in 2024. Approximately two-thirds (66.7%) of households used flush toilets (up from 57.3% in 2002), while 16.3% used pit toilets with ventilation pipes (up from 4.4% in 2002). Less than one percent of households did not have access to any form of sanitation. While 46.2% of toilet facilities were located in the dwelling, 49.9% were located in the yard. Cape Times
IOL News
28-05-2025
- General
- IOL News
Surge in women-headed households in South Africa amid economic challenges
Statistics South Africa has revealed that 42.4% of households are headed by women. Image: Yan Krukau / Pexels Amid the persistent gender pay gap and the rise in unemployment in the country, more than two-fifths (42.4%) of households in South Africa were headed by women in 2024, Statistics South Africa's (Stats SA) general household survey has shown. According to the latest World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report, South African women are paid between 23% and 35% less than men. According to the survey, the situation was most common in rural areas, particularly in the Eastern Cape (48.8%) and KwaZulu-Natal (46.8%). Women-headed households were least common in Gauteng (37.3%). The household survey, which provides a snapshot of progress achieved in basic government services and identifies persistent service delivery gaps, was released on Tuesday. It found that a third (31.4%) of children lived with both parents, while 45.5% lived with only their mothers. More than one-tenth (11.7%) were orphaned, having lost one or both parents. Almost one-fifth (18.8%) of children lived with neither of their biological parents. More than one-quarter (26.9%) of households consisted of a single person, while 39.4% were nuclear households comprising parents and children. The skip generation households, in which grandparents lived with grandchildren, comprised 4.2% of all households. 'The latter was most common in the Eastern Cape (7.7%) and Limpopo (6.9%),' read the report. 'Families and households are profoundly important to the developmental, emotional, and cognitive growth of children, and parents and/or caregivers can play a central role in the development of children." The unemployment rate currently stands at 32.9%, and this could push many South Africans towards social grants. According to Stats SA, the number of individuals receiving social grants increased from 12.8% in 2003 to 30.9% in 2019. The number surged to 40.1% in 2024 due to the introduction of the special Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD). 'Compared to 2019, a much higher percentage of youth received grants in 2024 after the age of 18 due to the introduction of SRD.' The percentage of households that considered social grants as the main source of income increased steadily from 21.3% in 2009 to 28.8% in 2020, before falling back to 23.8% in 2024. Grants were particularly important as a main source of income for households in the Eastern Cape (38.9%), Northern Cape (34.4%), and Limpopo (33.8%). In terms of medical aid access, approximately three out of 20 South Africans had access to a medical aid scheme in 2024. Coverage slightly declined from 15.9% in 2002 to 15.5% in 2024. The highest coverage rates were in Western Cape (25.4%) and Gauteng (21.3%), while the lowest were in Limpopo (10.0%) and KwaZulu-Natal (10.2%). Cape Argus
