| |
THE
POOR NEED A LIFE LINE – APARTHEID’S LEGACY
- 18 million
people live below the World Bank poverty line of $2 per day (Taylor
report page 16)
- 22 million
people spend on average R144 per person per month (Doctoral
Thesis of Dr C Haarmann; 2000)
- between
60-70% of children live in poverty; 25% of children under 9 have
severe to moderate stunting (Taylor report page 16; Children’s
Institute)
- an estimated
38% of economically active South Africans are unemployed
(Taylor report page 69)
- Households
headed by women are twice as likely to be poor as those headed
by men (GAP factsheet)
- The poorest
40% of the population spend less than 3% of national consumption,
while the richest 10% have a 46% share of national consumption
(UNDP report)
- 94% of the
poorest in South Africa are African, 70% of whom live in rural
areas
APARTHEID’S
LEGACY
- People between
7 and 60 (women) /65 (men) get no social assistance
- 11.8 million
of the poorest 23.8 million people live in households that receive
no social assistance (Taylor report page 59)
- 75% of poor
children are not covered by the Child Support Grant (Taylor
Report, page 30)
- Poverty
is an extra tax on poor workers: the working poor in reality support
the jobless not covered by social security
- Means-testing
prevents the poorest from accessing grants: the poorest 10% of
people in South Africa receive no social assistance (Taylor report,
page 24)
COSTS
OF A BIG
- The Gross
cost will be R46 billion, with R22 billion recovered from the
nonpoor. The Net cost (additional spending) would be R24 billion.
(EPRI
presentation)
- Taxes have
been cut by twice this amount since 1995 (National Annual
Budgets, Department of Finance since 1995)
- The net
cost requires no significant increased spending as a proportion
of
GDP (Taylor report page 149)
BENEFITS
- A BIG of
R100 would close the poverty gap by 74% as compared to the current
system which has the capacity – at best – to close
the poverty gap by 36% (Taylor report page 62)
- Would move
6.3 million people above the poverty line (Taylor report, page
63)
- Promotes
independence – frees people from abject poverty, enables
risktaking necessary for job-seeking, entrepreneurship (EPRI)
- Not a DOLE
– universal grants do not penalise those who seek better
lives
- Poorer households
spend the bulk of their income on food, education and
transport; shifting spending power to the poor will stimulate
job creating
economic activity (EPRI)
- A BIG would
reduce inequality, promote social unity and will provide a lifeline
to particularly vulnerable groups, including women and rural poor
- A BIG would
enhance basic nutrition and health care, reducing susceptibility
to disease, including HIV and opportunistic diseases
A COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH
- The Ministerially
appointed Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive Social Security
(the Taylor Report) calls for a Basic Income Grant as part of
an integrated comprehensive social protection package
- A BIG would
be the most effective way to address income poverty (Taylor
report, page 62)
- Enhances
the effectiveness of other anti-poverty initiatives, including
basic service provision, education and health, job creation
ADMINISTRATION
AND DELIVERY
- Cheaper
to administer than a means-tested grant (Taylor report, page 62)
- There are
many possible delivery mechanisms including Home Affairs HANIS
smartcard at ATMs and Spaza shops
- There is
enormous potential to strengthen local government infrastructure
and improve communities’ access to financial institutions,
e.g. the Post Bank
WAY
FORWARD
- The Taylor
Report recommends a phased-in approach, beginning with an
extension of the Child Support Grant
- There needs
to be an inclusive broad-based consultative process to address
practical considerations
Acknowledgements:
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a omprehensive Social Security
(the Taylor report); Economic Policy Research Institute: Naledi;
Gender Advocacy Programme Factsheet; doctoral thesis of Dr Claudia
Haarmann, University of the Western Cape, 2000. |
|
