Tackling child poverty in South Africa: Implications of ubuntu for the system of social grants

Background: People with disabilities are at increased risk of poverty, particularly in low-and middle-income countries. However, recent evidence suggests that this association is more nuanced than previously anticipated and that we need better data to understand the opportunity and out-of-pocket costs that diverse groups of people with disabilities may experience.Objective: This paper discusses if disability is associated with opportunity cost and loss of income both on the individual and household level in South Africa, and if these costs differ depending on disability type and severity.Methods: For this purpose, the paper analyses General Household Survey 2011 data (people between 15 and 59) using descriptive statistics disaggregated via disability type and severity. The paper also assesses if social grants counteract these costs and reduce economic vulnerability.Results: The analysis of the data reveals that people with disabilities are affected by issues relating to multidimensional poverty such as lower educational attainment and fewer employment opportunities. In addition, households of people with disabilities (with the exception of milder visual problems) earn significantly less than households without people with disabilities, and this particularly applies to households with people with severe disabilities. This vulnerability also varies by disability type. The country’s social protection mechanisms, in terms of social grants, counteract economic vulnerability to some extent but do not consider the nuanced economic impact of diverse conditions nor the increased out-of-pocket costs related to disability.Conclusions: This calls for more equitable social protection mechanisms that include accessible services, livelihood programmes and disability benefits.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Social Grants on the Propensity and Level of Use of Inorganic Fertiliser among Smallholders in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa

Agrekon ◽

10.1080/03031853.2016.1243063 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 55 (4) ◽

pp. 436-457 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sikhulumile Sinyolo ◽

Maxwell Mudhara ◽

Edilegnaw Wale

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

Level Of Use ◽

Kwazulu Natal ◽

Inorganic Fertiliser ◽

Social Grants ◽

The Impact

Download Full-text

The impact of social grant dependency on smallholder maize producers’ market participation in South Africa: Application of the double-hurdle model

South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences ◽

10.4102/sajems.v20i1.1474 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Sikhulumile Sinyolo ◽

Maxwell Mudhara ◽

Edilegnaw Wale

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

Rural Areas ◽

Smallholder Farmers ◽

Hurdle Model ◽

Market Participation ◽

Double Hurdle Model ◽

Social Grants ◽

Double Hurdle ◽

Social Grant ◽

The Impact

Background: Social grants have become an increasingly popular means of improving the welfare of poor households in South Africa and beyond. While the goals of these transfers are to alleviate current poverty as well as to improve human capital capacity, they also have unintended effects, positive or negative, on beneficiary households. A question that has not been adequately addressed in the literature is the role that social grants play in the efforts to commercialise smallholder farming.Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of social grant dependency on the incentives of smallholder maize producers to participate in the market.Setting: The study was done in the rural areas of four districts (Harry Gwala, Umzinyathi, Umkhanyakude and Uthukela) in the KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa.Methods: The study adopted a quantitative research design. A total of 984 households were randomly selected from the four districts, of which 774 had planted maize in the previous season. The analysis was done on the 774 farmers who had planted maize. The double-hurdle model was used for statistical analysis.Results: The results show a negative association between social grant dependency and market participation, suggesting that social grant-dependent households are more subsistent, producing less marketable surplus. Moreover, households with access to social grants sold less quantities of maize in the market, indicating reduced selling incentives.Conclusion: The study indicates that social grants reduce the incentives of smallholder farmers to commercialise their production activities. The results suggest that, while policies aimed at reducing transaction costs would increase smallholder market participation, attention should be paid on how to reduce social grants’ dis-incentive effects. To reduce spill over effects to unintended household members, the study recommends offering part of the grant as ‘in-kind support’, which is specific to the intended individual beneficiary.

Download Full-text