Niemand Bly Agter Nie: Waarom Universele Basiese Inkomste Meer Sin Maak As Geteikende Toelaes

This fact sheet by the Institute for Economic Justice argues that a Guaranteed Universal Basic Income (UBIG) is more effective than targeted grants for poverty alleviation, particularly in South Africa. It contends that targeting systems are administratively complex, expensive, and frequently exclude the very people they intend to help, whereas a universal system ensures broader coverage and reduces administrative burdens.

• Targeted income support systems often fail to reach the intended beneficiaries due to administrative barriers and data gaps. Common issues include poor government data on eligibility, difficult application processes like online forms, bureaucratic means-testing, and the fluid nature of labor markets where people frequently move between qualifying and non-qualifying statuses.
• Research indicates high exclusion error rates in targeted programs. A study of 25 targeted initiatives found that 12 had exclusion errors exceeding 70%, 5 exceeded 90%, and none had errors below 40%, with Brazil's Bolsa Familia being the best performer at 44%. In South Africa, the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant experienced a sharp drop in approvals and payment delays when a low means-test threshold was introduced.
• A UBIG is proposed as a more efficient alternative because it eliminates the need for costly and time-consuming eligibility evaluations and policing of recipients. While universal, it does not necessarily benefit the wealthy, as progressive taxation and recovery measures can ensure high-income earners make a net contribution to the system.
• Economic modeling suggests that a UBIG, even at a lower individual level, has a greater impact on poverty than a higher-value targeted grant. This is because it allows multiple adults within low-income households to pool their resources, a common practice in South Africa; for example, 88% of SRD grant recipients reported pooling their income.
• Targeting can create social tension and stigma, potentially discouraging people from claiming benefits or undermining the entrepreneurship of recipients. In contrast, a universal system is argued to foster social solidarity and cohesion and does not discourage labor market participation.

APA

Institute for Economic Justice (2023). Niemand Bly Agter Nie: Waarom Universele Basiese Inkomste Meer Sin Maak As Geteikende Toelaes. https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IEJ-UBIG-2-factsheet-Afrikaans.pdf

Chicago

Institute for Economic Justice. Niemand Bly Agter Nie: Waarom Universele Basiese Inkomste Meer Sin Maak As Geteikende Toelaes. 2023. https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IEJ-UBIG-2-factsheet-Afrikaans.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Institute for Economic Justice |title=Niemand Bly Agter Nie: Waarom Universele Basiese Inkomste Meer Sin Maak As Geteikende Toelaes |date=November 2023 |url=https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IEJ-UBIG-2-factsheet-Afrikaans.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{instituteforeconomicjustice2023niemand, author = {{Institute for Economic Justice}}, title = {{Niemand Bly Agter Nie: Waarom Universele Basiese Inkomste Meer Sin Maak As Geteikende Toelaes}}, institution = {Institute for Economic Justice}, year = {2023}, month = nov, url = {https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IEJ-UBIG-2-factsheet-Afrikaans.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }